Saturday, September 17, 2011

Government to legislate for 'gay marriage'

It has been announced that the Coalition is to press ahead with legislation to permit 'gay marriage'. It is to be preceded by a consultation, but the purpose of such a consultation is unclear when the decision has already been taken a priori to legislate for the change. A consultation which does not consult cannot be a consultation. But then a marriage which does not marry cannot be a marriage.

And Parliament says this of the institution:
Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

I require and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.
Parliament authorises the liturgy of the Church of England. It is difficult to see how, on the one hand, Parliament may decree and define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman primarily for the procreation of children, while, on the other, determining that it is between two men or two women for mutual society. His Grace is all for viae mediae, but this is a blatant contradiction.

It should be evident to politicians of all political persuasions and faiths that marriage is not an exclusively Judaeo-Christian institution; it is a union observed in all cultures, and seems, according to Aristotle, to exist by nature. Marriage in the Bible is essential for the functioning of society, and is the model used to explain the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:25-32). The Church of England ‘affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman’. This has its basis in the Old Testament, where YHWH says: ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’ (Gen 2:18). It continues: ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh’ (v24). Although these verses do not purport to define marriage, they do describe its origin, and are therefore crucial for understanding the Bible’s teaching on marriage.

Last year, David Cameron said: “I don't want to get into a huge row with the Archbishop here, but the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through. Sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom-line, full essential.”

It seems he has changed his mind. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not particularly disposed to 'huge rows', but he's not very happy about this proposal. And there are one or two Anglican bishops who are disposed to rows, and one or two more in the Roman Catholic Church, not to mention a couple of thousand in other Christian denominations and religions. Mr Cameron is of the opinion that ‘if our Lord Jesus was around today he would very much be backing a strong agenda on equality and equal rights, and not judging people on their sexuality’.

When he uttered those words, His Grace begged to differ, saying that if Our Lord Jesus were around today, there is nothing at all to suggest that he would be remotely interested in talking about ‘equality’ or ‘rights’: he would be preaching the gospel, in season and out, and calling on people to repent of their sin and prepare for the coming of the Kingdom.

But Mr Cameron doesn't do that kind of Jesus.

Mr Cameron's Jesus is basically a socially liberal Tory. Speaking a few months ago 'as a church-goer' himself, he expounded his Christology: "I think Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad-minded."

Prefacing his comment with a declaration of being a church-goer, he placed the imprimatur of the Bride of Christ upon his belief. It is a little like the Pope coming to Westminster Abbey to talk about Christian unity, and just happening to preface his homily with a casual mention that he’s the heir to St Peter. ‘I’m a church-goer, and...’ is to arrogate to himself a certain spiritual authority; to appropriate a superior experience; to claim charismatic insight; to place his theological judgement over and above those who do agree with his ethical and moral worldview. Cameroon Anglicanism trumps the traditional Catholic and Reformed variety, which is manifestly illiberal and religiously regressive.

And so the inference is clear: if you disagree with the Prime Minister on the matter of 'gay marriage', you are intolerant, unwelcoming and narrow-minded, which amounts to the same as being unloving, inhospitable and bigoted: Cranmer's Law QED. To be a clanging cymbal with no love is not to be a Christian of any kind. Same sex relationships can, of course, be loving: heterosexuals do not have a monopoly on the divine agape. But gay civil partnership cannot be marriage, because Parliament decrees in the State Church 'that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful'.

And herein lies Mr Cameron's perpetuation of discrimination. He may have said last year that 'full equality is a bottom-line, full essential'. But this year he is legislating for civil 'gay marriage'; religious marriage is to remain the preserve of the heterosexual. It may be a step forward, but it is not full equality, and so, a decade hence, when some of the more militant gay couples are banging at the church door and harassing the vicar and demanding their rights, the issue will need to be revisted, and the Church will eventually be obliged to marry them - or face the consequences.

241 Comments:

Blogger john in cheshire said...

Mr Cameron appears to be demonstrating why he thinks he is the heir to Blair. I don't see why the status quo cannot be maintained and I hope there are sufficient like-minded people in positions of authority who will ensure that it is.

17 September 2011 at 10:29  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

I don't think Cameron has thought this through. He says he won't impose such stuff on the Church yet he suggests that the Church needs to "modernise". There is no modernising with Truth. As Graham Leonard said once "We are dealing with revealed truth not whims and fancies".

Jesus said that "Before Abraham was I am". He is yesterday, today and tomorrow.

The secular world may wish to have their "rights" and I have no problem with civil partnerships in a plural society. But lecturing the Church on doctrine is quite another matter.

There is also the point of inheritance. For example, can the first born son of a hereditary peerage "marry" another man and expect to continue the line of succession legitimately? What if Prince Charles had been gay and insisted on marrying his partner? Which makes me wonder if existing civil partnerships are OK for the Royal Family.

It's beginning to look like a can of worms for Cameron.

17 September 2011 at 10:34  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I think the CoE is right to endorse the view that the marriage ceremony as quoted here should remain sacrosanct.

It clearly states that it sees marriage as a union between a man and a woman and I can't understand why the matter can't be accepted by the Gay Rights lobby. I'm uncertain in my knowledge of the Church/State relationship in terms of making changes in for the want of a better expression 'policy' - does the State have the power to dictate?

To argue that Gays be not allowed to marry in the heterosexual sense seems logical enough and not discriminatory for physiological reasons alone.

Why don't the LGBT groups form their own Church and just get by with that which they can uniquely call their own.

17 September 2011 at 10:52  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

When will this madness end? Most people DON'T want this but as usual a militant hard core get their way and the rest of us can go to Hell. I've said pretty much all I am going to say on LGBT's (freaks)

17 September 2011 at 11:08  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said, Dreadnaught @ 10.52. One can only imagine that a focus group somewhere has persuaded Dave there are votes in this. Actually there are votes to be lost, not won, and the loses will vastly exceed the gains.

Time to re-introduce ex-communication in the Church of England, expel Dave and let him go away and play with his new constituents.

Your Grace, you don't think, do you?

17 September 2011 at 11:19  
Blogger Paul said...

In a groundbreaking move, the government is set to introduce square circles.

The Deputy Minister for Shapes commented: 'It is time that we gave true equality to circles, not only to rectangles. Why shouldn't circles be considered square?.'

Under the new law, mathematicians and geometrists who object to this redefinition will be allowed to continue using the old definitions, and definitely won't be forced to use the new terms in their research papers. However, all Maths teachers will be required to use the new definitions with their students.

A spokesman for the fundamentalist group, The League of Geometrists, objected to the new rules: 'How can a circle be square? It is a contradiction in terms. If it remains circular, how can it consist of four lines of equal length?'

But the Prime Minister, supporting the move, said: 'This move will be supported by all tolerant, welcoming, broad-minded people.'

17 September 2011 at 11:39  
Blogger Scriblerus Minor said...

Your Grace, your church must take some blame in this;
The '38 divide doth take the p---.

17 September 2011 at 11:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cameron and Clegg - yes you two, you pair of reprobates !!

So you’re both rooting in the mire now for votes. Clegg I can understand, his party is riddled with pederasts. But Cameron, shouldn’t you be upholding the nation’s morals as leader of the Conservative’s ??

You’ll make this country a laughing stock in the eyes of the world !!

A pox on you both...

17 September 2011 at 12:06  
Blogger graham wood said...

Cranmer. I apologise for the length of this comment which was part of an exchange with a friend on the subject of "homophobia" (the label homosexuals gratuitously hang around the necks of anybody who differs from them on any aspect of their ideology and practice.)
It is nevertheless relevant to your subject on so called homosexual "marriages" and the wider strategy being pursued by these people:
"Julio Severo's stand is laudable, courageous, and right.
May I add two relevant comments:

1. There is no such thing, much less a "crime", as homophobia (Lit. men hater). In any event because "hating" is sadly endemic in fallen human nature it cannot be transformed into a crime.
We can freely choose to love or hate - that is what biblical "free-will" is all about. We are not robots or automata.
The artificially created so called "hate crime" is therefore nonsensical and has been accepted and promoted in order to stifle criticism, the free exchange of opinions, and all opposition to homosexuality - what we know as freedom of speech.

Homosexuals the world over have been very successful in creating this mythical "crime" of homophobia, so that it has become common parlance and accepted.
The word does not exist in the English language, and in fact does not constitute a crime under English law, although it may under the bogus concept of EU law which has no democratic or judicial legitimacy here in the UK.
I am not aware of a single person who has been charged and convicted of the "crime" of homophobia in an English court.

Thus, as soon as anybody expresses criticism of the modern phenomena and ideology of the homosexual movement, there are hysterical shouts of "homophobia" right across the self appointed censors from the liberal Left, the "gay" communities, and not least from our naive and gullible political classes who reject God and most Christian values in order to curry favour and win votes from these powerful groups.
This includes many in our existing government, and certainly David Cameron who openly supports and endorses the manic "gay" agenda within our education system and society generally.

2. It is a fact that the only legitimate concept of sexual relationships lies in traditional acceptance of Christian heterosexual marriage - i.e. one man and one woman for life.
Thus Christ, our supreme authority in judging such matters, explicitly states that God's sole purpose from creation was to establish marriage in that context only and exclusively.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made tham male and female. (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve).
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife......."What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Mark 9: 6-9).

As one critic of the homosexual movement has rightly said:

"Homosexuals already live in freedom, and can reside, work and play virtually anywhere they want (in Western states) ...... It's not about rights. It's about redefining truth, and censoring all criticism so that militant homosexuals can be comfortable in their "lifestyle" without having to be disturbed by reality".

(Quotation taken from 'The Marketing of Evil'. How Elitists, and Pseudo Experts sell us corruption disguised as Freedom' by David Kupelian."

17 September 2011 at 12:09  
Blogger English Viking said...

Brown-hatters should be discouraged from continuing in their delusion, not persuaded to flaunt it and defile the notion of marriage.

Cameron looks a bit of a left-hander to me. Public schoolboy, too.

He's thought about it.

17 September 2011 at 12:16  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

"God is agape"
(1 John 4:8)

Selfless love of one person for another without sexual implications. A love that Is passionately committed to the well-being of the other.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love (agape) your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love (agape) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."
(Matthew 5:43-44)

And that's where our society has going awry. We confuse agape with eros which is intimate, sexual love.

Is it not being intolerant, unwelcoming or narrow-minded to refuse to accept and condone activities that are morally harmful to individuals and to the common good.

17 September 2011 at 12:22  
Blogger Albert said...

All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. Mussolini

This is probably the single most statist act of any party in the history of this country. What Cameron and others don't seem to recognise is that marriage is prior to the state, so the state simply cannot hijack it or alter it. They might as well try to legislate for mathematical or logical truths.

They can legislate what they like, but gays won't be married. What, one wonders, happens to those of us who reject the possibility and deny that those who claim to be married are married?

"I think Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad-minded."

Exactly, and so those Christians who think gay sex isn't sinful, shouldn't be imposing their view on those of us who don't.

Cameron really is vacuous.

17 September 2011 at 12:28  
Blogger Albert said...

the issue will need to be revisted, and the Church will eventually be obliged to marry them - or face the consequences.

That's the way liberalism works. You argue it is right to permit something in the name of tolerance, and then, in time, when your position is stronger, you just impose it regardless of the consequences for those who disagree. Look at the ordination of women in the Church of England!

By the way, the consequences you allude to are nothing compared with what will happen. In time, gay couples will be able to bring cases against individual clergy refusing to marry them, who knows what the punishment will be? But you can be sure the liberals will follow the Hitlerite method of picking off their enemies one by one, rather than taking on the whole institution.

In a democracy, how do we stand against this sort of thing, when all three parties stand for it?

17 September 2011 at 12:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

The individuals in the picture you have adorned this thread with, well, they do look rather young...

