Thursday, December 15, 2011

Royal Holloway College holds Islamic Christmas Carol Service

One grim finding for Anglicans in the new British Social Attitudes survey is how few find religion after not being born into it. So says the ‘concerned’ Nick Spencer in The Guardian.

But even grimmer for Anglicans are ‘inclusive’ Christmas carols services – you know, the sort that bend over backwards to be all things to all people in order that by any means possible none may be offended. In fact, it is these sort of gospel-lite and theology-free services which are largely responsible for people not finding Christ – even at Christmas.

Royal Holloway College, in the University of London, held its Christmas carol service in its own College Chapel, presided over jointly by the College's Chaplain – an Anglican vicar, the Rev'd Cate Irvine, and a Roman Catholic chaplain from the local church, Fr Vladimir Nikiforov.

And what did the assembled festive throng hear? The prophecy of of Isaiah? 'For unto us a child is born...'? The Gospel of Luke? 'There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus...'? A reading from Micah, perhaps? 'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be Ruler in Israel'?

No, none of the above. Instead, they got the Qur'an:
Behold! the angels said "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus the son of Mary held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

"He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity and he shall be of the company of the righteous."

She said: "O my Lord! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth; when He hath decreed a plan He but saith to it 'Be' and it is!

"And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom the Law and the Gospel.

"And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel with this message: I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I make for you out of clay as it were the figure of a bird and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave; and I heal those born blind and the lepers and I quicken the dead by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe.

"I have come to you to attest the Law which was before me and to make lawful to you part of what was before forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me.

"It is Allah who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a way that is straight." (Qur'an 3:45-51)
Fantastic, eh? Perhaps we should be grateful that the Rev’d Cate and Fr Vladimir didn’t select this reading:
That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.
That they said in boast "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah"; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not. (Qur'an 4:156-158)
Perhaps they’re saving that for Easter.

The other readings were extracts of 'secular' poetry, including Eliot’s ‘The Journey of the Magi’ (which was the least egregious). The beginning of St John's Gospel was, mercifully, still in place as the final reading, but it was erroneously printed as ‘1 John’ – a totally different book altogether.

Royal Holloway College has been in the news recently for downgrading its Classics department. Perhaps Professor Paul Layzell, the College's Principal, and Professor Geoff Ward, the Vice-Principal responsible for the Chapel, ought to find other means of economising. When you compromise on the intellectual, political, and imaginative foundations of Western culture, you create a spiritual vacuum which needs to be filled. The people cry out for meat, and all they can get is the milk of dumbed-down Anglicanism followed by a mouthful of Islam.

232 Comments:

Blogger Stuart James said...

I think the term for this phenomenon is "Chrislam".

15 December 2011 at 09:47  
Blogger Lazarus said...

There are even shorter terms for it...

15 December 2011 at 09:51  
Blogger Hereward said...

A deplorable betrayal of the Gospel by those entrusted to proclaim it.

15 December 2011 at 10:12  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

That first reading from the Qur'an. Are you sure the Chaplain didn't just run a few verses from the gospels through Google translator? Into Arabic, then Bahasa, and then back again?

It reads like it, and would in any case have been a nice gesture.

15 December 2011 at 10:24  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

My (admittedly fairly limited) contact with British Muslims leads me to believe that they simply do not want to be patronised in this way. They respect people who stand up for their faith, even if they do not agree with them.

What they deplore is what they perceive as an increasingly secular and Godless society.

P.S. Word verification is 'skywar'. Is somebody trying to tell us something?

15 December 2011 at 10:28  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
The perpetrators of this meaningless 'celebration' should be sued for fraud. They take the queens sovereign (albeit through their respective churches or institutions) for upholding the faith and then trash it into an inglorious mish mash of meaningless piffle. I have heard of many other examples where schools set out to hold celebrations for all religions, following the course of diversity, but Christmas is diminished to ‘Winter lights’.
Excuses given by those who try to take the Christ out of Christmas are that they do not wish to offend. Windsor Tripehound is right, the majority of Muslims and certainly Hindus and Sikhs have no difficulty in western society celebrating Christmas.
What would these liberal theologians, unbelievers and diversity supporters do if it was decreed that only true believers could celebrate Christmas and partake in the holidays. Their children would certainly say "Why am I not getting any presents like my Christian freinds?". Do any children these days know why we give presents at Christmas?.

15 December 2011 at 11:18  
Blogger The Judicious Hooker said...

Your Grace

Nine Surahs and Carols is one thing but how about your office of Evening Prayer with the First and Second Lesson from the revealed Word of God jettisoned and replaced by excerpts from the Koran? This was perpetrated by an Episcopagan Dean in an Australasian cathedral in recent years and spelt the end of my involvement in organised religion for quite some time.

Like our Mohammedan friends, I believe in the last judgement so wrote the Dean a letter pointing out how Mo's collection of rambling surahs reject some rather central Christian teachings: the Divinity of Christ, his death on the cross for our salvation and the doctrine of Holy Trinity. I have enough sins on my conscience without adding apostasy to the list. The Episcopagan cleric replied that post-9/11, we must build bridges between religions and essentally adopt the egregious position referred to by one of your communicants: Chrislam.

Now, most of us twenty-first century believers struggle at times to perceive through the patriarchal, homophobic, sexist and hierarchical Biblical world, God's revealed message to us . To thrust an alien text (considerably more patriarchal, homophobic, sexist and hierarchical) from another religion onto a Christian congregation is not only 'pastorally unkind' but a repudiation of everything ordained ministers of the Anglican Communion undertake to uphold at their ordination as priests in the Church of God. They are demonstrating their vows to God before his Church to be hollow and their ministry as preachers of the Word a complete sham.

15 December 2011 at 11:59  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

I thought this post was a sick joke!

15 December 2011 at 12:06  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The Qur'an is understood by many to assert that the Christian Trinity consists of God, Jesus, and Mary (based mainly on verses 5:73, 5:75, and 5:116)

15 December 2011 at 12:51  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

@Mr Integrity - I'm guessing not as we give them because it was a pagan tradition taken over by Christians.

