Thursday, November 24, 2011

Church of England rejects Cameron’s ‘British Bill of Rights’

Okay, it’s not Lambeth Palace: it isn’t even the House of Bishops; it’s the Church’s ‘Mission & Public Affairs Council’. But it’s sufficient to merit another Church v State spat (along with Welfare reform, Education reform, and ‘gay marriage’). It’s strange that a coalition of expedience forged as a marriage of convenience with the primary economic raisons d’être of tackling the deficit and paying down the debt should so irk the Lords Spiritual.

The whole statement is reproduced below. It is not without significance that they conclude a British Bill of Rights is absurd (they have channeled His Grace on some points), not least because of its superfluity in the context of our obligations under the provisions of the ECHR (to which the Attorney General is wed). It is, however, utterly baffling (for a Church response) that the Council nowhere refers to the fact that we already have a Bill of Rights (1689) which enshrines our liberties, defines the limitations of the Executive, and inextricably binds the process of government to the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law.
DO WE NEED A UK BILL OF RIGHTS?

Response to the Discussion Paper from the Commission on a Bill of Rights
by the Mission & Public Affairs Council of the Church of England


The Mission & Public Affairs Council of the Church of England is the body responsible for overseeing research and comment on social and political issues on behalf of the Church. The Council comprises a representative group of bishops, clergy and lay people with interest and expertise in the relevant areas, and reports to the General Synod through the Archbishops’ Council.

(1) Do you think we need a UK Bill of Rights?

1. Our answer to this question is a clear “No”. We find the proposal set out in the first of the Commission’s Terms of Reference puzzling in a number of respects. First, the stipulation that a UK Bill of Rights would “incorporate and build on” all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights raises the question of the meaning of “building on” ECHR obligations and how this would operate. Second, it is unclear what is meant by the function of “ensuring that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law” and how this would be achieved. Third, it is unclear how a Bill of Rights would “protect and extend our liberties”.

2. Human rights law is shaped by the interplay between the sovereignty of Parliament in enacting legislation, the obligations to which the UK is committed as a result of ratification of the European Convention in 1951, and the interpretation and enforcement of Convention rights by the domestic courts under the 1998 Human Rights Act. It is difficult to see how a UK Bill of Rights would materially add value to this already complex framework; indeed it would risk adding further confusion, not least for those whom it was designed to benefit.

3. If a Bill of Rights merely “incorporated” ECHR obligations, it would appear to be superfluous. If it added to ECHR obligations, the status of those additional rights would be problematic. They would not constitute international obligations constraining domestic legislation, and even if the provisions of the Bill were entrenched, it is unclear how the courts and Parliament would deal with a finding of incompatibility between the Bill of Rights and other domestic legislation.

4. It is also unclear what rights would be selected to “build on” those contained in the European Convention. There is an argument for parsimony and restraint in identifying human rights as distinct from civil, political and economic rights. The defining characteristic of human rights is that they claim universal scope: rights to life, liberty, privacy, a fair trial, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of expression and freedom of association can be seen to apply to all societies. Social and economic rights, crucial though they are, cannot be categorised and enforced in the same way as a human right applicable to all people in virtue of their humanity.

5. If, on the other hand, the Bill of Rights reduced or limited ECHR obligations, there would be a straightforward situation of incompatibility. Since the Attorney General has recently stated that the UK has no intention of repudiating the European Convention, the option of attenuating its provisions has already (rightly, in our view) been closed off. Yet there is a sense that part of the political impetus behind the proposal for a Bill of Rights is a wish to loosen the constraints imposed upon UK legislation and policy by the operation of the Convention. This evades the awkward complication that adherence to the Convention is integrally related to the UK’s membership not only of the Council of Europe, but of the European Union through the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6(2) and 6(3) of the Treaty of Lisbon which effectively incorporate the ECHR into European Union law.

6. The Prime Minister has previously spoken of “a British Bill of Rights”, but it is clear that this could not be “a Bill of (restricted) British Rights” without withdrawal from the Convention. It is disturbing that many MPs and members of the public seem to think that repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act would reduce the scope of the UK’s human rights obligations. This ignores the fact that the effect of the Act is simply to make enforceable in domestic courts the Convention rights which have been operative since 1951 and of which individuals have had the right to seek enforcement through the Court in Strasbourg since the 1960s.