Is this country going to try and change the law for the benefit of these ‘wet behind the ear’ pains ?

On the subject of pain, it takes two disappointed parents and one mixed up teenager to get to the stage of possible homosexual. It’s always the young on the receiving end of buggery – Should not we be looking out for young peoples interests ??

The Inspector imagines that a first experience is enough to put off some, but at the cost of not being able to sit down for sometime, and bleeding....

17 September 2011 at 13:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Presumably, they’ll want the right to be ‘married’ at 16 !

Just imagine a mixed up youth in a wedding dress being walked up the isle by his beloved (...or corrupter, depending on your point of view...)

Has England come down to this ???

{This post to conclude with ‘Jerusalem’ played loud}

17 September 2011 at 14:01  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

What about the Rights of the Church to follow the guidelines of The Bible? It has the best interests and survival of a healthy nation at it's core? If they start contradicting what it says in the holy book then the Church may just as well shut up shop altogether and that seems to be just what these equality till the death nutcases want. If they set up their own LGBT church with their own liturgy it would solve this issue.

17 September 2011 at 14:08  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

There will now be 2 kinds of marriage: Holy matrimony and unholy matrimony. They can never make what is unholy holy.

17 September 2011 at 14:29  
Blogger graham wood said...

How ironic, and what a comment on the distorted vision of Mr Cameron and his friends that when Europe is in economic turmoil with the collapse of the Euro imminent - he gives priority to his "gay marriage" agenda.
What a tiny minded, irrelevant, and morally distorted individual.

17 September 2011 at 14:33  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

What is “marriage”?

Christians believe that marriage is according to the purpose of God. At the heart of God's design for marriage is companionship and intimacy.

According to Genesis, marriage was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden.

“Have you not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Marriage is a Sacrament ordained by God for a man and a woman. It is not a civil ceremony. The State has no authority over it.

The marriage is the contract itself, the promises made before God to one another in the presence of a priest.

It is a union of opposite sexes.
It is a lifelong union.
It excludes a union with any other person so long as the marriage exists.
Its purpose is the transmission of life, mutual support and love.

Divorce, adultery, and "homosexual marriage" are just not compatible with marriage.

Let’s not have a perverted, bizarre parody of a Divinely instituted relationship between a man and a woman.

17 September 2011 at 14:36  
Blogger Albert said...

Its purpose is the transmission of life, mutual support and love.

It was Robert Runcie, the former Archbishop of Canterbury who admitted that the CofE had effectively given in to homosexuality in 1930 when it changed its teaching on contraception.

Or as the philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe put it:

If contraceptive intercourse is permissible... It can’t be the mere pattern of bodily behavior in which the stimulation is procured that makes all the difference! But if such things are all right, it becomes perfectly impossible to see anything wrong with homosexual intercourse, for example. I am not saying: if you think contraception all right you will do these other things; not at all. The habit of respectability persists and old prejudices die hard. But I am saying: you will have no solid reason against these things. You will have no answer to someone who proclaims as many do that they are good too. You cannot point to the known fact that Christianity drew people out of the pagan world, always saying no to these things. Because, if you are defending contraception, you will have rejected Christian tradition.

17 September 2011 at 14:48  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Given that the official christian view of "normal" marriage is that the woman is subservient to the man, even though it is not QUITE as bad as islam in this respect.
And that males have control over women's bodies.
And that the ONLY purpose of marriage is for women to act as baby-factories.
None of which is acceptable today, especially in view of the planet's overpopulation!

The entire argument falls to the ground, because the christian view of "normal" marriage is so ddeply flawed.

17 September 2011 at 15:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

Why don't the LGBT groups form their own Church and just get by with that which they can uniquely call their own.

Because 'Gay marriage' is not about marriage. It's about de-legitimizing any moral opposition to homosexual behavior. You will notice the complete dearth of homosexual couples rushing to take advantage of this new estate. That's not a coincidence. One does not have to enter a formal relationship to derive benefit from the existence of that relationship. The right to marry conveys public legitimacy to homosexual relationships as a type and that is the end goal. Homosexuals will not be satisfied until any organization that rejects this legitimacy is stigmatized and driven from the public square.

The idea of 'tolerant' and intolerant' Christianity is a means to evade religious freedom. You establish a liberal version, and use that liberal version as a foundation to declare the old doctrines non-essential to religious liberty. Then you suppress the old doctrines legally.

carl

17 September 2011 at 15:19  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

G Tingey

What an ill-informed, ignorant and nasty little comment.

17 September 2011 at 15:24  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Your Grace, The words of Parliament about marriage leave no room for ambiguity about their meaning and although many will disagree I heartily endorse your comments.

However, I would take issue with your later comment:
It is a little like the Pope coming to Westminster Abbey to talk about Christian unity, and just happening to preface his homily with a casual mention that he’s the heir to St Peter. ‘I’m a church-goer, and...’ is to arrogate to himself a certain spiritual authority.
The Pope does not have any authority to arrogate to himself any authority – only Christ can do that and it is clear from Matthew 16 that he gave that authority to Simon Peter. I cannot see how we should accept the arrogation to Henry of absolute authority simply because he wanted a divorce. Yes there were abuses in the Catholic Church but there were abuses in the Jewish hierarchy at the time of Jesus who nevertheless insisted the Jews had to follow their teaching even though they were whitewashed sepulchres. In that context and with regard to earlier comments, Christian unity cannot come about simply by a democratic consensus. It can only be under the authority Christ established and conferred in Matthew 16.

17 September 2011 at 16:18  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

It's a shame that Mt Tingey cannot display even a modicum of courtesy to those with whom he disagrees. It would be even better if he would give arguments based on evidence rather than his own prejudice.

17 September 2011 at 16:21  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Spot on Carl Jacobs

17 September 2011 at 16:22  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Albert, I have read Eliszabeth Anscombe before - a very clear and precise writer. Do you have the reference for the quotation you used?

17 September 2011 at 16:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

What an excellent and insightful account of what is going on.

17 September 2011 at 16:34  
Blogger English Viking said...

Shacklefree,

St Paul did not suffer women to teach men on matters of doctrine.

17 September 2011 at 16:43  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

In the eyes of God it is the spouses who marry one another by making life long vows of fidelity in His presence. A priest or minister, whilst a witness, does not perform a sacrament. The couple do.

Certain conditions must be met for a marriage to be valid, most especially the couple being male and female.

Homosexual "marriages" are neither marriages nor acceptable in the eyes of God. To perform such rites in a church is offensive to God and to His Church.

17 September 2011 at 16:47  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Shacklefree

Well said, sir. It was an unnecessary remark by our host that reflects his rejection of Papal authority.

As we know, the biblical exposition of marriage also reflects the relationship between Christ and His Bride, the Church. St Paul had much to say on both and the proper functioning and leadership within these God ordained institutions.

St Paul's theological view was a Christian development of the Old Testament analogy between marriage and the relationship between God and Israel. He described the church as a bride and Christ as the bridegroom and drew parallels between Christian marriage and the relationship between Christ and the Church.

Homosexual "marriage" is an attack on the foundations of the Church. If only the Supreme authority of Rome had not been trampled on and replaced by democracy and individualism in theological matters.

17 September 2011 at 17:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Shacklefree

Here you go and say something kind to me, and I must repay you by beating on the Papacy.

only Christ can do that and it is clear from Matthew 16 that he gave that authority to Simon Peter.

Which of course we know because the Pope said so. He has precluded any understanding of Matthew 16 that does not implicitly establish the Papacy. And with anathemas no less. Matthew 16:18 is one of the seven dogmatically exegeted verses in Scripture. The Pope was pretty serious about establishing his own base of power. Well, OK. It was Vatican I that established the dogma. But who was pushing Vatican I to come to that conclusion? Same difference.
-
And we know this of course because the Office of the Papacy is so clearly described in the pages of the New Testament. I mean, Paul said it right there in the Epistle to Timothy. "Listen to Peter and his successors, for he is the Bishop of Rome, the Vicar of Christ, the Pontifex Maximus. To him was given the Keys of the Kingdom. Yes, the other disciples got that authority too, but that was different."

Oh, wait ...

carl

17 September 2011 at 17:06  
Blogger Gary said...

This is a very great evil. It's hard to believe that it's the tory party (of all people!) who are persecuting Christ's church and bringing down the country so.

17 September 2011 at 17:06  
Blogger J.D. Malcolmson said...

Grahan Wood 12:09

While not wishing to take issue with any of the points you raise, you are incorrect in stating that the literal meaning of "homophobia" is "men-hater".

The closest translation of this word would be "fear of things the same". It appears that you are confusing the Greek "homo" with the Latin "homo", which does indeed mean "man" as in "homo sapiens" (knowing man).

17 September 2011 at 17:34  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Carl said

It's about de-legitimizing any moral opposition to homosexual behavior.

I'm sure this quite a valid premise and should be a matter between the Gay lobby and whichever Church they are using - because 'using' to make their political point, is exactly what it is.

If civil ceremonies are accepted and the equivalent benefits afford to the partners from either side of the asexual divide in law - what more is to be gained? And why is this matter only being driven at the Anglican Church? Where are the gay Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Hindus - I can't hear them campaigning.

I am atheist but still acknowledge the contribution made to the shaping of my Country and Society by the Christian Church. I feel that nothing but distress for the individual congregations and damage to the future of the CoE will be the only outcome. - I think this is dangerous to the establishment and will simply provide fuel to stoke the Islamist boiler room.

If its not salvation the LGBT are seeking they should be aiming at all religions not just one.

The Churches in the US are independent from the State involvement and that is the way it should be - unfortunately that has not the case been the case in the UK for over a thousand years.

17 September 2011 at 17:45  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

English Viking, I’m not sure about doctrine but are you saying that women cannot speak and that when they do they must automatically be wrong?

Carl my friend, do not worry about beating the papacy. I think we can agree about beating certain popes but I stop short of the institution. Vatican I remember occurred more than 1800 years after the words of Christ to Peter and up until that time the Church from the beginning had a very strong idea about the primacy of Peter through all the centuries. Vatican I merely defined what had been accepted by the faithful so I don’t think it was the Pope who precluded anything. Don’t forget also that there were some voices in Vatican I that wanted anything the Pope said to be regarded as infallible and this quite rightly was rejected so that now we have a definition of infallibility which has very significant restrictions and does not allow the Pope to make up any laws he likes. History shows us this quite clearly – after all Martin Luther and Calvin introduced the heresy that everyone was predestined for Heaven or Hell before they were born and nothing you could do in this life could alter that irrevocable decision. Protestantism didn't take 1800 years to come up with that or even 1800 months. This heresy arose with the Gnostics right at the beginning and was resurrected by Mohammed and then by Luther and Calvin. Chesterton said:
The Orthodox Church never took the tame course … It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic Seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. … there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton

17 September 2011 at 17:46  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

'been the case' apologies for a few typos here.

17 September 2011 at 17:48  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Draughtnaught said: If its not salvation the LGBT are seeking they should be aiming at all religions not just one.

Unfortunately, the Church of Christ has always been the target of satan. Islam is used by him to discredit all religions and thereby the true religion leading to the loss of many souls. Discernment is needed.

17 September 2011 at 17:54  
Blogger Topher said...

Surely you are not naive enough to think that because Parliment legislates it is actually so? What matters is what the government and judges interpret or choose to ignore.

Rowen Williams might not have been Cranmers choice for ABC but he has been a lot more orthodox than many liberal were hoping and many evangelicals were fearing. If he does go next year then the chance that Just Call Me Dave complies with Muggins Turn and gives the Queen a name of a non-liberal must be low. After all much better to suggest someone who realises the legal and orthodox Christian "bottom-line, full essentials" like gay marriage rather than appoint someone who is less liberal than that stark raving mad, fundamentilist, Hell-fire and brimstone Rowan Williams!