This whole thing is utterly ridiculous. What's even worse is that the 2 clergy in question are almost certainly going to get away with it without any form of censure for what is a complete betrayal of the story of the Incarnation. I hope they realise the error of their ways and hang their heads in shame for this travesty they have brought upon those present!

15 December 2011 at 13:10  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

The thing to ask, surely, is who appoints these people and who decides what happens.

State interference in Christianity in this country has gone on for centuries. When you have politically correct unbelievers making church appointments, funnily enough you get politically correct not-really-believers as bishops, church administrators, and so on and so on.

Simples.

15 December 2011 at 13:26  
Blogger non mouse said...

The people cry out for meat, and all they can get is the milk of dumbed-down Anglicanism followed by a mouthful of Islam. Which is nothing short of poison, Your Grace.

I hope any Christians present had enough backbone left to get up and walk out.

15 December 2011 at 13:39  
Blogger non mouse said...

Come to think of it ... why did they choose Holloway? Not insensitive to the connotations, are they?

15 December 2011 at 13:59  
Blogger Berserker said...

According to "Stop the Cuts - Defend Sussex, site in 2010 - This man, Professor Layzell, almost disembowelled Sussex University when he was their Deputy VC. His 'Strategic Plan" a euphemism for cuts and more cuts.

When he was about to leave for Royal Holloway, I quote: 'a clear cut-and-run tactic, where he proposes cutbacks, rejects counter-proposals, announces redundancies and then quits before any of the consequences take effect.

From Schnews article on Sussex VCEG expenses:
“More dubious than such run of the mill gravy train high living, is a memo from vice-chancellor Paul Layzell requesting the transfer of his £27,906.55 consultancy fees from the University of Manchester to ‘an account to which I can have free access’, so as not to be counted as taxable salary. No lazy accounting here, honest guv, as the money is to be used for ‘academic travel, personal development, and sundry items of IT equipment etc.’ according to the memo.”
As Daniel Kane posted on March 23, 2010:

These overpaid functionaries are simply out for themselves, and are firing people and making cuts primarily to show they have ‘leadership’ qualities which will then gain them a subsequent, higher-paid job somewhere else. Clearly, Royal Holloway is gearing up for a round of cuts…I wish them the best!

So Royal Holloway? Having downgraded Christianity and the Classics what next for your Principal?

15 December 2011 at 14:31  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

The publicity for the event:

Carol service for the community

Royal Holloway, University of London holds its hugely popular Nine Lessons & Carols service in the beautiful College Chapel on Saturday 6 December.

Based on the traditional Kings College, Cambridge format, the service will include a mixture of congregational carols and carols from the Royal Holloway Chapel Choir.

The annual carol service is a special event for the local community, with readings from local people.


Clearly something went wrong! I've written to Christine Long, the Press & PR Officer. Her email address is: christine.long@rhul.ac.uk

I will also be asking for claification from the Catholic Priest present during this reading. Others should too.

15 December 2011 at 14:32  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

In the early days of Islam, Muslims fled from Arabia to Ethiopia to escape persecution. Needing to ingratiate themselves with the Christian king, the Muslims quoted one of the Qur’an’s passages about the virgin birth. The king and his advisers were reduced to tears and, believing the passage meant that Islam recognized the divine nature of Christ, gave the refugees protection.

Nearly fourteen hundred years later, and despite all the evidence of Islam’s hostility to Christianity, Christians are still giving Islam the benefit of the doubt. It would be laughable if it were not so serious.

15 December 2011 at 15:15  
Blogger Oswin said...

The very worst of limp-wristed, white-liberal, ecumenical clap-trap. Loving one's enemies, is one thing; singing their praises is quite another.

Thank you Dodo, for providing that link. I'll be having my two penn'orth worth!

15 December 2011 at 16:16  
Blogger trencherbone said...

Carols:
Bang Bang Verily You Die
Bombing in a Winter Wasteland
Death to the World
Do They Know It's Jihad?
Frosty the Boobytrap
Hijacked Three Ships
I'm Dreaming of a Shi'ite Christmas
I Stoned Mommy for Kissing Santa Claus
Jingle Belts
Little Bomber Boy
No-go Town of Bethlehem
Oh Come all ye Fanatical
Oh TannenBOOM
Repulsive Jews Below
Slay Ride
While Shepherds Screwed Their Flocks
Wreck the Halls

...and of course, that all time favorite: Violent Night

15 December 2011 at 16:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

WHAT? No Jewish content?

Their loss. Had I been invited to co-officiate, no crumbly cakes, pale and flavourless sandwitches, weak tea or stale coffee for the luncheon after that sillyness. To wash off the tacky taste of maudlin stupidity, I would have brought in a traditional Ashkenazi Sabbath light luncheon of shmaltz, maatje (spiced Dutch) and pickled herrings with raw onion slices and a variety of good scotch single malts covering the taste spectrum from smooth and tame flavours to the peaty, fireplace-washings types. And for the pitiful weaklings, those who can't handle their herring and onions, like our Carl Jacobs and the Inspector here, I would have had a separate table with a cold cuts platter and home-style pickles, pickled eggs, delicate mustards and fiert slivers of horse radish on the side. No, I would never mess around with a man's right to good and proper food, but as a punishment for all those who harbour such vile prejudices and shameful contempt for the Noble Herring, the precious silver of the seas that sustained our European forebearers for centuries, I would have let them fight over a small bottle of one of our Canadian rot-gut rye whiskies. That would've learnt'em good.

Mr Manfang, greetings, Sir. A special request, if I may: Please, please, don't open that can of worms. Dodo and len are hereabouts and they have no respect for the Geneva Conventions when they get going on that topic.

15 December 2011 at 16:40  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Tencherbone, that's truly belly-achingly hilarious. Esp., "I Stoned Mommy for Kissing Santa Claus"!