7. Since the European Convention was ratified in 1951 and has been enforceable in UK courts since 1998, it is difficult to give any meaning to the suggestion that a Bill of Rights would ensure that Convention rights would continue to be enshrined in UK law. The Convention is already enshrined in UK law, and the proposal for a Bill of Rights to reinforce it comes dangerously close to what the Book of Common Prayer terms “vain repetition”.

8. If, on the other hand, it is intended that the Bill of Rights should entrench additional obligations, it is unclear how this would be effective given the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament, having enacted the Bill of Rights, would always be free to amend or even repeal it, unless it also enacted some kind of self-limiting provision. However, in the absence of a written constitution, no Parliament can bind its successors. Therefore, a Bill of Rights would be at best declaratory. In many contexts, declarations can have value, but not where there is already a large and complex corpus of law.

9. The rhetoric of “protecting and extending” our liberties through a Bill of Rights is problematic for much the same reasons as are set out above in relation to “incorporating and building on” our obligations under the Convention. The function of “protecting” is either unintelligible or futile for the reason given in para. 7. The function of “extending” is incoherent for the reasons given in paras. 3 and 4.

10. The claim that the UK needs a Bill of Rights is therefore highly implausible and illogical. This raises the question why such a proposal is being advanced by the coalition Government. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the proposal is being supported by the parties in the coalition for diametrically opposite reasons. For one party, the appeal seems to be the (false) assumption that a Bill of Rights would confer a degree of independence from the European Convention and the European Court, a means of combating what many describe as “human rights gone mad.” For the other party, it seems to be a rhetorical way of burnishing their credentials as champions of human rights and civil liberties.

11. Clearly these sets of objectives are incompatible. While compromise and ambiguity are inevitable in the management of a coalition, it cannot be right on a subject as important as this to contemplate legislating when the logical case for what is proposed simply does not exist.

Because of a negative answer to question (1), questions (2) and (3) on the content and application of a Bill of Rights are not relevant.

(4) Having regard to our terms of reference, are there any other views which you would like to put forward at this stage?



12. Having regard to the second of the terms of reference, there would be value in the Commission “examining the operation and implementation of these obligations”. We have expressed the view that there is widespread ignorance and misunderstanding both of the European Convention and the Human Rights Act. An informed and expert assessment of the impact of human rights law should help to dispel myths and prejudices.

13. Our expectation is that such an assessment would reveal that unacceptable and anomalous interpretations of human rights originate, not so much from the provisions of the Convention or the decisions of the courts, but from ill-judged statements and actions by politicians and public authorities. This would also contribute towards the aim of “promoting a better understanding of the scope of these obligations and liberties”.

14. Having regard to the third of the terms of reference, we believe that some of the concerns driving the demand for a UK Bill of Rights would be met by appropriate reforms of the operation of the European Court of Human Rights. In his ministerial statement of 18th March 2011, Mr Mark Harper, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, said, “We will be pressing in particular to reinforce the principle that states rather than the European Court of Human Rights have the primary responsibility for protecting Convention rights”.

15. It is difficult to know what to make of this, as both the Court and states have a role in “protecting” Convention rights at present. If “protection” is taken to include interpretation of the meaning and application of the Convention, this would seem to usurp the function of the Court and to weaken the binding force of the Convention on national governments – though it must be conceded that the practical consequences of a declaration of incompatibility between domestic law and practice and the provisions of the Convention remain somewhat unclear.

16. A better way forward might be increased use by the European Court of the “margin of appreciation”, whereby variations in the application of the Convention are allowed in view of the diverse history, traditions and institutions of different states. This might, for example, have taken the heat out of the Court’s judgment on the voting rights of prisoners in the UK in the Hirst case, which is a major cause of present discontent in Parliament with human rights law. At any rate, reform of the operation of the European Court of Human Rights and its relation to national courts is a more logical and promising way of dealing with difficulties in the system than the introduction of a UK Bill of Rights.


Dr P J Giddings November 2011
Chair, Mission and Public Affairs Council
Church House
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3AZ

41 Comments:

Blogger IanPJ said...