17 September 2011 at 18:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Shacklefree

It is always an error to associate Calvinism with heresy.

carl

17 September 2011 at 18:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

And why is this matter only being driven at the Anglican Church?

It's not being driven in only the Anglican Church. This fight is being waged across Christendom. It is simply very prominent in the Anglican church because its hierarchy makes it vulnerable to coerced change from the top.

In addition, the West is a Christian culture. It is the Christian religion and its presuppositions that must be displaced. Secularists are arrogant and foolish enough to believe that minority religions will be pulled down by the great secular undertow. They don't target Islam because they don't think Islam is significant enough to target. They don't expect it to ever emerge as a significant threat to secularism.

Besides, the Islamists might kill you if you push them too far. Best to leave them alone and bother those who won't shoot back.

carl

17 September 2011 at 18:11  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Carl, Calvinism as far as I am aware, proclaimed the doctrine that everyone was irrevocably saved or dammed before birth. That's got to be a heresy.

17 September 2011 at 18:43  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Carl, Second thought. If predestination is correct why would we oppose abortion? Abortion would simply be a means of bringing about the inevitable more quickly.

17 September 2011 at 18:45  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

If marriage were left as marriage and civil partnerships accepted for what they were intended to be rather than pretending that they are inter-changeable many would be spared unnecessary heart ache.

17 September 2011 at 18:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

Cameron would need the support of Parliament to get this Anal Marriage outrage in place

Can’t see the shire MPs going along with it, even under a 3 line whip...

17 September 2011 at 19:04  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General

It applies to lesbians too and I believe their interests are not those you imply.

Mind you, who knows these days with the arificial 'aids' available to accompany these depraved practises.

It won't be too before "marriages" between sheep are men are on the agenda.

I was once professionally involved with a man who offered as mitigation for copulating with a horse the fervent belief the creature loved him!

17 September 2011 at 19:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo

My God man, truly, depravity knows no bounds when it comes to these deviant types.

One would think finding a cure for homosexuality would be the ideal and high on the agenda

The Inspector has always wondered if Lesbianism actually exists. Could it be these women have yet to meet a man they are comfortable with. Having said that, being fat, ugly and wearing a boiler suit isn’t the best way to capture said man.

Do we have a pretty lesbian on site, who bucks the trend, and who might give us her opinion...

17 September 2011 at 19:29  
Blogger Unheard Melodies said...

Parliament's authorisation of the liturgy of the Church of England does not imply approval of its theology.

17 September 2011 at 19:37  
Blogger English Viking said...

Shacklefree,

I'm saying that The Bible teaches that women are not permitted to teach men, because they are easily deceived.

They are to learn in humility.

'Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.'

1 Timothy 2 v 11

'But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.'

1 Timothy 2 v 12

It is clear that The Bible teaches that men are the sole holders of the office of teacher in scriptural matters. That would include books written by females, unless the book was intended for other females or children.

Don't shoot the messenger.

I doubt you could hit me from there, anyway.

17 September 2011 at 19:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Shacklefree & Dodo,

It is a little like the Pope coming to Westminster Abbey to talk about Christian unity

Why do you rise when Cranmer says such things - he's only winding us up. Unless he is completely ignorant of his own tradition, he will know that patristic authorities and councils the CofE recognises, believed the Pope was the successor of Peter (a point Carl too ought to take note of).

In any case, Cranmer could hardly say (as would be more pertinent given Anglican tradition) "It's a bit like Henry VIII arrogating authority to himself saying 'As King of England I am obviously Head of the Church of England' (a claim so absurd, even Elizabeth I modified it), 'so anyone who disagrees with that, even a legally instituted bishop, will have his head cut off'".

17 September 2011 at 19:54  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

English Viking, The subject of teaching authority is an important one which is why we have the magisterium and why women cannot be catholic priests. However, in the Old and New Testaments women (Judith, Esther, Our Lady, Mary Magdeline)did show leadership and the scripture holds them up as an example. In particular Our Lady I think epitomizes your point as not putting herself in a position of authority. Nonetheless, when Jesus complained to her about her request at the Wedding at Cana, she simply said to the servants do what He tells you and she left Jesus to make the decision. Elizabeth Anscombe does not write as an authoritative person to whom deference must be paid because of who she is but she writes so well and clearly I think it is right and proper to read her articles and learn from them.

17 September 2011 at 20:00  
Blogger Albert said...

Shacklefree,

Yes, it's a paper called "Contraception & Chastity". It's published by CTS as a booklet on contraception. She is an excellent writer - a convert (from the CofE I think) and one of the great moral philosophers of the last century. Here's another bit from a different paper:

I remember getting into a discussion (just to remind you of rapidly things slid in the decades since then) at a party in Oxford, about contraception, ...and remarking that you would surely get it leading on to abortion - I mean to abortions being generally acceptable - and my colleagues, the Warnocks, philosophers, being absolutely outraged at this suggestion...Well of course the facts have now proved that I was right.

Interesting to see her mention Mary Warnock there. I wonder if she even remembers being opposed to abortion - but that's the bitter fruit of accepting contraception.

17 September 2011 at 20:02  
Blogger Albert said...

English Viking,

St Paul did not suffer women to teach men on matters of doctrine

Acts. 18.26?

17 September 2011 at 20:10  
Blogger DP111 said...

We need a Swiss direct democracy system, where the people decide on all issues.

The Swiss people decide what is in the nation's best interest, be it economic policy, rates of taxation, spending priorities, marriage, or immigration and nationality. That way, the consequences, be it good or bad, is in the people's hands. It makes for a responsible and educated citizenry.

17 September 2011 at 20:43  
Blogger len said...

When fallen men set about re defining what morals would be acceptable to them they entered a 'moral maze'in which they are getting progressively more lost.
The Word of God ,the Gospel of Jesus Christ is able to illuminate the darkness which is threatening to engulf our Society , which is why it is so important that the Gospel is preached to offset the incoming tide of opposition to all that would destroy the foundations of our Society.

17 September 2011 at 20:48  
Blogger len said...

I cannot believe we are still doing the 'Protestant v Catholic' thing.

The Head of the Body is Jesus Christ and if all Christians would accept that perhaps a few more people would get saved.

17 September 2011 at 20:51  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

\

17 September 2011 at 20:52  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Thanks Albert, I remember it from years ago. I checked it out on Amazon and it is out of print but I found a link if anyone wants to read it:
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.php

English Viking, please have a read.

17 September 2011 at 20:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You know this is going to happen at some point, we may as well get it over with. ;)

Marriage is a social institution. You guys don't own it. As far as Parliament and the State church is concerned, that's something that ought to be fixed if it's something to be used to oppose social justice like this.

I've been pretty ambivalent in the past about disestablishment but since the Christian Institute and the various religious alliances have become militant I've found a new energy regarding disestablishment. We'll need it anyway at some point to deal with Islam.

Once religion is put in its proper place in society, we can focus on with the normal stuff again. Phew.

17 September 2011 at 21:02  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General said ...
"The Inspector has always wondered if Lesbianism actually exists... being fat, ugly and wearing a boiler suit..."

You have led a very sheltered life.

I've known some absolutely beautiful women who were predisposed towards towards other women. Sadly best efforts to cure them from their affliction were mostly unsuccessful, with one or two very memorable exceptions.

I did it all for the Lord!

This was in my sinful, lustful youth when like Saint Augustine, my ardent prayer was "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet"

17 September 2011 at 21:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "They don't target Islam because they don't think Islam is significant enough to target. They don't expect it to ever emerge as a significant threat to secularism."

There's truth in what you say. We're not a Christian country here in the UK but people are pretty sanguine about it given our history even with the shenanigans of some of its militants more recently. It's still seen as little old ladies doing Jam and Jerusalem despite the reality. It'll be easier I think to deal with Islam when Christianity is properly considered as the private interest it is.

17 September 2011 at 21:09  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

“Once religion is put in its proper place in society, we can focus on with the normal stuff again. Phew.”
What do you call normal stuff then Danj0? Sheep shagging, marrying your horse? Hmmm.

17 September 2011 at 21:10  
Blogger Albert said...

The Head of the Body is Jesus Christ and if all Christians

No one disputes that, Len.

17 September 2011 at 21:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Danj0

We do not need disestablishment. This is one issue – and the knives are being sharpened by Cameron’s successor as this is typed. This could be the issue he falls on...

17 September 2011 at 21:11  
Blogger Albert said...

Shacklefree,

You can get it direct from CTS:

http://www.cts-online.org.uk/cgi-bin/sh000004.pl?REFPAGE=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2ects%2donline%2eorg%2euk%2f&WD=anscombe&PN=Our_Products_Moral_and_Social_Issues_10%2ehtml%23aEX14#aEX14

17 September 2011 at 21:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"What do you call normal stuff then Danj0? Sheep shagging, marrying your horse? Hmmm."

Or internet dating in your case. Have you tried lesbianism? It's all the rage these days you know. Very fashionable.

wv: troglog

17 September 2011 at 21:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "We do not need disestablishment. This is one issue – and the knives are being sharpened by Cameron’s successor as this is typed. This could be the issue he falls on..."

It might be I suppose but I'm not sure the party would take the chance of ditching their leader in the current economic state. I think the electorate are, as ever, more interested in their jobs and consumer goods than a relatively trivial issue like this. If he goes then the issue will pop up again I'm sure.

17 September 2011 at 21:18  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Albert said ...
"Why do you rise when Cranmer says such things - he's only winding us up."

You need to read some of his earlier posts to understand his deep seated opposition to Papal authority and the Magisterium.

I agree he slips in provocative comments to infuriate 'us' and seems to enjoy baiting Roman Catholics. I think he may have some personal issues or grievances around this. Who knows?

17 September 2011 at 21:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo

“Sheltered life” – I wish !! I’ve been exposed to the worst of everything, as I expect we all have...

There’s a lot to be said for continence, as anyone who has sat in the old peoples bus seats by mistake will testify.

On the subject of ‘aids’ for lesbianism, there is indeed a double ended thingy which still makes your Inspector General believe lesbians are deluding themselves.

17 September 2011 at 21:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

Marriage is a social institution. You guys don't own it.

Obviously, we don't own it. I would have thought that was obvious from the quotation of the BCP marriage service Cranmer gave in the original post.

to oppose social justice like this

How is marriage being limited to between man and woman opposed to social justice?

17 September 2011 at 21:22  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

I realise Cranmer's got some deep-seated concerns (to say nothing stronger) about the Papacy.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

17 September 2011 at 21:24  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Marie1797
"What do you call normal stuff then Danj0? Sheep shagging, marrying your horse? Hmmm."

Marie, I'm embarressed to think you may have been reading my posts! I will exercise greater care in the future and bear in mind the gentler sex could be on-line.

You have made a very valid point though.

17 September 2011 at 21:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Albert: "How is marriage being limited to between man and woman opposed to social justice?"

Like treated alike.

17 September 2011 at 21:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Danj0

The Conservatives are middle England or they are nothing. I know (...perhaps knew, it’s been so long...) party mandarins on a local level only slightly to the left of Hitler.

This far from trivial issue strikes at the very heart of what it is to be English and Christian- “Fight the good fight with all your might” my good fellow...

17 September 2011 at 21:27  
Blogger Albert said...

Like treated alike

Begs the question...

And BTW, I think your comment to Marie is completely unacceptable.

17 September 2011 at 21:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "The Conservatives are middle England or they are nothing. I know (...perhaps knew, it’s been so long...) party mandarins on a local level only slightly to the left of Hitler."

Ahem. A common theme amongst the extreme right-wing here is that Hitler was left-wing.

17 September 2011 at 21:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Albert: "And BTW, I think your comment to Marie is completely unacceptable."