15 December 2011 at 16:48  
Blogger Preacher said...

Don't get excited lads, they're just a couple of blimp sized party balloons, shining with their pride, full of hot air & a vacant attic to rent upstairs.
Without wishing to be cruel at this festive time I feel though that this old saying is relevant: "If everybody thinks you are stupid, don't open your mouth & confirm they are right".
All they've done is show their ignorance & brought the contempt of both Christians & Moslems on their own heads.
The Guardian is wrong too, The Lord found me & I work with many born again believers who were once some of the worst people going, go into any Christian bookshop & look under the testimonies section for confirmation.
What the world needs now is not religion, but a relationship with the living God.

15 December 2011 at 17:28  
Blogger Oswin said...

Trencherbone - Respect! :o)

A few Others, 'though not nearly so funny: Muslims Awake, with Angels Join; Muslims Who Have God Offended; Now Be We Glad, and Not Too Mad; Away in a Mangler; Blessed Be that Maid Aisha; A Hymn For Martyrs Singing Sweetly (unabridged); All Hail the Mushroom in Judah's Sky!; Aisha, Song of Sweetness; An Aisha This Night; Awful Thought of Endless Doom (unabridged); The Burka of Chill December.

All to be sung to the tune of ''Boom Bang-a-Bang''

15 December 2011 at 17:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Guardian: "Nearly everyone – 94% to be precise – brought up without religious affiliation in Britain today stays without religious affiliation."

*thumbs up*

15 December 2011 at 17:40  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Why do we give presents at Christmas?. Youthpasta; My understanding is that it relates to the gifts that the Wise Men brought to the baby Jesus. Not some heathen tradition.

15 December 2011 at 17:45  
Blogger Preacher said...

Thanks Dan.
Being part of the 6% makes me feel really blessed & special.
(I'll have to watch out for that old devil Pride though).

15 December 2011 at 17:48  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Preacher said ...

"What the world needs now is not religion, but a relationship with the living God."

Agreed ... but to know about Jesus you need 'religion' and a Church to keep alive His message, develop His Truth and apply it to our times.

How do you think the Jews survived the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans who destroyed their Temple and nation? And the repeated persecutions thereafter right up to modern times? They preserved their 'religion', their traditions and dedicated themselves to debating, developing and understanding their Holy texts and the writings of their Rabbis.

Religion and a personal relationship with Christ are not mutually exclusive - quite the reverse. Without 'religion'and the Church you wouldn't know about Christ.

Avi

The crazy views of Islam, a bastardised misrepresentation of Judaism and Christianity, is not be a cause of dispute between Christians. Some may want to make it so; not me.

15 December 2011 at 18:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The last time the Inspector heard about Islam coming into a church, Christians died...

Mixing Islamic evil with Christianity – a bloody outrage !! Damn stupid priest should be horsewhipped, and the deaconess unfrocked, so to speak.

15 December 2011 at 18:35  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

In my mind, it is every Christians's duty to reject islam and promote Christianity. There can be no compromise on that. Either you are a Christian or you are not. The two religions are not compatible. In fact, why are the Christian representatives not actively trying to convert muslims in the UK to Christianity, rather than accommodate this bizarre set of beliefs?

15 December 2011 at 19:09  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector, whips and defrocking? Interesting visuals in that. However, as this is a politics and religious site, you won't be able to elaborate on the details to the regret of many.

Dodo, I know you don't give credence to the Muslim interpretation of your doctrine of the Trinity, nor other simplistic or ridiculous explanations. I just hope you and len will behave, at least around the time of one your most important festivals, and will not fight so viciously in full view of that bit of the world that makes it to this blog. As we'd say, "Shush! Not in front of the Goyim!"

wv: priblem (Finally clued in to what the WV followed by a word stand for!)

15 December 2011 at 19:10  
Blogger len said...

Chrislam indeed!.

This is to be the next move against the Judeo- Christians.And a direct attack on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Whatever Satan cannot kill he will corrupt.Obviously to tell outright lies would be too obvious, so he mixes a cunning blend of truth and error, just enough truth to convince the unsuspecting ,but enough error to rule out the true gospel.
I have said for some time that I suspect that Catholicism and Islam will some time come to a 'sort of compromise of faiths.
I think that time may not be that far off.
This is not to make a case for the Protestant Churches which also seem in many cases to be sliding into apostasy.

To have a love of the truth(Biblical truth,to keep strictly to the Word of God, and the witness of the holy Spirit is the ONLY way to avoid the oncoming waves of deception which are coming upon 'the Church.'

15 December 2011 at 19:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. I suspect that Catholicism and Islam will some time come to a 'sort of compromise of faiths.

If you believe that, you’re a horse's arse...

15 December 2011 at 19:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oh, oh.

15 December 2011 at 19:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. He can’t go a day without taking at swipe at Rome...

15 December 2011 at 19:26  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Good grief Rome and Mecca unite? What a powerful Religio-Political force that would be....

15 December 2011 at 19:54  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

....although I personally can't see it happening !

15 December 2011 at 19:55  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

The historian Bernard Lewis, quoted here by Christopher Caldwell, said in 2004 that Europe would be Muslim by the end of the century ‘at the very latest’.

Without some form of compromise with Islam, Vatican City simply could not survive in a Muslim Italy.

15 December 2011 at 20:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi Barzel

Re: "Pitiful Weaklings"

Yeh, and I won't eat Lutefisk either. Or Haggis. ("They make it out of WHAT?!") It's not weakness. It's a profound sense of duty to culinary excellence. I don't think this is about herring in any case. I think it's all a distorted display of masculinity - like hurling oneself into freezing ocean water simply to say one has done so. "I ate herring and onion on a cracker. Next I'm going to try Haggis."

carl

15 December 2011 at 21:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr R. There can’t be any compromise. Islam is a grass routes ideology. There is no leadership to compromise with...

15 December 2011 at 21:27  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Avi
Shalom
"Noble Herring, the precious silver of the seas that sustained our European forebearers for centuries"
Not for much longer,the North Sea herring stocks are declining-overfishing!

Mr Integrity
"the gifts that the Wise Men brought to the baby Jesus"
The Wise Men were Zoroastrians.A religion that was widespread in the Middle East so the Christmas story is a bit interfaith.