Yet another major body talks and discusses a subject without referral to the fact that we ALREADY HAVE a Bill of Rights.

This entire discussion is a smokescreen, designed for one purpose and one purpose alone, to allow the legal introduction of Corpus Juris as our basis for law, thereby removing one of the most stubborn obstacles for further integration into the EU, the disposal of our centuries old Common Law.

When will people start to see this 'discussion' for what it is.

http://www.parker-joseph.com/pjcjournal/2011/08/07/echr-british-bill-of-rights-a-smokescreen/

24 November 2011 at 08:36  
Blogger martin sewell said...

I am reluctantly moving towards the view that there is no alternative but to embrace the American practice of having political confirmation hearings for the appointment of the senior Judiciary who rule on these matters.

There is a school of Jurisprudence called the American Realists which identified that there comes a point in Judicial activism when the Judges have ceased to be interpreting text and have moved into applying their own “Higher Principles” which is effectively legislating.

Thus in the USA we have seen Judges elevate abortion from a crime, to a Constitutional Right on the fiction that Jefferson Franklin Adams and Hamilton had intended to enshrine freedom to undertake such a practice in the text of the Constitution, and done so by implication, but foolishly neglected to make their intention clear. This lacuna was appropriate for the Judges to remedy. For a time, they took similar views on Capital Punishment.

In the UK we see Judges undertaking a similar exercise over prisoner voting rights.

That which could not be achieved through the ballot box is legislated via radical lawyers incrementally pushing the interpretation and relying on the complicity of judicial activism.

Liberals ( or perhaps more properly “Radical Progressives”) have applied Gramscian principles to capture the commanding cultural heights; the media( especially the BBC) and Academia; the Law is no exception and it is no coincidence that as the 60’s generation has acquired seniority, so its radical attitudes have permeated Institutions.

The American Realists taught ‘-”If you want to know what Courts will do, don’t look at the legal texts - look at the Judges and their values”

As the C of E document suggests, the “wiggle room” which allows Judges to opt in or out of granting such prisoner voting rights etc, is called the “ margin of appreciation.” It confers a qualified degree of local discretion/ variability ( The Higher Court is the ultimate arbiter).

If Judges are exercising such judicial legislative discretion, it seems only proper that they, their judicial history, their politics, prejudices and foibles are considered in advance by those who are elected to make laws. At least this retains some tenuous degree of delegated democratic mandate.

It is a sad end to a history of less politically active Judges but this is the inevitable outcome of Labour having hitched itself - and us - to Mrs Blair’s HRA gravy train.

24 November 2011 at 09:16  
Blogger David said...

Surely, one of the (hidden) agendas behind the wish to create a British Bill of Rights is to supersede and annul the existing English Bill of Rights (1689). In this sense, it is part of the same agenda that would 'reform' the Acts of Settlement and Succession: tending ultimately towards the disestablishment of the CoE, and the uncoupling of the British state from the English Protestant settlement - turning it into a secular Britain rather than a continuation of the historic Christian kingdom of England, which is what it essentially is at present.

24 November 2011 at 10:31  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Ian PJ has it
The Bill of Rights of 1689-90 is the one that STILL MATTERS

24 November 2011 at 12:15  
Blogger DP111 said...

David

Precise comment. Thanks.
-----------------
If there are to be judges that legislate, however tangentially, they too must be held responsible to the electorate. They along with chief constables and the CEO of the CPA, must stand for election every 4 years say.

24 November 2011 at 13:59  
Blogger Jon said...

"It is, however, utterly baffling (for a Church response) that the Council nowhere refers to the fact that we already have a Bill of Rights (1689) which enshrines our liberties, defines the limitations of the Executive, and inextricably binds the process of government to the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law."

YG, maybe they didn't refer to it because they were hoping no one would notice it? Then if they could torpedo a new one, our rights would still be wedded to reformed Protestantism?

24 November 2011 at 14:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

Nasty things are rights. You have to be very careful with them. Fortunately, our freedom loving forbears of 300 years ago worked ours out for us. Just like Hovis, they are as good now as they have ever been. What we certainly don’t need are EU Human rights twaddle. They do things differently on the continent. Half of it makes no sense to this one. The pre EU situation was common sense. Decent honest folk had all the rights they needed, and conversely those who had some of theirs taken away, prisoners for example, thoroughly deserved it !