As ever, I respond to the religious in like manner. I considered her comment to me as unacceptable. It follows from "typical bitchy queer" or suchlike in the past. Of course, you and your co-religionists never seem to complain when it's in that direction. For instance, I don't see you complain about English Viking's comments about gay people. I don't mind myself but this is a public-access blog. Such hypocrisy.

17 September 2011 at 21:37  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
Too many African con men on the internet dating. Lesbianism isn't for me but no doubt there are some who would try in absence of a male now there are no longer any societal taboos.
Dodo don't hold back on my account. It's the slippery slope though isn't it if gay marriage is allowed.

17 September 2011 at 21:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And Albert:

"The Inspector has always wondered if Lesbianism actually exists. Could it be these women have yet to meet a man they are comfortable with. Having said that, being fat, ugly and wearing a boiler suit isn’t the best way to capture said man."

I mean, for god's sake.

17 September 2011 at 21:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And Albert:

"Sadly best efforts to cure them from their affliction were mostly unsuccessful, with one or two very memorable exceptions."

??

17 September 2011 at 21:42  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Albert said ...

"I realise Cranmer's got some deep-seated concerns (to say nothing stronger) about the Papacy.

The way to get a heated response from our good host is to accuse him of holding predefined negative views about the Vatican, irrespective of reason, and of being intolerant, narrow minded and prejudiced against the Roman Catholic faith.

He isn't like this of course and his objections are well reasoned and rational - mostly.

17 September 2011 at 21:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

If you follow the thread, you will see that Marie is referring to something already said, which related to the moral discussion.

Which comments of Viking?

17 September 2011 at 21:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

Actually, I nearly took the Inspector to task for a similar comment earlier, but by the time I was able to reply it was long in the past.

Nevertheless, your comment was directed as someone personally, which the Inspector's weren't.

17 September 2011 at 21:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"If you follow the thread, you will see that Marie is referring to something already said, which related to the moral discussion."

That makes it okay? I think not.

17 September 2011 at 21:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Nevertheless, your comment was directed as someone personally, which the Inspector's weren't."

:O Jesus wept.

17 September 2011 at 21:52  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General

Too much detail ....

Marie

Bless you. Personally, I think the slippery slope started in the 1960's and wasn't helped by Vatican II where modernist theologians appear to have exercise undue influence on the issue of contraception. Thankfully, the Pope used the authority of his position, as intended by Christ, and kept the Church on the straight and narrow.

DanJ0

I agree English Vikings comments are crude, offensive and unnecessary. Wilfully inflamatory, perhaps?

17 September 2011 at 21:58  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Has anyone ever wondered why there seems to be a greater preponderance of BDSM practices on the homosexual scene? The use of artificial aids and stimulants also appears higher than amongst heterosexuals?

17 September 2011 at 22:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lol. We seemed to have killed the discussion now Dodo. I'm not sure if it was my punching back, your intent to talk about lubricants and handcuffs, the sheep and horse deviancy, or the Inspector and his double-ended dildos. Or possibly all of them.

17 September 2011 at 22:17  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

“Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, ‘Has God indeed said, “You shall not eat of every tree of the garden”?’ And the woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, “You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.”’ Then the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.”
(Genesis 3:1-6)

Satan uses deception and his attacks are progressive. He moves from indirect implication to a direct attack on God’s word, character and motive.

The best way to get people to rebel against God’s word is first to get them to disbelieve it, then get them to believe traditional Christian teaching is false, unloving and bigoted.

Listen to the speach and techniques used by theological liberals, secular humanists, militant homosexuals and radical feminists.

One hears Satan’s children mimicking Satan’s word.

17 September 2011 at 22:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

How dare you say such things? Me? Inflammatory?

I thought we had made peace?

Should have known better than to trust a left-footer.


Albert,

Aquilla was also mentioned. Forget about him, did you? You know, the one Priscilla was subject to?


Shacklefree,

Did you think I wouldn't notice?

The book of Judith does not appear in The Bible.

Esther is one of only 2 books that seem to have been written by women, the other being Ruth. They are the only 2 books in The Bible that do not mention God Himself. Even if they were the bee's knees in all things doctrinal, the NT would supercede them, for a Christian at least.

You are going to have to do better than that.

Women have NO authority to teach. Their kingdom is in the home, with the children. The older ones teach the younger ones to be obedient wives.

Titus 2 vv 3,4.

BTW The one you refer to as 'our lady' is no such thing to me.

Blessed above all women? Yes.

Nothing else. And now dead.

As dead and cold as my old dad.

17 September 2011 at 22:44  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS Dodo,

What on Earth is BDSM?

I dare not Google it, for fear of what I may find.

17 September 2011 at 22:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Danj0 – (17 September 2011 21:41) Cannot understand how you can criticise this truism

Danj0 – (17 September 2011 22:17) Was rather trying to avoid bringing the “D” word into it.

Danj0 – (17 September 2011 21:31) The right wingers all had one thing in common it seemed. They were all army officers from National Service days. I really believe if they espoused an opinion, they
didn’t expect it to be challenged , unless you were of more senior rank, of which the Inspector at the time was not. He was very junior indeed...

17 September 2011 at 23:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"What on Earth is BDSM?"

More to the point, how does Dodo know what goes on and the relative extent of it in the Gay Scene?

17 September 2011 at 23:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Serpents and Doves

Don’t take (Genesis 3:1-6) too literally. There’s enough derangement on this site as it is...

17 September 2011 at 23:15  
Blogger English Viking said...

OoIG,

Every good man takes every single word literally.

It just won't do; taking the bits you like, rejecting those you don't.


Every last word.

It's all good.

17 September 2011 at 23:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Danj0 – (17 September 2011 21:41) Cannot understand how you can criticise this truism"

Surely most lesbians are young, slim, and blonde, and look alluringly at anyone watching whilst licking their lips?

17 September 2011 at 23:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0

This is the great mystery old chap. Young slim blonde women will oft be found with a man on their arm. Obese ugly women who are too idle to slim down or eat less and are generally too feckless to smarten up will oft be found with similar on their arm. It’s these losers who consider themselves lesbians...

17 September 2011 at 23:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

English viking

You have raised a point worthy of consideration, which I will do when I shake danJ0 off my back...

17 September 2011 at 23:31  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

nspector and Danj0

Lesbians can be the butch type such as my tutor who wears check lumberjack shirts and combat trousers, keeps 6 Komododragons, a cat and goldfish as pets. Her partner is 15 yrs younger, obese and jolly is a bit more feminine has had a child and a husband prior to her becoming a Lesbian.

Others I have met at social functions have been power Lesbians. Smart alpha females as competitive as men, quite frightening some of them, others less so have had boyfriends prior to becoming Lesbians.

17 September 2011 at 23:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

OoIg,

Just punch him in the face; it's so much easier.

17 September 2011 at 23:51  
Blogger English Viking said...

It might just be me, but as the topic appears to have drifted towards lesbo-ism, please allow me to spread my wisdom abroad.

Fat, ugly birds are gagging for a bloke. Some debase themselves with equally fat and ugly blokes, just to make the pain go away.

Others resort to their own sort, and to their own detriment too.

Why is it that I feel far more pity for lezzers than for gays?

17 September 2011 at 23:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marie1797

Thank you for that. it does indicate lesbianism is a lifestyle choice for maybe a myriad of reasons. The Inspector has no idea how a woman’s mind works, and doesn’t suppose any man does.
DanJ0 on the other hand is a born homosexual, as God intended. And if it’s God wish, then it’s alright with the Inspector.

Could well be that Lesbianism is an unwanted by-product or risk from educating women...

18 September 2011 at 00:00  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 September 2011 at 00:27  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General
"DanJ0 on the other hand is a born homosexual, as God intended. And if it’s God wish, then it’s alright with the Inspector."

God permits evil, He does not intend it! Did you learn nothing at school? You're sounding like a Calvanist.

DanJ0 has his own cross to bear like the rest of us. The problem is secular humanists and warped theologians reassure him his condition is 'natural'. Don't join them.

English Viking
Surely those living in peace are permitted to have a well meaning go at one another? Lighten up!

And why are Catholics referred to as 'left footers'? I first encountered this expression on moving to Scotland and no one can give me an explanation.

DanJ0
Believe me I know about many things! You'd be surprised at what I've come to understand in this world.

One thing I've learned is that sin, particularly sexual immorality, i.e objective disorder, is inherently unsatisfying and, unless controlled, tends towards greater and greater excess and perversity to produce the same effect.

Think about it.

18 September 2011 at 00:41  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking said ...
"Fat, ugly birds are gagging for a bloke. Some debase themselves with equally fat and ugly blokes, just to make the pain go away."

You'll be very popular on a weekend then, Viking. As Private Jones would say: "Stick it up 'em."

18 September 2011 at 00:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo

The Inspector is surprised at you !!

I’m afraid you are wrong old chap. if a man is born with homosexual tendencies, that’s that, end of story. It’s natural. I’m not going to curse anyone for that. Perhaps your issue is with an ‘active’ homosexual lifestyle...

18 September 2011 at 01:07  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo, bit off subject, said

"And why are Catholics referred to as 'left footers'? I first encountered this expression on moving to Scotland and no one can give me an explanation. "

What a naughty and sneaky likkle bird you are. You know perfectly well the reason..another papist pop at protestants? and a bit off post, what!
"It's common in Northern Ireland, Scotland and the north-west of England, especially, for Catholics to be called 'left-footers'. It is based on the supposed tradition whereby Protestant farm-labourers dug with the right foot on the spade, whilst Catholic ones did so with the left!"
Wrongly demonising is common for all, fortunately Ernst is ambidextrous whereas you may be ambisinistrous from your commenting? Or is Ernst just being a WASP?

You merely tar with the same brush when it suits you and get onto your favourite subject as often as possible.
Am I wrong or is the pope a catholic..Oops. See what I mean?

Ernst S Blofeld

18 September 2011 at 01:41  
Blogger The Judicious Hooker said...

Yes, let the showdown begin! It's time the C of E established by law called the government's bluff. Broadly speaking, evangelicals and anglo-catholics (the traditional variety not the weak as water cop-outs) will be up in arms at politicians telling them that marriage is now extended to same-sex couples.

The Anglican communion has stood as firm as it can on this issue (despite the actions of those in the more liberal wastelands) and the communion will look to the C of E to make a stand. If this precipitates the dis-establishment, then so be it!

Shacklefree: I was recently checking out the canons of the Oecumenical Council at Nicaea and note that there was a less papal-centric view taken of episcopal jurisdictions in the fourth century. OK, S.Peter may have been martyred in Rome and S. Paul too but there is no historical proof that S. Peter was its first episcopos or that this structure had even bedded down as this early stage.

The Roman church has to embrace the basics of historicity – things have not always been as they are now! They grow and develop and not always in good ways, hence the need for the reform movements of the 16th century (and I charitably include the Council of Trent in that category – too little too late but reforming nonetheless).

Having S.Peter's purported mortal remains under the Vatican does not give the Roman bishop temporal and spiritual global jurisdiction! Rome's pretensions for power and prestige is anti-Christ (cf Jesus in the Gospels and the concept of servant-leadership) and we just need to look at many of the vile incumbents of the See of Peter, its theological volte-faces down the centuries and its connivance with evil regimes to see that it is all about politics and institutional agrandissement and very little to do with primacy of love for the sake of the churches.

The only structure which is of antiquity is that of the Orthodox Churches of the East: regional or national autonomous churches linked by mutual respect and recognition, united in the faith of the creeds and oecumenical councils, a shared ministry and confessing the truth of scriptural revelation. O, it sounds a little like the Anglican communion on a good day...give or take the odd schism over who can and can't be ordained.

As for homosexual issues, we should never lose sight that we are created in God's image and likeness and that God in his graciousness does not desire the death of sinners but their conversion. There is much in the male homosexual lifestyle to be roundly condemned (ie drug-fuelled sexual hedonism) and much in the female homosexual lifestyle (ie homemaking and childrearing propensities) to be applauded. Scripture reveals God's will for us all and from Genesis to Revelation we have a clear vision of what it is to be human and the lifestyle of the incarnate Word and his closest followers clears up any further questions we might possibly have.