15 December 2011 at 21:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 December 2011 at 21:47  
Blogger English Viking said...

A shocking disgrace.

The guy should be removed from his position immediately.

Tashlan - plain and simple.

15 December 2011 at 21:49  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG (21:27)—When Vatican City’s water, gas and electricity supplies are under Muslim control, a compromise will have to be reached or it’s arrivederci St Peter’s.

15 December 2011 at 22:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr R. Now there you have it. Can’t see these immigrants acquiring such large wealth in a comparatively short time. Wealth and property being everything...

15 December 2011 at 22:08  
Blogger DP111 said...

Till now I was certain that the BSE/CJD scare was just that. Now I'm not so certain.

15 December 2011 at 22:16  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG (22:08)—Europe will become Muslim through a high birth rate and wealth of numbers, and when those numbers form the majority they will make the rules.

15 December 2011 at 22:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Len

I have said for some time that I suspect that Catholicism and Islam will some time come to a 'sort of compromise of faiths.

How odd that you should think that Islam is nearer to Catholicism than Protestantism. Is it not obvious that Catholicism emphasises doctrines which are abhorrent to Islam like the incarnation and sacraments? Protestantism on the other hand, can be somewhat soft on the incarnation (cf. our recent discussion), is weak on sacraments and emphasises the book at the expense of the incarnation? Protestantism has also had a bit of a weakness for Unitarianism (although your own position is robustly tritheistic, rather than Trinitarian). Isn't there some old saying about the Word being made flesh and the evangelicals turning him back into word again? All terribly Islamic.

To have a love of the truth(Biblical truth,to keep strictly to the Word of God, and the witness of the holy Spirit is the ONLY way to avoid the oncoming waves of deception which are coming upon 'the Church.'

Except that every time you and I have a discussion about the Bible, your arguments dry up or turn out to support Catholicism, yet you still keep the same opinions. After all, some weeks ago, you offered a biblical defence of what is turning up here as

the witness of the holy Spirit is the ONLY way to avoid the oncoming waves of deception which are coming upon 'the Church.'

And yet it quickly became clear that the very text you appealed to told against your position, once it was allowed to speak its own message outside the constraints of your human tradition.

Isn't it time you just stopped knocking Catholicism? After all, you don't seem a biblical Christian to me at all (I know you hope to be, but nothing the Bible actually says seems to make any difference to your beliefs), and you know what they say about people in glass houses!

15 December 2011 at 22:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

Europe will become Muslim through a high birth rate and wealth of numbers, and when those numbers form the majority they will make the rules.

Exactly. Everyone can do their bit to support the Islamisation of Europe by using artificial contraception - another gift of the Protestants and the Secularists to the decline of Western and Christian Civilization in the face of Islam. Well done, chaps!

15 December 2011 at 22:37  
Blogger DP111 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 December 2011 at 22:41  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert—To be fair to Protestants, the rhythm method must also have played a part in the decline of Europe’s indigenous population; the Italian birth rate is among the lowest. Even if contraception were outlawed, surpassing the British Pakistani birth rate of 4·7 would be daunting.

15 December 2011 at 22:53  
Blogger English Viking said...

Johnny,

'...surpassing the Pakistani birthrate...'

It's a daunting task alright, but I'm willing to have a go :-)

PS Kill ratios will be the telling figure, not birth ratios.

I'll give you just one - Spitfire and Hurricane pilots to 109's - 1:4

Good enough, brains ALWAYS beats brawn, and let's face it, the Nobel committee is not beating down the door of the local tandoori, is it?

15 December 2011 at 23:00  
Blogger English Viking said...

Johnny,

Forgot to mention the 'bully mentality' of your average mohammedan - ie I'll only fight the weak, the old or the female.

Obviously they are willing to fight when they are mob-handed against one or two.

Whenever they start to lose, they run.

cf. Israel 1967, 1973.

15 December 2011 at 23:04  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Albert
Well said.

I do amire your calm, reasoned and inoffensive approach. At times one senses your frustration and yet you continue using rational arguments. You also enrich my understanding of theology.

" ... the Word being made flesh and the evangelicals turning him back into word again."

Never heard this one before - for you that's cutting.

Avi
Oh, oh indeed! lol!

Will len use any opportunity to attack Catholicism and all establshed Churchs? Is the Pope Catholic?

I'm just waiting for Ernie - the Fastest Milkman in the West to join in.

From a member of the goy kadosh to a brother of the goy ehad b'aretz, I'll do my best to follow your counsel. However anything I think might be a serious misrepresentation of the Gospel I will question.

Inspector
" ... you’re a horse's arse..."

That's an insult to the fine Equus family - even donkeys. A weasel's arse is perhaps a better simile.

15 December 2011 at 23:13  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

It's not a simile.

No 'as a ...', no 'like a...'.

You really must try harder with the English language.

Then again, you are Oirish, so what do I expect?

15 December 2011 at 23:22  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Viking

So is it a methaphor? You were schooling me on this until your recent exile.

I'm an Orish Yid! Oy Vie!

15 December 2011 at 23:27  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

It's not a metaphor either, it's just a common insult, rather like calling someone a 'tit'.

Now, if I had said they were 'like a tit', that would be a simile, ie a comparison, cf similar.

If I had said that a person was 'about as much use as tits on a bull', that would be a metaphor, ie a literary device which conjures an image, but is not actually so. It is used, usually, to describe something in lay-mans terms which cannot otherwise be easily described.

How can a man describe the look in his lover's eyes, adequately? A metaphor usually suffices; her eyes were dark pools, deeper than the ocean, more intense than the Sun.

Really, it's not difficult.

15 December 2011 at 23:49  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS I am not in exile (well, actually, I am, but you know what I mean), I just get so tired of talking rot, promising myself not to do it again, then doing it again, that I find the best way to stop it is not to start

I know I can be very offensive, and usually deliberately so, and I hate myself afterwards.

15 December 2011 at 23:54  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Viking

Thank you for the English lesson.