Now, we can’t send convicted criminal illegal immigrants home in case their ‘rights’ are infringed…(note the earlier qualifiers ‘decent’ and ‘honest’). Gypsies were very nearly granted the right to ignore UK law. Evil murderers who have deprived others of their human rights by ending their existence are told they may not be locked away for life after all.

And if we do have a ‘new’ set, it will only encourage the constant adding to them. So what can we expect: The right to view on line paedophilia filth. The right for prostitutes to tout for business anywhere. The right to be subject to Sharia law. Maybe even the right to bugger under 16s…

24 November 2011 at 17:55  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Blame the Englightenment and the deist, anti-Christian Jefferson and friends for the notion of rights as 'citizens' rather than the Christian approach of love and mutual responsibility.

24 November 2011 at 20:16  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Or

The Glorious Revolution ;

1688 Glorious Revolution
1689 English Bill of Rights drafted

The reestablished monarchy had clear limits placed on its absolute power, however, as was made clear by the people in the bloodless Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which the English people overthrew a king they deemed unacceptable and basically chose their next rulers.
The revolution occurred because Charles II’s son, James II, was an overt Catholic, which did not sit well with the predominantly Protestant public.
The English people rallied behind James II’s Protestant daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange, who led a nonviolent coup that dethroned James II and sent him to France.
When William and Mary ascended the throne, they effectively ended the Catholic monarchy and the idea of divine right.
In the years that followed, an English Bill of Rights was drafted, boosting parliamentary power and personal liberties.

Huzzah!

However, that naughty tinkering cad, call me 'Dave' Cameron, who will blunder in where even Blair and Brown feared to tread, obviously has nothing better to do so...?

Ernst S Blofeld

24 November 2011 at 22:51  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Ernsty
An interesting account of an act of treason against the lawful King. Popula uprising indeed! Bloodless? And to think a small group of men with financial interests persuaded so many Bishops to break their oath to God of loyalty to the King. Only a few brave Bishops with integrity resisted.

A glorious foundation indeed for both Church and State in England - treason and the breaking of oaths. The Bible tells us what such a nation can expect!

24 November 2011 at 23:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Doddy

A very interesting take by yourself?

"An interesting account of an act of treason against the lawful King." Not much difference then with the dethroning or placing of kings on thrones by popes on a whim for which there is no biblical authority to do in the New Testament.

"treason and the breaking of oaths." An age old Roman Catholic motto in action regarding Christ, The King of Kings, perhaps? The Bible tells us what such a religion can expect!

Ernst.

25 November 2011 at 01:24  
Blogger len said...

First create the 'problem' then come up with the 'solution.'
And the solution always involves gaining more power for the 'solution provider'.

25 November 2011 at 08:02  
Blogger Roy said...

You would think that it would have occurred to one of the bishops in the Church of England that there is a parallel between the Act of Supremacy in 1534 rejecting Papal authority of the Church of England and demands that British law should take priority over foreign laws.

25 November 2011 at 09:26  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Ernsty
A bit of shoe shuffling old chap and at your age too! Since you didn't answer the points made one may assume safely you agree with them.

The facts are that James was the lawful King of England, Scotland and Ireland, and actually not an over zealous 'Papist'; certain vested interests were about to lose a nice source of ready income from plundering the assets of the Catholic Church and losing standing and committed treason by "inviting" William to "invade"; and the majority of Bishops broke their oaths of allegiance before God to their rightful Sovereign.

Shocking behaviour all round and nothing "Glorious" about it.

25 November 2011 at 13:33  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dear Doddy

"Since you didn't answer the points made one may assume safely you agree with them. "
Read again, me duckie..

"treason and the breaking of oaths." An age old Roman Catholic motto in action regarding Christ, The King of Kings, perhaps? The Bible tells us what such a religion can expect!" Take it that Christ has no legal Sovereign claim over Rome and documentation can be shown that claims absolution from His King and Lordship?

(1 Samuel 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. Did God also have popes in mind when He stated this regarding the wishes of 'loyal' RC's?)