The Way of the Dodo at 21.08: “I did it all for the Lord” and your quote from the Bishop of Hippo made my day. Thank you.

18 September 2011 at 07:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "DanJ0 has his own cross to bear like the rest of us. The problem is secular humanists and warped theologians reassure him his condition is 'natural'. Don't join them."

Dodo, it's as natural to me as being heterosexual (if you are) is to you. It's sexual orientation. I feel absolutely no guilt whatsoever if I'm attracted to another man. If there is any cross to bear then it's the same sort of cross as a person in a wheelchair bears if there are no drops in the kerb stones. The problem is solely in your domain, if you are actually what you claim you are, and its warped and unnatural and nasty teachings.

18 September 2011 at 07:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Believe me I know about many things! You'd be surprised at what I've come to understand in this world."

Are we going to see more of your real feelings which were just under the surface of your comment of 17 September 2011 21:08? I thought that was actually very telling.

18 September 2011 at 07:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie1797: "Lesbians can be the butch type such as my tutor [...]"

Marie, you and I need to swap lives as just about everyone around you (friends, family, hairdressers, tutors, people at social functions etc) seems to be gay/lesbian. The ratio of gay/lesbian people to straight people I knowingly meet is quite a lot smaller than our likely ratio in society. :(

18 September 2011 at 07:30  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

American scientists a few years ago found that queer rams could be returned to servicing ewes if fed a hormone ,which corrected the imbalance in thier brains,needless to say,this provoked the pervert lobby to high pitched hysterical screaming,that any attempt to restore them to normalcy was against thier "uman rights"since it would rob them of thier victimhood and "oppressed"status,and force them to face thier own pretense as the delusion that it is.

18 September 2011 at 09:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^this

http://endo.endojournals.org/content/145/2/478.full

But there's probably no point in your reading it, Englishman.

18 September 2011 at 09:44  
Blogger Andrew Smith said...

It is worth noting that the law has imposed obligations and consequences on cohabiting couples which they are unable to easily avoid and many are not aware of until it is too late.

Given the low cost of marriage, whether in a civil or religious ceremony, heterosexual couples who chose to live together without marriage or engagement do so because that is what they want - no ties one to the other which they cannot unilaterally breach or break at will.

One understands why such couples may be required to support children after a break but why should the law treat them as if they had been married for other purposes. I have in mind the fact that a former live-in partner is treated in the same way as a former spouse for inheritance purposes if the couple had lived together for 2 years or more.

The consequences for family financial planning are sever.

The consequences of same-sex "marriage" for the tax base could be significant.

By the way, will the same rules apply to "Cameron marriages" be the same as now for conventional marriage, so partners cannot be more closely related than cousins and step sons cannot "marry" their step father. Just thought I would ask as the objective in heterosexual marriage is to avoid undue influence and degenerative hereditary illness; such considerations need not apply in same-sex unions.

18 September 2011 at 09:57  
Blogger Albert said...

EV,

Aquilla was also mentioned. Forget about him, did you? You know, the one Priscilla was subject to?

Not at all, but it makes no difference. You have said women cannot teach, but here the Bible shows a woman teaching:

And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

For the avoidance of all doubt (as the popes say), the Greek word translated here as "expounded" (ἐξέθεντο), is plural.

18 September 2011 at 10:11  
Blogger Albert said...

Hooker,

The Roman church has to embrace the basics of historicity – things have not always been as they are now!

May I direct you to the writings of a great Anglican who devoted himself to studying the ancient Church and its beliefs? His findings were eventually published and can be found here.

18 September 2011 at 10:18  
Blogger len said...

The 'natural' man who follows what his 'instincts tell him is in God`s eyes anything but 'natural'.
There was only one man who walked this Earth who is natural in the true sense of the word and that man is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Everyone else has an un- natural component in their life which is sin.This element (sin) changes and distorts what God intended to be 'natural' in man.Man as he exists today is NOT what God intended when he created man.
Sin has elements in it which oppose God and delude those who practice it. Sin has a 'hardening affect on the mind, will and emotions and eventually totally binds and entangles.This is the predicament(if he only realises it) of the 'natural man'.
The only hope of the fallen man is that the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will penetrate the darkness which enfolds him.

18 September 2011 at 10:23  
Blogger len said...

All the myriad of denominations are a testimony of the inability of some men to grasp simple bible truths.
Or could it be that some men have grasped the Word of God and twisted and used the Word to serve their own ends, their lust for power,wealth and position.?
God gave us His Word so that ALL could come to an understanding of the Truth, Jesus also gave us the Holy Spirit to authenticate His Word.
Now I believe you need help to misunderstand the Word of God(and there is plenty of help available.)

It is possible for ANYONE who genuinely wishes to know the Truth about God to acquire a Bible, pray to God for assistance, and to properly understand the Word of God.Persistence may be required also a willingness to discard any 'junk' or false religious teachings they have accepted as 'facts'.
This takes courage and a certain dogged determination to arrive at the truth, not for the 'faint hearted' or those who prefer to cling to their accepted 'facts and traditions'.

18 September 2011 at 10:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Andrew: "I have in mind the fact that a former live-in partner is treated in the same way as a former spouse for inheritance purposes if the couple had lived together for 2 years or more."

Is that actually true?

18 September 2011 at 10:57  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DanJo said of DoDo
"Are we going to see more of your real feelings"

You mean like this DanJo?

"
Believe me I know about many things! You'd be surprised at what I've come to understand in this world.

One thing I've learned is that sin, particularly sexual immorality, i.e objective disorder, is inherently unsatisfying and, unless controlled, tends towards greater and greater excess and perversity to produce the same effect."


DoDo and his make believe 'man of the world' alter ego does nothing but expose the sexually repressed wimp within. You can palpably feel his excitement when he types all his 'dirty detail' thoughts that emerge in his mind.

Give you a cheap thrill does it DoDo to project yourself as sinner turned saint? - he should go give himself a good scourging the hypocritical fantasist.

18 September 2011 at 11:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

:O Aww, I don't want to gang up on him. Perhaps it's just my interpretation but I'm reading a certain pride and pleasure in his past 'sins' there rather than the shame or regret that I'd expect. That's what I meant.

All that stuff about needing greater and greater excess to get the same result when one is 'disordered' is not really my experience at all. I'm thankfully past the full demands of my hormones now and life is a little calmer. But even at my top form I seem to have been a relative saint compared to Dodo.

We in the 'disordered' camp are not all buttless leather pants, oiled bodies, and dozens of partners, and I have never had any wish to be that. Really: love, companionship, emotional and financial security, underlying friendship, and regular sex is important to me as the next (straight) man.

18 September 2011 at 11:20  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Dreadnaught and DanJ0

Just so your little imaginations don't run away with you let me reveal another hidden facet of my 'alter ego'.

For the past 20 years I have worked in the field of mental health and have acquired a modicum of specialist knowledge in a range of dysfunctions, including those that are psychosexual in nature.

Would you like me to publically share my professional opinion on the two of you? Now do be careful how you answer.

18 September 2011 at 12:13  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

"All the myriad of denominations are a testimony of the inability of some men to grasp simple bible truths."

"It is possible for ANYONE who genuinely wishes to know the Truth about God to acquire a Bible, pray to God for assistance, and to properly understand the Word of God."

Do you not see the contradiction in your opinion about the path to biblical truth?

Interpretations of the 'real meaning'of God's word are legion. Remember man is open to deception and there are examples throughout history of people's 'inspiration' being from an ungodly source.

Surely Christ intended us to grow in knowledge through gathering together as a community, praying together, mutual teaching and discussion? And as Saint Paul described, we all have different gifts to bring to this.

18 September 2011 at 12:33  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Yup to all that Dan

Thems that do - do: thems that don't - don't - they like to talk about it.

18 September 2011 at 12:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Would you like me to publically share my professional opinion on the two of you? Now do be careful how you answer."

Yes please. In the technical language of the field. Thanks. This should be interesting! Or better than Gypsy Rose Lee anyway.

18 September 2011 at 12:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh crap. I've just realised, I'm supposed to be intimidated by that. Sorry! Nevermind, carry on anyway.

18 September 2011 at 12:52  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

I whole heartedly agree with your post @10:23. The bible contains all that is needed to understand the processes of sin, its immediate and longer term consequences and the cumulative disturbances it brings to individuals and communities.

Unfortunately, 'oriental' philosophies have unduly influenced Christian 'occidental' understandings of human suffering and how to resolve the misery caused by not following God's purposes for us.

18 September 2011 at 13:03  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 September 2011 at 13:07  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Dreadnaught and DanJ0

Okay then .... I'll give it some serious thought and get back to you.

However, you need to be mindful that my background is forensic. I do not adopt a nicey, nicey 'person centred', 'non-directive', non-judgemental' approach.

18 September 2011 at 13:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo

Working in Scottish mental health !! – Deep respect from the Inspector – He remembers the fly on the wall documentary series ‘Rab C Nesbitt’, and how sad it all was, barely watchable there being so much grief...

18 September 2011 at 13:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, if you were a proper mental health professional then you'd hardly be using your skills for such childish nonsense. Go and google for some terms then, you trivial little man. Sheesh.

18 September 2011 at 13:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo

"I've known some absolutely beautiful women who were predisposed towards towards other women.”

Sorry to disappoint old chap but here we go....

The scenario: A young horny flightless bird, last of his kind, waddling down the street when a beautiful woman catches his eye. He makes a bee line to her and presents himself. “Argghh” thinks said lady “ How do I get rid of this dreadful thing ?”

The Inspector has been there. In your case the ‘Lesbian’ ploy was designed to make you scramble for cover. Too much for the average male’s sensibilities. In the Inspector’s case, nothing elaborate for him, just an “Eff Off”

Lesbianism a lifestyle choice out of convenience ?? It’s certainly looking that way....

18 September 2011 at 13:38  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

The amount of hate and condemnation visible here is a clear indication of the vileness of religious belief.

So, a minority (proably between 2-5%) of men are homosexual, and a smaller number of women (probably between 1-3%) are lesbian.
So bloody what?
It has ALWAYS been that way.
Some people are like that.
Get over it.
They aren't HURTING you, or anyone.
Mind your own damned business ...
except you can't and won't, because the big imaginary sky fairy tells you different.
Gah.

18 September 2011 at 14:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

G Tingey

You’re missing the point (...and not for the first time..)...

Within these small number of deviants, there’s any even smaller hard core who are shouting ‘their rights’ like rabid dogs.

Wanting a change in the law to accommodate their perverse ideas no less !!

The only ‘rights’ this militant band have is not to be given a good kicking on sight, and even that is now up for debate in the Inspector’s book...

18 September 2011 at 14:16  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General

Now you've never seen this dedraggled old bird in his prime. I was a sight to behold, I can assure you. Besides, have you never heard the expression:

"Love enters a man through his eyes, a woman through her ears."

Read Genesis again and try to understand why Eve fell prey to Satan's cunning deceptions. Women are by nature, with some exceptions, compassionate and understanding.

That's the way God made them to be a comfort and helpmate to men. It's also why the Bible teaches caution about their abilities at discernment. Of course the spirit of 'Lilith' is abroad still and one has to be wary. There are numerous examples of her influence too in the bible.