I do know what you mean about blogging. Its way too easy to through good manners and reason to the wind and just be offensive. You may have noticed I do it occasionally too!

I think people on here who know your style take much of it with a pinch of salt. Sometimes you cross the line - sometimes its very funny.

16 December 2011 at 00:40  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

... that's throw ...

16 December 2011 at 00:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl,

Yes, of course the shmaltz herring thing started as a display of machismo at first, not to mention that it's a social event of sorts at synagogue for the guys looking for an excuse to hang out near the scotch and the vodka. But I, who never liked fish until about ten years ago, came to enjoy and then to crave the flavour.

You haven't tried haggis? That one's easy and I'll bet that you'll like it. The first time I was forced to try it on a Robbie Burns Night many years ago, before I went kosher, I needed liquid courage to down a forkful. Within 5 seconds, I was piling heaps of it on my plate, with the neeps and tatties (mashed turnips and potatoes) on the side. The flavour, modified by the oatmeal, is actually very delicate, yet satifyingly rich. All the organ meats are finely minced and mixed with the oatmeal, so you don't get the graphic display most anticipate. While it looks pale and bland, it's actually quite peppery. Now we make our own by barbecuing and then mincing liver and lamb meat and we use artificial kosher casing, so the thing's sausage-shaped when done, rather than bag-shaped, as is traditional. I add a bit of paprika which doesn't change the flavour, but gives the thing a better colour, which is what I think turns most people off. Over the years I've honed my Scots pronunciation whilst reading out Burn's Address to a Haggis (Fair fa' your honest, sonsie face / Great chieftain o' the puddin-race...). My Scottish relatives come to enjoy the spectacle of a bearded, kippa-wearing Jew shouting and mangling verse at the funniest haggis they've ever seen (ours looks like the English coiled sausage, the "banger") and then stabbing it with a hunting knife. They tell me I do decent enough job, both on the taste and my accent.

I had to look up lutefisk. Interesting. Probably tastes better than it sounds, but I don't think I'll go looking for it.


Shalom, Manfarang. Yes, I know, it's sad. I don't understand where all that herring goes though, as younger folks don't like it in any form and stick to canned tuna instead. I guess given the population differences between the golden age of herring harvests and today, even a light consumption of our friend amounts to unprecedented grabs. Then, we have all those factory trawlers which will vacuum up anything in range and turn it into fishmeal before inspectors can nab them. All I can say is that while I might have slightly skewed the stockfish consumption rates for North America, never has a morsel of herring been wasted or treated with disrespect by me and mine.

16 December 2011 at 00:55  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Avi
There were some fish by the spirit house at my place of residence recently but by looking at the water colour I don't think eating them would be a good idea.
Someone told me haggis tasted like old sock but they do make vegetarian haggis which isn't too bad.

16 December 2011 at 01:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Spelling.

First. Last. Everything.

Syntax faulty? An error in grammar? A little too prosaic? Perhaps not poetic enough?

Wandering from one language to another?

All this is forgivable; but never spelling.

It should have been drilled, most severely, by rote, into you.

8x8 is 64.

Etc.

PS HG,

He patently refuses to engage, and I cannot reason why: he cannot possibly be concerned that he will lose face in a row with one such as me.

Perhaps he is trying to stay my blushes?

Perhaps he realises that I am not so thick as one might suppose?

Perhaps he just simply cannot be bothered?

Who knows?

Even though. he tickles my fancy.

16 December 2011 at 01:34  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS. HG spoke in his post of 'a mouthful of islam'.

Halal, I suppose?

16 December 2011 at 01:49  
Blogger Manfarang said...

English Viking
English spelling is inconsistent and it takes children longer to learn to read than most other nations. Most nations update or reform the spellings in their languages.
Given the fact that English is now a world language I feel sure you would wish to revert to speaking Old Norse and use the spellings of that language.

16 December 2011 at 02:05  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, when I first chanced onto this site, I have to be admit that the, uh, passion with which you, len, the Inspector, Mr Ernst and others went about your, er, theological discourses, intimidated me at first. If fellow Christians attack each other like this, I'll be chopped meat before I can say "how do you do," I reasoned. In all my years in Canada I hadn't seen anything like it. I guess it beats indifference.

The crack I made with the "not in front of the Goyim," plays on an expression older Jews used to hush fellow Jews with when arguing in public. What I meant to suggest is that you guys should perhaps be a little mindful of the impression you might make on non-Christians or lapsed Christians. It's not like the churches are bursting at the seams, so a little PR might be in order...what! Perhaps English Viking can give tutorials on proper blog etiquette? He already makes me nervous about my awful spelling.

You're right about the term goy being a neutral term for nation, one which includes Jews. It's actually a chimera between "nation" and "peoples." The older, European generation though, used it as an insult, so now we say non-Jews.

Manfarang, spirit house? You must either be somewhere in Asia or....California. Given how Cali had been going down the tubes, you'd be better off in Asia.

Perchance that someone did have a haggis made with socks as filler. No problem as they of food-grade standard. Grind and mince anything up and one can call it "haggis," but goodness me ...vegetarian haggis?... that's a matter for the constabulary.

16 December 2011 at 02:40  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Manfarang. Right. Thailand. All I had to do was to cleverly click on your moniker and read your profile.

16 December 2011 at 03:04  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Avi
Vegetarian haggis is a matter for
Henderson's of Edinburgh. Look at their website.

16 December 2011 at 04:26  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The Feltham and Heston by-election result is in and UKIP didn't make it to third place so it is not a good result for them . I noticed their candidate was described as an ex-Tory in the local newspaper so people know it is a conservative party with little to offer them.

16 December 2011 at 04:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "Even if contraception were outlawed, surpassing the British Pakistani birth rate of 4·7 would be daunting."

The TFR for that group has been dropping continuously and rapidly. I think it's just below 3 now.

The idea of denying women control of their own fertility, short of abstinence, is hideously oppressive. Not your idea there, I know.

16 December 2011 at 06:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Btw, Christopher Hitchins has died according to the Beeb.