"Shocking behaviour all round and nothing "Glorious" about it." Indeed, starting from around 300 AD within those seven hills on the other side of the Tiber, up to the present."Shocking behaviour all round" if all means ALL but Ernst doubts you mean this!

Ernst

25 November 2011 at 14:02  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Ernsty
Evasion, evasion, evasion.

We're discussing the treason of the greedy and oath breaking of Bishops in 1688, not 300 AD or Matthew 16 - or is this escaping your attention?

Do stay on subject, old boy.

25 November 2011 at 15:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“Do stay on subject, old boy.” 25 November 2011 15:12

I say Blofeld, our man has had to put you in your place again. Joyous to watch don’t you know, joyous to watch…

25 November 2011 at 17:15  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Inspector
These 'born againers' can be terribly difficult to pin down at times and dear Blowfish is a past master at it.

25 November 2011 at 17:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Daffy Doddy ssssaid

Emotion, Emotion, Emotion!

"We're discussing the treason of the greedy and oath breaking of Bishops in 1688, not 300 AD or Matthew 16 - or is this escaping your attention?"
The seed of 1688-1689 was laid with the formation of the Holy Roman Catholic and it's detrimental impact on the live of christians in this country as much as the inevitability of WWII was laid by the seed of The Treaty of Versailles on 28th June 1919.

Ernst is ALWAYS on subject, me ssssilly old duckie!

Ernst

ps

Matthew 16:22-23, perhaps??

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and SAID UNTO PETER, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest NOT the things that be of God, but THOSE that be of men.

"I say Blofeld, our man has had to put you in your place again. Joyous to watch don’t you know, joyous to watch…" You wish * Huge Guffaw*!

pps Ooig

Making a comment on Ernst's ability is a bit like p*&&*ng down your leg. It seems pretty hot to you but never to anyone else, what! Literary 'stilted incontinence' must be a terrible affliction, old chap. *Chortling uncontrollably*

25 November 2011 at 18:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld. Well done that man, you made the Inspector smile.

25 November 2011 at 18:45  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ooig


"you made the Inspector smile."

Trust it was not because of Literary 'stilted flatulence' *sniggers to self*

Ernst

25 November 2011 at 19:21  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Ernsty

Or maybe verse 27:

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works."

Peter showed love for Jesus not fully comprehending the nature of His mission. He also drew his sword in the Garden, attempting to intervene to save His life. Then, in a state of despair and cowardice, he denied Jesus.

Even knowing Peter's flaws, his pecabilities, He called him Blessed and said to him:

"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Christ understood His Church was human and would be assailed by sinful men and by false doctrines. But what a wonderful promise to the Apostolic Church!

The protestant reformation is not an episode I would boast too much about. At best, in my opinion, it was a necessary evil to correct the levels of human corruption that had entered the Church.

25 November 2011 at 20:30  
Blogger len said...

A 'Church' built on Peter would have a very shaky foundation.

Guess what? it does!.

25 November 2011 at 21:25  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

len
I'll leave you to take that issue up with God. Okay?

25 November 2011 at 21:42  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, God has already made His position clear with numerous scriptures on who the 'Rock' is even Peter said the' Rock' is Christ.

'and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ." (1 Pet. 2:8 ...)

26 November 2011 at 07:51  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

len
Of course - but He left Peter and Apostles to build His church until His return.

As I said, take this up with God. Peter was human - that's the point of Matthew 16. Despite being blessed he made mistakes and was tempted by Satan to undermine Christ's mission, until infused with the Holy Spirit when he came into his own.

2000 years later and the church built on Peter's stewardship and that of his successors, remains vibrant despite sinful men. Have you actually studied the Acts of the Apostles? Peter's inspiration and the early church laid the ground work and Christ's people have kept the light shining through the darkest periods of human history. Today, you wouldn't know about the Gospel but for this. I see the Holy Spirit at work in this history - fulfilling Christ's promise to Peter.

So, go and argue with God. Frankly, I'm tired of repeatedly going over the same ground with you. In trying to convince others you betray instead a need to convince yourself.

26 November 2011 at 10:32  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dear Len

Dodo's stock answer is always based on what Ernst calls 'emotional factualisation'. Scriptures and their statements are irrelevant and to be ignored, even if St Peter himself declares such as a beautitude under inspiration of the Holy Spirit!
Well, Doddy knows best?