18 September 2011 at 15:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lilith? Blimey.

18 September 2011 at 15:41  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

The Judicious Hooker says “I was recently checking out the canons of the Oecumenical Council at Nicaea and note that there was a less papal-centric view taken of episcopal jurisdictions in the fourth century.
You perhaps think that a more papal-centric view is taken now. Some Protestant children in Northern Ireland insistently told my son that the Pope considers himself to be the equal of Jesus. There are a lot of lies going about because people listen to what Protestants says about Catholics rather than going to the source. If you look at how the Catholic Church teaches about papal infallibility rather than listening to what some Protestants says it teaches you will find very little difference over 2000 years. Yes the Council of Trent was an attempt to reform recognized abuses but although a previous contributor said that Elizabeth I changed extreme position of Henry it is clear that even today the Anglican Church still has the Queen as its head. It is clear that Protestantism has also needed reforming and the Westminster Confession of Faith has still not been reformed to remove the heresy of predestination. Let’s go back a little further; was the Jewish Church at the time of Jesus perfect – no. Did he describe the leaders as whitewashed sepulchres – yes; did the great king David ensure that one of his soldiers was put in the front line of battle so that David could have his wife – yes; is the Old Testament not a Testament to flawed humanity constantly failing to live by God’s laws and being constantly being given a second chance – yes. With all that considered, Jesus still said to the Jews that they had to obey the Scribes and Pharisees because they occupied the chair of Moses. Come on Guys, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If that has been the way God has consistently dealt with his Church why do you insist he has changed his modus operandi just to give some arguments to the Protestant position? You can’t have it both ways. The faults of the Catholic Church are no worse than those of Judaism and Protestantism. The Catholic Church for all her faults has stood firm and sure on divorce, abortion, homosexuality, marriage, artificial contraception etc and getting back to the current debate are we sure that Anglicanism and other Protestant denominations are not going to capitulate yet again to the spirit of the times. They already have active ordained know active homosexual priests and bishops who gave no indication of repentance and numerous ‘marriage ceremonies’ have already been enacted. I don’t think we can be confident that Protestantism will reform and those that are well on the way are finding themselves drawn closer to the Catholic Church.

18 September 2011 at 16:08  
Blogger len said...

I think those who are 'Christian' should try and remember what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about.
Sin is quite clearly defined in the Commandments of God and surely most people have heard mention of them, or at least the basics of Gods moral Law?.
The problem with fallen man is he cannot overcome sin of his own efforts so(as is happening today ...man re-defines sin to line up with his 'fallen nature.Most modern thinkers even deny the existence of a 'fallen nature', despite all the evidence to the contrary!.

The gospel is the 'good news'and much of what is preached by 'Churchianity ' today is definitely not 'the good news'.
Jesus came to save the World not to condemn it.

'For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.'(John 3:17)

The vital fact is the 'fallen man' must come to a realisation of his total situation and the utter hopelessness of saving himself.The 'good news ' of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the fact that Jesus has done all the work necessary for the salvation of the individual.All that is required of the 'fallen man , the lost soul,is to come to a realisation that he needs to get saved, repent and turn to Christ.

The Holy Spirit will convict people of their need of a saviour but some Christians (wittingly or not) condemn people which is siding with the accuser of Humanity.

18 September 2011 at 16:25  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0 said...
"Lilith? Blimey."

No neeed for "God to blind you" as I doubt very much you'd fall for her ploys! Mind you there are male variants. Let's call them Lalith, shall we?

18 September 2011 at 16:27  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

G. Tingey said...
"The amount of hate and condemnation visible here is a clear indication of the vileness of religious belief.

Where is the hate and condemation? Is it wrong to remind people of the immorality of behaviours they consider 'natural?

18 September 2011 at 16:31  
Blogger len said...

In claiming that the pope is the “Vicar of Christ,” the Catholic Church rejects the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ’s priesthood, and grants to the pope roles that Christ Himself declared would belong to the Holy Spirit. It is therefore blasphemy to ascribe to the pope the title of “Vicar of Christ.”
........
This amongst all the other blasphemies prevalent in the Catholic Church, Islam also attempts to supplant the Holy Spirit with a man ....Mohammed.

Mohammed and the Pope both are against anti -instead of Christ.

18 September 2011 at 16:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Is it wrong to remind people of the immorality of behaviours they consider 'natural?"

I think that depends on which church one belongs to. Pragmatically, it's counter-productive I reckon. It certainly doesn't help bring me to this god to have some self-righteous numpties banging on whilst boasting about their pre-enlightenment sexual exploits I can tell you. And if it doesn't do that then what purpose does it serve? A point made by certain churches which try to limit their condemnation to their own members for their edification. I'm a bit rusty on the New Testament but isn't that a message inherent in Paul's letters?

18 September 2011 at 16:41  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanjJ0

But you engage in the debate and seek to justify homosexuality. In fact, you constantly promote it's acceptability. What can you reasonably expect?

It's time Christians stood up and promoted their perspective and bring a halt to the steam rolling of our society towards the secular views about sexuality that is undermining and devaluing marriage and family life.

18 September 2011 at 16:56  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

As I understand it, the word 'Vicar' derives from the Latin word 'vicārius and simply means representative or deputy.

How on earth is it blasphemy for the Pope to use this title?

18 September 2011 at 17:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "But you engage in the debate and seek to justify homosexuality. In fact, you constantly promote it's acceptability. What can you reasonably expect?"

I expect the religious of the more sexually-focused religions to disagree. That's fine. It suits my view that religions like the Catholic Church are primarily political organisations and should be treated like (say) the Labour Party as a result. I have already said we're in a sort of Cold War with various religions. If my argument about Paul's letters is actually correct then I also expect the religious who lecture the non-religious using terms purely internal to their religion to blush.

18 September 2011 at 17:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo

On the subject of the origin of words, the Inspector always believed ‘Cor blimey’ came from ‘God blight me’. Is he wrong ??

18 September 2011 at 18:15  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General

I believe it means 'God Blind me'. At least I was always told this when I used it as a child.

18 September 2011 at 19:27  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0, said ...
"If my argument about Paul's letters is actually correct then I also expect the religious who lecture the non-religious using terms purely internal to their religion to blush."

Now you want to be evangelised? I think that's been attempted (repeatedly) and the focus shifted to challenging your opinion.

Horses for courses.
(No reference to yesterday's discussion intended.)

18 September 2011 at 19:32  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, The term "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means "instead of." In the Catholic Church, the vicar is the representative of a higher-ranking official, with all of the same authority and power that that official has. Calling the pope the "Vicar of Christ" implies that he has the same power and authority that Christ had over the church.

Jesus does indeed predict a “vicar” in the sense of a “replacement” for His physical presence here on earth. However, this “vicar of Christ” is not a priest, high priest, bishop, or pope. The only biblical “Vicar of Christ” is the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 declares, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14:16-18 proclaims, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever — the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” The Holy Spirit is Christ’s “replacement” on the earth. The Holy Spirit is our Counselor, Teacher (John 14:26), and guide into all truth (John 16:13).

18 September 2011 at 19:33  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Len, "instead of" does not imply that the Pope has the same power as Jesus. This is the same old story - misrepresenting. Any Catholic will tell you that the power comes from God - the Trinitarian God. It may be that the power comes through someone but this does not imply that it comes from the person.

18 September 2011 at 19:43  
Blogger len said...

Shacklefree, In 1895 an article from the Catholic National said this:
The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ, Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.

18 September 2011 at 20:11  
Blogger len said...

In 2 Thess.2:4, the Antichrist is described a "antikeimenos"(translated as "opposeth"), which means one setting himself in opposition, and particularly as a rival foundation, in the place of, or against, another foundation. Now, 1 Cor.3:11 says that Jesus Christ alone is the foundation. Very significantly, the words are, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ"; and the Greek word for "laid" is "keimenon". Thus, the Antichrist usurps the place of Christ, the only true foundation!


The Canon Law in the Gloss on the Extravaganza of John XXII, AD 1316-1334, calls the Roman pontiff "Our Lord God the Pope." And this was continued in all editions of the Canon Law up to AD 1612. Martin V was addressed as: "The most holy and most blessed, who holds the celestial jurisdiction, who is Lord over all the earth...the anointed...the ruler of the universe, the father of kings, the Light of the World." During the Vatican Council, 9 January 1870, it was stated: "The Pope is Christ in office, Christ in jurisdiction and power...we bow down before thy voice, O Pius, as before the voice of Christ, the God of truth; in clinging to thee, we cling to Christ."

18 September 2011 at 20:29  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Len, I'll see if I can check up on these references. Clearly the Pope is not Jesus Christ. I can't imagine any Catholic believing that. Holding celestial jurisdiction however is similar to what is written in Matthew 16 "Whatsoever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven .. etc. Juisdiction is merely that, as a judge holds jurisdiction in a court. It does not mean the judge is the law or above the law - merely the interpreter. "Clinging to thee as we cling to Christ" is merely recognizing the authority Christ gave to the Catholic Church. However, I will try and look into this a bit more.

18 September 2011 at 20:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Now you want to be evangelised? I think that's been attempted (repeatedly) and the focus shifted to challenging your opinion."

Ah. Is that to convince other Catholics that my arguments are theologically wrong for Catholics? I'm flattered if so. If not then it's a challenge without purpose.

18 September 2011 at 21:08  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Dodo & Office of IG

There have always been same-sex attracted people, as a minority.
They are like that, it's biologically inevitable - it happens in ALL mammals, and most birds, as far as we know.
They are harmless.
LEAVE THEM ALONE : THEY ARE NOT HURTING YOU. Or anyone else actually......

Their behaviour isn't "immoral" - whom are they hurting or harming?

Why should they be given a good kicking on sight?

Many years ago, before I had a mortgage, I rode a horse a lot.
I went for a walk around the block, late one evening, still in kit.
I was nearly killed because I "was dressed funny, he must be a queer - kill him" I can tell you that losing more blood than you had to start with is not a pleasant experience.
And YOU want to repeat this?
YOU BASTARD.
Incidentally, unsuprisingly, my personality became a little "harder" after that and it cost me my first marriage.

Your example of christian love and tolerance is exactly what I would expect of such a professional hypocrite.

18 September 2011 at 22:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

G Tingey

We live in a coherent society. That means that thanks to prevailing common sense, we are not at each others throats as in some other countries that make the news.

Do you really want homosexuals to be once again the target of derision they were as recently as the 1970s ? Because that’s what going to happen if sacred marriage is sacrificed for their benefit, and it won’t just be stones being thrown at peoples houses. You had a bad experience – and it evidently has affected you. These ‘right on’ homosexual activists obviously haven’t or they wouldn’t be going down this road...

18 September 2011 at 23:28  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJo
"Ah. Is that to convince other Catholics that my arguments are theologically wrong for Catholics? I'm flattered if so. If not then it's a challenge without purpose."

No, it was my polite way of asking you to stop wittering on and to be quiet. Honestly, the 'debate' is fruitless.

You appear to have a need to be accepted. You are but your sexual practices are not.

No amount of undergraduate sociological or philosophical 'reasoning can possibly justify homosexuality to a Christian. And you refuse to accept either religious and natural law arguments against it.

18 September 2011 at 23:46  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

G Tingey

You are not seriously asking for a response to that outpouring of venom? Engage in a discussion and stop throwing abuse around.

It might help if you were more tolerant of the fact that most people believe in a God - the 'sky fairey' as you would say.

No body would defend the thugs who assaulted you.

18 September 2011 at 23:53  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Your Grace, I'm afraid things will indeed develop as you prophesize in your last paragraph...perhaps even sooner rather than later. It's hit us here in Canada and the US, with several liberal churches and large liberal Jewish congregations knuckling under fear of lawsuits, or worse (in their minds), bad publicity. This will be a battle which will indeed challenge and change your Church.