16 December 2011 at 06:18  
Blogger Manfarang said...

DanJ0
Christopher Hitchins doesn't exist!

16 December 2011 at 07:38  
Blogger len said...

Albert,(22:30)

I see we are back to defining a 'Christian' again(sigh)
If you you use the Catholic definition of' being a Christian' then I certainly am NOT one, thank God!.
Back to the point in question Catholic and Muslims united?.Is this impossible?.

The Mary/Fatima Connection

Bishop Fulton Sheen, back in the 1950s, was the first Catholic on television [with his own religious talk show]. He wrote a book predicting that Islam would be converted to Christianity. In the same era, the 1950s, Bishop Sheen also wrote a book titled The World’s First Love. He stated in his book:

“But after the death of Fatima (Muhammad’s daughter), Muhammad wrote,

‘Thou shall be the most blessed of all women in paradise after Mary.’”

This connection with the Muslims through Mary was predicted about fifty years ago. Bishop Sheen was ahead of his time, at least as it relates to the future of Islam. The Muslims will be included in the coming One World Religion, but it will not be Christianity.
The key players are: Mary, the mother of Jesus; Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad; and Pope John Paul II. The key locations include Fatima, Portugal, and St. Peter’s Square, Rome.

The Portuguese Village of Fatima is named after Muhammad’s daughter. Bishop Sheen mentioned how remarkable it was that our Lady had the foresight to appear in the Portuguese Village of Fatima, named after Muhammad’s daughter, and thus became known as Our Lady of Fatima.

In October of 2000, Pope John Paul II ordered the actual statue of Our Lady of Fatima to be moved from Fatima, Portugal, to St. Peter’s Square in Rome. His purpose was to signify “his great devotion to Mary.” He credits her with saving his life in an assassination attempt on May 13, 1981.

Also in the year 2000, Pope John Paul II gathered 1,500 bishops from around the world, the largest group to assemble since Vatican II. They were there to entrust the world and the millennium to “Our Lady of Fatima,” not to Jesus, not even to God, but to Mary.

Now look at the symbolism behind the E U , are you beginning to 'get it' yet?.

The common denominator(both Islam and Catholicism have a 'Jesus' who cannot alone save )will be 'Mary'who seems to be promoting a uniting of 'faiths.'

If the visions are not really Mary the mother of Jesus we can conclude that Satan is disguising himself as an angel of light. He has an agenda, which includes leading humanity into a One World False Religion of his making where he will be worshipped.

16 December 2011 at 08:11  
Blogger IanCad said...

YG, I don't think this is the work of two turbulent priest/priestesses.
The "Emerging Church" movement would surely approve. And no howls of protest have been heard from Nicky Gumbel of the Alpha Course. Rick Warren would applaud, as would most atheists. It all ties in quite well with the theology, or, I should say, social engineering goals, of these new old pagans.

16 December 2011 at 08:29  
Blogger English Viking said...

Manfarang,

It takes longer to learn it because it is so much better than all the rest. Well worth the effort.

It can't be that difficult, else all the monkey nations wouldn't use it, would they? I recently asked a German, a Pole and a Lithuanian whether they thought English a difficulkt language to learn, and they all thought it easy. I think the main thing about it is that one can speak it very, very badly, yet still be understood; speak Norwegian slightly less than perfectly? Forget it, and there are literally dozens of dialects, as well as three official languages.

I openly admit that I am not perferct at Norwegian, and sometimes struggle when the conversation picks up speed or is in a difficult dialect. I probably have the vocabulary of a 16 year old, which is frustrating, but at least does not include phrases such as 'It's not fair'.

The worst thing is that some words and expressions, which are spelled exactly the same as each other, are tonal. They mean differebt things, depending on how you say them. Even that is not so bad, but different dialects say them in different ways, and even Norwegians struggle with each other if one if from the North and another from the East, say.

BTW English is derived from Norse, amongst othere.

16 December 2011 at 09:04  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS The above is a perfect example of dreadful spelling.

DOH!

16 December 2011 at 09:08  
Blogger Manfarang said...

English Viking
The ease of learning English depends on a person's mother tongue.I came across this a couple of days ago-
A practical guide to a neglected aspect of EFL teaching
Teaching Spelling to English Language Learners
Johanna Stirling, Lulu; 978-1-4476-0678-9

Its not about rote learning!

16 December 2011 at 09:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

You haven't tried haggis? That one's easy and I'll bet that you'll like it. The first time I was forced to try it on a Robbie Burns Night many years ago, before I went kosher, I needed liquid courage to down a forkful. Within 5 seconds, I was piling heaps of it on my plate

Ummm ... you aren't helping your case here.

carl

16 December 2011 at 10:06  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dodo,
Sorry for the delay. You say we/I need religion. I say that religion without a relationship with the living God is dead, custom, tradition, ceremony etc plus of course dispute arguments, squabbles, quarrels, persecution etc.
I didn't become a Christian through religion. In fact religion was a factor in my resistance to accepting Jesus Christ as Lord & Saviour for so long.
Paul was religous, Nicodemus was too but it took something more to bring life into their faith & in Pauls case to stop him persecuting the first believers.
Judaism is a great religion but IMO it needs the spark of Yeshua to ignite the fire & start the engine.
What about Islam? Big religion on the inside track, but do you read the Q'ouran? No!. Rules, regs, laws, but no life no love for the 'Kaffirs'. Sheep with keepers but no Shepherd.
So how do you choose a religion? Tescos, Sainsburys or maybe Harrods.
As long as religion is a lifeless, loveless set of traditions & rules that generate heat but no light it will turn people off.
Okay I'll accept that I'm a sinner, a radical Bible believing man who loves God & my fellow man, But as Paul says in Corinthians,
"Without love I am Nothing!".


Blessings Bro'.

16 December 2011 at 10:46  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Good show Preacher. There are enough critics of Christianity without adherents bashing each other with their crucifixes. This is not necessarily the right place to provide evidence of others errors.
As the Inspector often says, ‘Stick to the Thread’

P.S.English Viking I always try to take or write my text in 'Word' before pasting back to try and cope with my poor spelling.