Ernst

ps

If Peter was only tempted by Satan, Why did Jesus address his rebuke to Satan himself instead (Peter thought he knew best despite what Jesus said!)? It is the emotional factualisation we are all prone to, if we ignore God's word revealed in Scripture and we must all be wary of it's powerful deception.

26 November 2011 at 11:58  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Ernsty
Satan is as Satan does. When Jesus released the possessed He addressed Satan.

Peter wasn't 'thinking' he responded to the horror of the revelation of Christ's coming passion. Imagine, Peter realises Jesus is the long awaited Messiah, the omnicient Son of God, and then hears the path He has to follow and it contradicts all his understanding. Peter probably didn't know what to think and spoke in confusion. Isn't this how the Devil operates?

Jesus did not reject Peter. He specifically chose him knowing his character. Look at the man he became. A simple, crude, at times abrasive and hot headed fisherman who was the first leader of Christ's Church. Jesus instructed Satan, who was taking advantage of Peter's humanity and speaking through him to tempt Jesus, to depart. Even saints are human and experience a complex range of emotions. We are all tempted during the trials of life.

Consider Jesus' own trial in the Garden when He sweated blood:

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done'"
(Luke 22:41-42).

"My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken away from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will"
(Matthew 26:39)

"My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done'"
(Matt. 26:42)

"Abba, Father, ... everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will"
(Mark 14:36).

Peter's unfolding journey of faith is a lesson to the Church and to us all as individual members.

Ps
It's all there in the bible you claim to understand. Do study the Acts of the Apostles more rather than probing and searching it for 'proof' you are right. What flaw is this revealing, I wonder?

26 November 2011 at 13:02  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Doddy

"Satan is as Satan does. When Jesus released the possessed He addressed Satan. " Possessed Peter, were any other disciples so 'possessed', me fine duckie?

"Jesus instructed Satan, who was taking advantage of Peter's humanity and speaking through him to tempt Jesus, to depart. " None of the other disciples except Judas said or did such things when Jesus explained His mission? Think all this happened by chance? The Bible is full of lessons but some refuse to see the real nature of the narrative!

"It's all there in the bible you claim to understand. " Dear duckie, why not read it and give it a try as that RC catechism should really carry a health warning.

Ernst

26 November 2011 at 13:19  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Ernsty
You compare Peter to Judas?!
Do say more.

26 November 2011 at 13:23  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,

The church was never built on Peter, scripture is abundantly clear on that matter.
One moment Peter was hearing from God the next moment he was a mouthpiece for Satan.
Peters error is reproduced in the Catholic religion.
Perhaps this was a prophetic warning?

Also does not the fact that Peter was an' apostle to the circumcised bother you at all?'

'The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8).'
(Have you never wondered about this?.)

26 November 2011 at 15:52  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

len
What are you saying about Peter? Do be clear?

Ernsty
I'm still waiting for your comparison of Peter with Judas too.

The pair of you seem to be suggesting the Apostle Peter was some sort of Satanic plant. Or am I reading you both incorrectly? Come on now, out in the open with it all!

26 November 2011 at 17:33  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

len said ...
"One moment Peter was hearing from God the next moment he was a mouthpiece for Satan.
Peters error is reproduced in the Catholic religion.
Perhaps this was a prophetic warning?"


Yes, he was human, wasn't he. Perhaps it's a lesson that an initial inspiration requires teaching and development of knowledge about God's plan and His ways? That an insight from God is no quarentee of a right understanding and that Satan can take advantage of human weakness. There is a lesson in Matthew 16 but you clearly don't see it.

More of a lesson to the 'born-again' brigade, I'd say!

But, as asked for above, do expand on your treatise concerning Peter. I'm willing to pay attention. I'm especially keen you learn your opinions on his leadership of the early church len and your comparison on him with Judas Ernsty.

26 November 2011 at 17:56  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, It is quite clear that Peter before Pentecost was a different Peter than AFTER Pentecost.As were all of the disciples.

Peter had been Baptised(with water)pre Pentecost but not with the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps there is a lesson to be learn here.? Jesus emphasized the importance of being baptized in the Holy Spirit.