But despair not; there is always the decentralized approach, an evolutionary principle you might have to borrow from us in the Jewish Orthodox sphere. Dare I say, we have been around a little while longer and have successfully endured a few trying moments here and there, and this unimitable process of education has resulted in some remarkably Darwinian solutions which have fallen into disuse in our Dispersion, but stand ready when needed. Some of us at my shul, especially when on boring volunteer guard duty (let it stay boring) have briefly pondered what to do on the day a same sex couple arrives at our door with a sheriff and a judicial order to perform a "marriage" in one of our Orthodox synagogues. But when, not if, that day arrives, we'll have few worries. Unlike our Conservative and Reform coreligionists, we do not need big synagogues with contracted pulpit rabbis and large congregations to perform any of our life cycle ceremonies. With hundreds of already functioning stiebls, (small basement-based synagogues) and thousands of excellent non-pulpit rabbis (not that we need a rabbi to perform marriages)and knowledgable and observant individuals, we can simply close our doors to all weddings in our larger synagogues and let the NGOs and lawyers howl as loud as they wish at empty edifices. With a minyan (ten adult Jewish males) and a Torah scroll to form the minimum of a congregation, it will be no great disturbance to have the marriage ceremony in someone's living room if need be, and to then move on to a rented private hall with a called-in kosher caterer for the festivities (invariably involving single malts and tons of herring for the die-hards) where, by the way a marriage ceremony can be performed as well . Try your version of this, Your Grace both the wedding style and just as importantly, the scotch-shmaltz herring combo.

19 September 2011 at 00:02  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len said ...
"The term "vicar" comes from the Latin word vicarius, which means "instead of....Calling the pope the "Vicar of Christ" implies that he has the same power and authority that Christ had over the church."

Er ... no, not if you are suggesting the Pope considers himself higher than Christ.

Now you are redefining words to suit your argument - your 'theology' - which clearly has an earthly source and is not derived exclusively from the bible.

'Vicar' simply means a representative or deputy in the absence of the person with authority. And this authority was delegated to St Peter, as the bible clearly says, to be exercised under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Who is filling your head with this view of the Roman Catholic Church and its history? And the 'end times' theories you hold?

On whose authority do these 'prophets' speak? And, of course, they are numerous saying so many different things!

19 September 2011 at 00:22  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Avi

That's appeasement, friend.

Public refusal and the secular consequences must be the line taken by all faith groups. Let them sue. Let the Churches refuse to accept the authority of the Courts.

Protest and demonstration is not the sole preserve of those 5% who want to impose their will on the religious.

19 September 2011 at 00:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Yes, it is Dodo; we've had to do a bit of it now and then. Fight by all means, assuming you have the numbers and the public and political support...which, I'm afraid you'll find is not the case in these times. Hence, I'm presenting the worst case scenario and suggesting possible emergency measures.

On another topic, I noted a comment you made last week, possibly to me, that the Palestinian declaration of statehood is an attempt to draw Israel to the peace negotiations. If that's what you meant, I'm puzzled as to what would lead you to draw such a conclusion. The Abbas "government" has been doing everything possible to avoid negotiations. That's at least what a straight, literal reading of the official positions by Abbas and Netanyahu indicate. The present posture by the PA is in violation of the Oslo agreements, should anyone care, and in the end, Abbas's inability to hold even municipal elections and to succeed in creating a viable state (still to be funded by the EU, of course) will be his undoing, when Hamas gets into the act. It's actually Obama who mucked things up, first by picking a needless fight with Netanyahu, probably in an inept attempt to show "evehandedness," by promising impossibilities to the Pals and then, by hinting about a "Palestinian state by September." It's alright, it'll only take a few decades to fix the horrible mess that fool made.

19 September 2011 at 01:00  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 15:24 - succinct and appropriate!

19 September 2011 at 01:58  
Blogger Oswin said...

G.Tingey @ 22:44

Hm, is all that the reason why you so often appear obnoxious; or, was being 'obnoxious' the real reason for the attack upon your person?

I take it you weren't 'in the pink' and wearing a lace jabot?
My advice is to wear 'ratcatchers' every time.

Levity aside, as English Viking might say: 'suck it up' and move on.

19 September 2011 at 02:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "No, it was my polite way of asking you to stop wittering on and to be quiet. Honestly, the 'debate' is fruitless."

Jesus, Dodo, self-awareness is not your strong point I see.

19 September 2011 at 06:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You appear to have a need to be accepted. You are but your sexual practices are not."

Was that your mental health assessment, the crowning glory of your long career? Or have you given up with google on that? You'll be back to discovering bits of the Catechism on the Net and trying to argue them here then. The Just War thing was quite a surprise for you I think. You've done (actually overdone) the so-called 'disorder' thing. What's next?

19 September 2011 at 06:33  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

NO OiJ
That is what YOU appear to want.
Or don't you.
Stop weaselling.
Impossible, of course, your'e a christian, so doublethink comes naturally.

WoD
Excuse me: I gave a factual account of what happens to someone who was mistaken for an homosexual, and only just survived (thank you NHS).
I pointed out that your intolerance of a harmless minority was the problem.
Hypocrite - but then your'e a christian too!

Remember, I used to be that braionwshed - but I've escaped.

Oswin:
Tweed jacket, breeches, long socks, short boots. I'm told I didn't speak a word.
Now take your hypocrisy away as well!

19 September 2011 at 08:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

G Tingey

The Inspector notes that you suffered a brutal attack and that you lost consciousness, which maybe indicates a head injury. Could it all explain your resentment towards Christianity – maybe.

You must appreciate that Christians try to be good people. Obviously our interpretation of 'good' doesn't always meet with society's approval. Certain contributors to this site reveal a high level of Christian teaching, but that is just what it is, teaching of the ideal. The Inspector doesn’t believe that our Creator expects each of us to go around behaving as if we have a theology diploma – what would be the point of it all, as God himself might say.

Do continue to criticise the Inspector's posts if you find it gives you relief...

My best wishes to you dear fellow.

19 September 2011 at 14:32  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0 said ...
"Was that your mental health assessment, the crowning glory of your long career?

No not at all, just an observation patently obvious to anyone who has the patience to discuss this topic with you.

You use your thin grasp of sociology and philosophy to try to justify your conduct to yourself and others. Just read the lengthy attempts by Albert to help you understand the Christian perpective. I suspect, having a conscience, you know what your doing is morally wrong.

I repeat:
"You appear to have a need to be accepted. You are, but your sexual practices are not."

And, by the way, don't doubt my honesty in respect of my forensic mental health background or my understanding of Roman Catholicism. It is not me who has to scramble off to Google in search of answers, now is it?

19 September 2011 at 14:58  
Blogger MtheLondoner said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 September 2011 at 15:06  
Blogger MtheLondoner said...

I crave your indulgence if this post appears more than once - your site appers to have problems with Google Chrome.

This is a most fascinating site. I came across it searching for something else.

I have never seen so much bigotry from superficially educated people. There are a few home truths that it really would be good if you all took at deep breath and accepted.

1. We already have gay marriage in all but name. People in civil partnerships have exactly the same right as heterosexually married couples. That pass was sold when the Civil Partnership Act was passed by an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons in 2004. Therefore extending the word marriage to the civilly partnered will cost the country nothing in tax revenues foregone. In any event, everyone calls my civil partner my husband, as indeed for all practical and social purposes he is. It will be nice to swap the official name of CP to marriage, but principally in our case for the sake of another party, as we are already committed to a lifelong exclusive monogamous relationship.

2 The comments of some on this site that such as relationship as ours is deviant or worse is offensive and frankly a bit silly. I am a lawyer and my husband is a primary school teacher: and I have yet to hear my clients or colleagues or my husband's staff, pupils or parents complain in the slightest degree about our relationship, which I can assure you is as public a one as it would be if we each had a wife.

3 This issue is nothing to do with religion, at its heart. This is not a Christian country (please see the recent judgements of the High Court and Court of Appeal in the "gay foster carers" and the "sex counsellor" cases, which make that clear).

4 The majority of heterosexual marriages in this country (67% of marriages for the last year for which figures are available were not on religious premises, ie registry offices or stately homes or the like), so the C of E or worse still the Catholics have no monopoly on marriage.

5 Civilised Commonwealth countries like Canada have had marriage equality ("gay marriage") for years and the sky has so far not fallen. Nor, more importantly as you see to think it affected, the birth rate.

6. There is an argument that the Government's refusal to allow religious marriages for gay people ids an act of religious discrimination against non-Orthodox Jews, Quakers, the URC and others who wish to conduct them. But that is a battle for them to fight.

Please digest the above facts and then consider seriously whether this battle is one you can really win. Would it not be better to work with the Government (which has more than enough votes to pass this legislation by the way) to establish the right (if you want it) to establish your bigotry by refusing to officiate at non-heterosexual marriage ceremonies, rather than a fight which is more or less inevitably going to be lost?

19 September 2011 at 15:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

MtheLondoner

Yet another sexual deviant comes to the fray – that’s all we need.

Can’t you people get it into your heads that yours is a mere sideshow in the story of humanity. Gays are no longer persecuted for their ways, and in return have thankfully stopped meeting in public toilets.

But that’s not enough is it ? You want to force your quite unappealing nature to the fore. Why, for God’s sake ? Exhibitionism ?

Please stay out of our churches, and we won’t distribute AIDs leaflets in your gay clubs...

19 September 2011 at 16:35  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Office of Inspector General,

His Grace has no idea what church it is which embraces you (or you embrace), but perhaps it ought to eject you on the same grounds by which you seek to bar homosexuals.

19 September 2011 at 16:43  
Blogger Oswin said...

G. Tingey @ 08:10 :

Hypocrisy??? Just a little 'fashion' advice, is all.

Tweed Jacket good; britches good. Long socks and short boots - never!

Jodhpurs and short boots are acceptable, but can look just a tad 'dinky' on a man. The addition of leather 'gaiters' tend to off-set this possibility. ;o)

19 September 2011 at 16:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace / MtheLondoner

Please forgive the most important of omissions:

to have read “Please let Gay Marriage stay out of our churches...”

The humblest of apologies...

19 September 2011 at 17:08  
Blogger Oswin said...

MtheLondoner @ : 15:14

The ''superficially educated'' ?

I'm not in agreement with some of the more extreme attitudes expressed here; but really, you cannot justify that old sprout of an argument. As a 'put-down' it just doesn't wash any more; excepting when true, that is.

It's best not to confuse 'fashionable thought' with/for wisdom, or educational attainment.

19 September 2011 at 17:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Your Grace,

Admittedly the Inspector's apparently accidental omission can be deemed quite harsh and even offensive, but what of MtheLondoner's "Would it not be better to work with the Government ... to establish the right (if you want it) to establish your bigotry by refusing to officiate at non-heterosexual marriage ceremonies..."?

Having figuratively crossed swords with the Inspector on a few occasions, I would guess that it was the peevish and threatening tone of an agressive and entitlement-assured lawyer who one might easily imagine has cowed his/her colleagues into a pretended acceptance of his/her "marriage" which nudged the Inspector over the proverbial top.

19 September 2011 at 17:27  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Avi Barzel,

His Grace can no longer be bothered to engage with those who obligingly establish the immutable veracity of Cranmer's Law

19 September 2011 at 17:34  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Indeed, Your Grace, and the immutable veracity of Cranmer's Law which, if you recall, I was the first to exhibit in a dialogue with the very same Inspector, no less, was once again empirically established within a single post by MtheLondoner. Not wishing to dismiss the gravity of my own transgression which was, nevertheless, directed specifically at an individual in the heat of an argument, I would like to point out that MtheLondoner's broad brush tars millions of individuals and scores of traditional religious institutions.

19 September 2011 at 17:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi

The omission was genuine – “It’s God's truth mate” to coin a phrase...

You are right in as much as I go for the throat of lawyers – nowadays, the smuggest and self serving of all the professions. Worse than politicians...

19 September 2011 at 17:59  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I believe you, Inspector; although the way I read your offending sentence was in the context of rejecting obnoxious, legalistic ciphers who have turned themselves into human versions of the small print on the back of business forms.