16 December 2011 at 12:26  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Preacher

We are not so far apart, you know. I see no issue with 'religion' and Church worship for the reasons set out in my earlier post.

len said ...

" If the visions (at Fatima) are not really Mary the mother of Jesus we can conclude that Satan is disguising himself as an angel of light. He has an agenda, which includes leading humanity into a One World False Religion of his making where he will be worshipped."

And what if the apparations and Miracle are genuine? It's only you who's suggesting its Satan. What do you base this on? Do you know the message of Fatima? Its hardly one in support of Satan!

You really need to get off your high horse about Islam and Catholicism uniting as part of a Satanic master plan. Get real.

If you actually read and digest the texts you lazily cite you'll see that Fatima, given its connections with Islam, may serve as a trigger for converstion of Muslims to Christianity. There is no indication of this yet but it might take place. -

But then you don't consider Catholicism true Christianity do you?Only your individualised, seperatist and exclusive version will do.

Avi

This guy is a Goy. Forgive me for not following your advice. I'm sure in similar circumstances you might react to blatant and dishonest misrepresentations of your faith being published.

16 December 2011 at 13:07  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ English Viking (23:00 and 23:04 on 15 December)—Your line about brains beating brawn reminded me of an article in The Times, ‘Democracy’s forces can’t beat demography’s power’. Not being a Times subscriber I can’t check the URL but when I last looked, the article was here.

@ DanJ0 (06:13)—In 2008, the Telegraph, using statistics from the ONS, gave the British Pakistani birth rate as ‘almost five’. Even if it does fall, it will still be significantly higher than our birth rate.

WV: blench

16 December 2011 at 13:59  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

the rhythm method must also have played a part in the decline of Europe’s indigenous population; the Italian birth rate is among the lowest.

Indeed, although I suspect they haven't got their birth rate down to that level by using the rhythm method (or any other natural method) but by departing from the Church's teaching on this one.

Even if contraception were outlawed, surpassing the British Pakistani birth rate of 4·7 would be daunting.

Is it as high as that? That does seem rather exhausting! The average UK birthrate seems to be 1.84 per-woman, but I think that includes everyone - including the ethic groups that have rates as high as 4.7. Consequently, the "indigenous white" rate must be lower even than 1.84. We really are committing ethic and cultural suicide. As I say, a gift of secularism and Protestantism.

16 December 2011 at 14:07  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you Dodo,

" ... the Word being made flesh and the evangelicals turning him back into word again."

Actually, it was an Evangelical who told me that, along with the idea that Evangelicals believe in three persons in one God: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Scripture!

I suspect he's not an Evangelical any more, or if he is, I trust he is working to make Evangelicalism a little more balanced.

16 December 2011 at 14:09  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert—I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

16 December 2011 at 14:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

If you you use the Catholic definition of' being a Christian' then I certainly am NOT one, thank God!.

I am not attempting to get you to be a Catholic, making you an orthodox Protestant would be a sufficient for me: a belief in one God who is three persons, and a proper belief in the incarnation.

As for the rest of what you've pasted, it is totally surreal. First of all, Fulton Sheen - a great man, I am sure. But he is hardly official Catholicism. Having said that, it's hard to see what you are objecting to. This is what you originally said:

I have said for some time that I suspect that Catholicism and Islam will some time come to a 'sort of compromise of faiths.

But, as far as I can see the only evidence that you have given (as opposed to the usual "side" "you" have put on on it) is that Muslims might be converted to Christianity on the basis of the fact that they already have the Virgin Birth. If anything, it is less objectionable than Paul's strategy in Acts 17.23f.

He credits her with saving his life in an assassination attempt on May 13, 1981.

And your point is?

They were there to entrust the world and the millennium to “Our Lady of Fatima,” not to Jesus, not even to God, but to Mary.

I am not surprised that you fail to understand this, given that you separate the persons of the Trinity into three gods and the divinity and humanity of Christ into two persons, but if you understood Catholic teaching, you would realise how absurd it is to separate Mary from God/Jesus, for (and you really ought to have picked this up by now) she is what she is only because of the indwelling of grace within her. For us, hers is the first and most perfect "Yes" to the Gospel, and when we say "Yes", because of the ecclesial nature of Christianity, we join our "yes" to hers.

As for the dedication bit, have you never read the Psalms and noticed how single-minded is the dedication there to Jerusalem?

If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither! Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy!

And of Zion we read:

For thy servants hold her stones dear, and have pity on her dust.

The following is a wicked lie:

The common denominator(both Islam and Catholicism have a 'Jesus' who cannot alone save

So is this:

If the visions are not really Mary the mother of Jesus we can conclude that Satan is disguising himself as an angel of light. He has an agenda, which includes leading humanity into a One World False Religion of his making where he will be worshipped.

The untruthfulness of this is to be found in that clearly the message of Fatima is not "inter-faith", therefore, on your own terms it is not of Satan, and thus, by your own logic it is authentic.

16 December 2011 at 14:37  
Blogger Kosovo-is-SERBIA said...

The ANTI-CHRIST is a moslem.... coming soon to a "church" near you. WATCH for it Archbishop.... he is closer than YOU think.

16 December 2011 at 16:27  
Blogger Kosovo-is-SERBIA said...

And when the moslems finally have taken full hold of England, the roads of your land will be lined with poles on which hang the tortured dead bodies of all the homosexuals who held high church and government offices...those same poor souls who led the way for a capitulation to satan's religion....islam.

Of course Christians will die as well but not as many because the islamics NEED SLAVES! Oh don't you English have a song that says, you English will never be slaves?? Oh, my goodness, apparently YOU WILL BE SLAVES.

And the Americans wil not send you any SPAM so you don't starve or GUNS to use to fight off the Huns/moslems this time because they ALREADY are SLAVES to the Muslim Brotherhood and their Mullahs. Paving the way for their control of the entire Middle East

WATCH for the anti-christ, you lovely English fellows. It's on the way!