"And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, "which, He said, "you have heard from Me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now" (Acts 1:4,5).

Peter was transformed by being filled with the Holy Spirit from someone who denied Christ to a man who willingly laid down his life for His Saviour.

26 November 2011 at 18:59  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

len
Had time to think again and recover your position? I take it you want to retract your comment:

"Peters error is reproduced in the Catholic religion."

And him being the apostle to the circumcised? You haven't explained your suggestions about this.

Ernsty
Come on - put up old boy.

26 November 2011 at 21:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Doddy

It's annoying when people don't answer your questions but divert off in another direction, know what Ernst means?.*Ironical, what*

What terrible weather we appear to be forecast for Christmas.

Ernst

27 November 2011 at 02:29  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,

"Peters error is reproduced in the Catholic religion."

It most certainly certainly is!.

One moment Peter was declaring that Jesus was the Christ (by Divine revelation)The next he was giving his own opinion.(Divine revelation mixed with the opinions, the teachings of men)This is the 'foundations' of the Roman Catholic Church.


Catholicism cannot exist without doing the very thing that Jesus said the Pharisees would go to Hell for, teaching as precepts of God the inventions of men( Matthew 15:9)

27 November 2011 at 10:41  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

len
How wrong you are about Peter!

Do read Matthew 16 and the parallel verses in Mark 8 again and try to understand Peter instead of looking at him through the 'lens' of your obsessive criticism of Catholicism.

Peter showed a passionate love and zeal for Christ and his safety, but not according to the knowledge just revealed by Him - he didn't fully comprehend. Jesus allowed his disciples to be free with him, but Peter took too great a liberty in his affection for his Master and was rebuked.

And your comments about Peter being the Apostle of the circumcision?

Ernsty
I take it you cannot justify your comment about Peter:

"None of the other disciples (apart from Peter) except Judas said or did such things when Jesus explained His mission? Think all this happened by chance? The Bible is full of lessons but some refuse to see the real nature of the narrative!"

Come on now, you've attacked Christ's appointed leader of His Church! The man He called "Blessed". What similarity do you see between Peter's comments and Judas' actions? What biblical lesson do you see?

27 November 2011 at 11:16  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Doody the persistent asked

"Come on now, you've attacked Christ's appointed leader of His Church!(Where was he stated as leader in Scripture except in the deluded minds of RC's) The man He called "Blessed" (Can you bless yourself or are you blessed ONLY if God bestows something as a gift upon you HIMSELF?)."

"What similarity do you see between Peter's comments and Judas' actions?" Satanic inspiration, perhaps at the weakness of the men concerned, despite one just being 'blessed' previously? Not Rock-like was it?..peccabilities of peter?, foolish impetuosity more like and being led by your own sinful heart.

"None of the other disciples (apart from Peter) except Judas said or did such things when Jesus explained His mission?" Can you not name another disciple...It's as if Jesus knew what would happen regarding Mary and Peter by some paganistic psuedo-christian religion in the future, is it not, and He destroyed the supposed 'truth' of the claims that would be made in advance?

Ernst

27 November 2011 at 12:48  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Ernsty said ...

"It's as if Jesus knew what would happen regarding Mary and Peter by some paganistic psuedo-christian religion in the future, is it not, and He destroyed the supposed 'truth' of the claims that would be made in advance?"

The Holy Spirit revealed all that to you, did He?

Now what was it you accussed me of earlier, "emotional factualisation"? Ummm ... I think your reading is rather prejudicial.

The passage might indicate something entirely different. It certainly does to me. Now how do we discern who's understanding is correct?

27 November 2011 at 14:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The top 9-10% of the worlds population are trying to create new world order, they are evil and don't care about us. Let's not let it happen, all throughout history they have failed let's not let them scare us with bullshit and win, weather christian muslim hindu or jedi the god that I belive in didn't believe in money or a class system... Letting a bloody banker decide what's best for us as a nation that's a great move considering the great things they have done for us in the past? We are at biting point, ask questions, arms yourself with knowledge and remember we are all equals and to smile not from love not hate... They carry out evil deeds to benefit themselves, if they have their own way we will all be dead!

27 February 2012 at 18:32  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older