19 September 2011 at 18:11  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

MtheLondoner said...
"I have never seen so much bigotry from superficially educated people. There are a few home truths that it really would be good if you all took at deep breath and accepted.

For a lawyer you are very free and imprecise with your use of language. And, if you don't mind my saying so, your observations are a tad conceited, self-centred and self-obsessed.

No one has questioned your secular right to lead a homosexual lifestyle or the legality of civil partnerships. What is disputed is the use of the title "marriage" for such unions and the suggestion these should be conducted in a Church.

In the eyes of most Christians this would be a perverted, bizarre parody of a Divinely instituted relationship between a man and a woman.

You have failed to address any of these points in your rush to accuse those opposed to religious ceremonies for such unions as bigots. Do you deny Christians their rights to practice their faith without the intrusion of the civil law on a question of freedom of religion and the exercise of conscience?

What is “marriage”?

For a Christian marriage is according to the purpose of God. At the heart of God's design for marriage is companionship and intimacy between a man and a woman.

“Have you not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Marriage is a Sacrament ordained by God for a man and a woman. It is not a civil ceremony. The State has no authority over it.

The marriage is the contract itself, the promises made before God to one another in the presence of a priest.

It is a union of opposite sexes.
It is a lifelong union.
It excludes a union with any other person so long as the marriage exists.
Its purpose is the transmission of life, mutual support and love.


"Homosexual marriage" is just not compatible with the very meaning of the term marriage.

19 September 2011 at 18:12  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

Do I have your leave to use the term 'bigot' in future against those who I think might be attacking Roman Catholicism?

It's so much easier than having to think about their views and engaging in a discussion. Insulting them also and makes one feel so much better.

19 September 2011 at 18:20  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oswin, methinks MthLondoner uses the term "education" in the way old Joe Stalin would hav used it.

19 September 2011 at 18:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi (19 September 2011 18:11)

Yes, MtheLondoner did ‘get my goat’.

Let’s hope he can answer the responses he has generated, and not be a ‘post and run’ blogger.

19 September 2011 at 18:43  
Blogger Oswin said...

Avi : Quite so.

One might, and one does, occasionally call into question another's sanity; but it is base-mannered and boorish, to make reference to another's educational standing.

Anyhows, he strikes me as being a bit of a pompous prick, all told.

19 September 2011 at 19:03  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

'

19 September 2011 at 19:13  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Len, I was concerned not to delay too long so here is my response. You mentioned that the gloss on the extravaganza calls the Roman pontiff "Our Lord God the Pope." If so (and I defer to your knowledge) it is unacceptable and inexplicable to me and perhaps a product of medieval thought. Fortunately as you say it was a gloss. However, I do not and no Catholic I knows would accept it. The language in the other editions you mention are also very much over the top. I went to the Catechism and I have copied a few passages which I think give a better description more in keeping with modern thought.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls"
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is … ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church." But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.
I very much respect your knowledge and appreciate your contributions but bearing in mind the way the world is and the widely diverse opinions on this blog from decent people it is clear to me that Jesus was right to establish a visible authority on Earth. It doesn’t mean the Pope is guaranteed salvation and clearly there are a number who by now are rueing their actions and arrogance. The other thing I find compelling are the miracles. Some miracles are clearly individual and appear in all Christians denominations but the ones which confirm institutions as opposed to individuals all point to the Catholic Church as far as I can see. Previously I mentioned the stigmata of Padre Pio as one recent example.

19 September 2011 at 19:14  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector,

Better "post-and-run" than "post-and-litigate," I'll say. Do you have an all-reaching cangaroo court like the Human Rights Commissions we have here in "enlightened Canada"?

Oswin,

Seeing how we have someone who claims to be a lawyer hovering about, perhaps keeping your descriptives gender-neutral, as in "a pompous genital" might be the better option. I suspect though, that anyone who claims to be a lawyer married to a teacher while disparaging others' education on his first posting is, in real life, most likely a single traffic court paralegal living in mom's basement, daydreaming about pairing up with someone with a job and a pension. Not that there is anything wrong with being single, a paralegal, living in basements or daydreaming, of course.

19 September 2011 at 19:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi

”Do you have an all-reaching cangaroo court like the Human Rights Commissions we have here in "enlightened Canada"? “

Worse than that, we have the European Court of Human rights !

Makes the Inspector wonder if the Nuremburg trials would have taken place, had they been around then. Believe me, we were all better off when we didn't have any ‘rights’ and common sense prevailed...

19 September 2011 at 20:01  
Blogger MtheLondoner said...

@"inspector General"

When I have finished my work, much later tonight, I shall be happy to respond more fully - in the meantime, while i regret the use of the term "bigot" I do ask you very seriously to consider how the word "deviant" might appear to me.

And, by the way, I am what I say I am.

19 September 2011 at 20:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

MtheLondoner said...

" I do ask you very seriously to consider how the word "deviant" might appear to me.”

It’s the OED definition the Inspector goes for. You have to understand at less then 5% of the population, your sexual preferences are just that. Rather clinical, but there you go.

Be seeing you...

19 September 2011 at 20:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Please stay out of our churches, and we won’t distribute AIDs leaflets in your gay clubs..."

You could probably get some help from gay people to distribute the HIV leaflets.

19 September 2011 at 21:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector can’t see church folk getting any closer than the entrance DanJ0, we’d NEED gay help to bring them in...

19 September 2011 at 21:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You use your thin grasp of sociology and philosophy to try to justify your conduct to yourself and others. Just read the lengthy attempts by Albert to help you understand the Christian perpective."

You seem to like peeping out from behind Albert's coat tails. No doubt you feel quite safe there.

"I suspect, having a conscience, you know what your doing is morally wrong."

Dodo, you're a troll. Albeit a relatively harmless one.

"And, by the way, don't doubt my honesty in respect of my forensic mental health background or my understanding of Roman Catholicism."

I think you're full of shite about the mental health thing. At best, you probably push trolleys around in a hospital. Your attempt to bring that expertise into it was in all honestly laughable. As for Roman Catholic, it's not the understanding but the fact that I doubt. I know I often poke fun at the self-identifying Christians who clearly display nothing of the Holy Spirit here but I actually think you're a fairly subtle troll who has adopted a position and style just to wind up the blog owner and the evangelicals. Really, I do. I know that other people have spotted your carefully worded goads to the other religious here too. It's not that it's not funny sometimes, seeing bulls chasing red-rag, but you're over-playing your part a bit now I think.

19 September 2011 at 21:42  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0

Denial is a terrible condition. It eats away at one's soul or, in modern parlance, one's subconscience. Research the term and give serious consideration to it's applicability to you. And do try to stop your rather juvenile attacks on me. What's the matter, didn't your Daddy understand you?

For the record, I repeat, I stand by the Roman Catholic Church and it's teachings and authority. I regard it as the one true Church of Christ that has alone stood firm on the great moral challenges of our age and I am a faithful and committed member.

MtheLondoner

The sexual behaviour of homosexuals deviates from what Christians for 2000 years have considered acceptable in the sight of God and before them Judaism held these views for 3000 years. These views are founded on a solid theology and scriptural basis.

Deviant sexual behaviour involves any sexual gratification outside of that occurring naturally between a man and woman. Of course it applies to hetrosexual couples when the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another are involved. Anal or oral gratification, or the invasion of the anus or vagina of one person by a foreign object manipulated by another person, would also be included. As would the use of chemical stimulants.

These acts are considered to be a perversion of what Christians to see as natural acts of self giving love and human intimacy within married life.

Old fashioned? It would appear so nowadays. Do you want orthodox Jews and Christians to change their language to reframe these deviant and perverted behaviours as 'normal'? What on earth shall we call them?

19 September 2011 at 23:42  
Blogger MtheLondoner said...

I think the inspector is too fond of insults to warrant further discourse. Dodo, I will attempt to answer you at some length. I hope that I will not make a mess of the html.

For a lawyer you are very free and imprecise with your use of language. And, if you don't mind my saying so, your observations are a tad conceited, self-centred and self-obsessed.

Feel free to revert on spcific allegations of imprecision. As to being self obsessed, what I was trying to indicate that many gay married couples (my husband and I for exmaple) are perfectly normal ordinalry people who provide you with services, sell you things, provide your public services and teach your children. Clearly that failed!

No one has questioned your secular right to lead a homosexual lifestyle or the legality of civil partnerships.

Well, I am pleased to see we have moved on from the rows in 2004.

What is disputed is the use of the title "marriage" for such unions and the suggestion these should be conducted in a Church.

Two issues: the name and the conduct of mariages in church.

As to the name I commend to you this article by Grame Archer on the site of your favourite newspaper:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/graemearcher/100105513/why-was-gay-marriage-the-right-thing-to-do-i-love-and-i-am-loved-simple/

I love and I am loved. Simple. Very moving and I relate to that.

Marriage is not the preserve of the religious and has not been since the supreme power of the state (Sovereign, Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled) set up civil marriage nearly 200 years ago. Since then the state has "redefined marriage" to include allowing divorced persons to remarry; deceased wives' sisters to marry said wives' widows, etc.

The definition of marriage rests very squarely in the hands of the Queen in Parliament, not in any church.

[Post split because too long. This is part one.]

20 September 2011 at 00:32  
Blogger MtheLondoner said...

[part two]

We then come to the issue of marriage in churches (include in that synagogues, mosques etc.). actually no-one is intending for force you. Why on earth a gay couple would want to get married in a church which didn't want them I have no idea. Please come back to this when you can find an example of a church being forced to marry a divorcee against her will.

It does seem to me unfair that liberal Jews and Quakers the URC, pagans and others who want to conduct marriages should not be allowed to conduct gay marriages in the same way as they conduct straight ones if they want to. But in a sense that is not my battle.

In the eyes of most Christians this would be a perverted, bizarre parody of a Divinely instituted relationship between a man and a woman.

For "most" read "some". Certainly not the ones I associate with. I had the privilege of meeting Canon Giles Fraser a little while ago. Certainly not him!

I remind you again that even if every Christian in the country took that somewhat extreme view that still would not entitle them to insist that the state define marriage on their terms. The law of the land is otherwise. and two-thirds of the population prefer a secular to a religious marriage.

Here are some useful quotations for the senior judiciary on the degree to which this is or is not a Christian country:-

Lord Justice Laws (the McFarlane case):

"The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot ... be justified; it is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion, any belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.

"So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious beliefs. Equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials."

Lord Justice Laws is a practising Anglican.

Lord Justice Munby (the Johns case):

"We sit as secular judges serving a multi-cultural community of many faiths. We are sworn (we quote the judicial oath) to 'do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.'

"But the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form. The aphorism that 'Christianity is part of the common law of England' is mere rhetoric; at least since ... [1917] it has been impossible to contend that it is law."

(my emphasis)

Therefore, what Christianity thinks, or some Christians think, about the definition of marriage is only one input among many to the legal concept. Your rights are to rail against the concept in public and to treat it as null within your own Grundnorms (subject of course to the overriding obligation to obey the law as to discrimination, which does NOT force you to marry people in churches you do not want to marry)

20 September 2011 at 00:39  
Blogger MtheLondoner said...

[third and final part]


Do you deny Christians their rights to practice their faith without the intrusion of the civil law on a question of freedom of religion and the exercise of conscience?

Christians and all other believers and non-believers have the right to practise (or not practise) their faith in the sense of attending services freely and proselytizing. Religious doctrine cannot be used as an excuse to disobey the equality or any other law (see the passages cited above and the case of the gay couple refused a double bed in Cornwall). I think that that strikes the right balance between the right to manifest belief and the rights of the general population to be treated equally.

"Homosexual marriage" is just not compatible with the very meaning of the term marriage.

That is what some Christians think. The legislature will determine.

And so to bed.

20 September 2011 at 00:40  
Blogger MtheLondoner said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 September 2011 at 00:46  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older