Jesus the Christ is your ONLY hope and with your worthless muslim carol service you have denied HE IS THE SON OF GOD AND YOU HAVE denied the HOLY SPIRIT!

DOOMED ENGLAND. Yes, you are.

16 December 2011 at 16:44  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len said ...

"If you you use the Catholic definition of' being a Christian' then I certainly am NOT one, thank God!."

And just what is a Catholic definition of being a Christian? Do tell?

And no lies.

16 December 2011 at 17:09  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Viking

In my experience the surest way of initiating a response from Mr C is to accuse him of being an anti-Catholic bigot. (Not that he is). Or just accuse him of being too too critical of the Vatican. I suspect his would be difficult for you as your views are less nuanced and less subtly presented than his.

Why does it matter if he pays you any attention or not?

16 December 2011 at 17:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Kosovo-is-SERBIA, have you ever considered a journalistic career in the BBC. Could do with you reading out the evening’s news, don’t you know. You’ll get a chaps attention, so you will. BBC are full of Bolsheviks now. Shame really...

16 December 2011 at 17:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. 16 December 2011 02:40

The passion of debate is very strong when a chap sticks up for his religion. It is certainly NOT an Anglican thing in the UK. Indeed, criticise an Anglican in the street,so to speak, and you’ll be met with silence, or even passive agreement. It’s a bit like stepping on an Englishman’s foot. If he’s Anglican, he’ll say sorry – if he’s Catholic, he’ll say “you’re on my foot”.

Anyway, this passion brings religion alive ! It’s not all about dusty books, or those sad, mean spirited interpretations the born agains have put up on the net.

Perhaps the Inspector owes Len an apology. Well, he’s not getting one. Undeserving you know. He posts his rot, he takes what’s coming his way. Cause and Effect - what !

16 December 2011 at 17:46  
Blogger Luther said...

Heresy, ungodly, and anti-christian.

I hope both of the "ministers" get the sack.

16 December 2011 at 19:26  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo and Inspector,

Hey guys, I did say "passion is better than indifference" or something like that too. And no, I don't expect any of you good Christian brothers, including len or anyone else, to get all fuzzy-cuddly-touchy-feely, prancing away hand-in-hand in a field of daisies. That would be worth a good chuckle, though. Just a little less blood to soak the ground with, that's all. It scares the perplexed.

Manfarang, I checked out Henderson's. The prices are higher than here and wow, they have such pretty places. One day I hope to visit with the family. Alas, I'm strictly kosher and can't take advantage of restaurants, which turns any unplanned travel venture into an almost manic hunt for something kosher to eat, especially if you got kids with you. I wish Canada Customs would allow a shipment from Scotland's kosher haggis butcher, though: http://www.thejc.com/community/community-life/43985/kosher-haggis-supplier-burns-enthusiasm

16 December 2011 at 19:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. The Inspector had his first glass of mulled wine today. Absolute madness though, boiling the alcohol out, unless you're giving it to an infant or the decrepit (....that reminds, anyone heard of Blofeld lately ?...).

Anyway, here’s a wine tale...

At a wine merchant the regular taster died and the director started looking for a new one to hire.

A drunkard with a ragged, dirty look came to apply for the position.

The director of the factory wondered how to send him away.

They gave him a glass to drink.

He tried it and said, "It's a Muscat , three Years old, grown on a north slope, matured in steel containers". Low grade but acceptable.

"That's correct", said the boss.

Another glass....

"It's a cabernet, eight years old, a south-western slope, oak barrels, matured at 8 degrees. Requires three more years for finest results.."

"Correct."

A third glass...

''It's a pinot blanc champagne, high grade and exclusive'' calmly said the drunk.

The director was astonished.

He winked at his secretary to suggest something.

She left the room, and came back in with a glass of urine.

The alcoholic tried it.

"It's a blonde, 26 years old, three months pregnant and if you don't give me the job, I'll name the father."

16 December 2011 at 20:09  
Blogger OldJim said...

Well, I got to Royal Holloway University, and I have to say its Wednesday carol service was both lovely and orthodox.
I can't speak for the Sunday service, for I was not there. But as a catholic I can affirm the orthodoxy of the local Catholic Church, and say that both Cate and Fr Vlad are lovely.
There's a large population of Muslims at the university, and obviously the people involved felt it would be appropriate to make a gesture of inclusion. Again, I can't speak to the wisdom of the decision, because I don't know all the facts of the case.
I will admit that the facts presented make me cringe a little, but having said that I'm not convinced that the service will have scandalised either Christians or Muslims locally, in which case I don't know that much harm was done.
Obviously, if this carol service were considered an alternative to a traditional anglican service for the anglican students and parishioners involved, I can see that that would be a blunder.
For us Catholics, the service being anglican and not including the Eucharist, this obviously could not be the case, so for us at least it strikes me as largely a non-issue.

17 December 2011 at 00:24  
Blogger OldJim said...

I would add that there is nothing in the quote presented to which I cannot assent, and the inclusion of Eliot ought to make clear that not all the readings are considered to be on par with the Word of God. I shan't tell Paul off for quoting pagans at the Areopagus.
The objection here seems to be that parishioners will mistakenly take from the service a sense of compatibility between the two religions, that mulims will regard it as an uncritical commendation of their faith in its whole, or that the parameters of christian orthodoxy are intentionally being loosened: lex orandi, lex credendi and all that. Having some familiarity with the tenor of christian belief in the area, I find these concerns to be unfounded.
If I have any considered criticism, it's that the organisers have their priorities wrong: we have at least five secular students who do not know their right hand from their left for every faithful muslim.

17 December 2011 at 00:52  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Doddy
I'm just waiting for Ernie - the Fastest Milkman in the West to join in.(Is that 2 pints of gold top and a tub of sour cream you require at the cistine ?)

Ooig
(....that reminds, anyone heard (of) Blofeld lately ?...). From, lad, from. You will not hear about Blofeld elsewhere as Ernst only ever frequents HG's blog, all others are a waste of Ernsty's precious time on earth!

Albert

He credits her with saving his life in an assassination attempt on May 13, 1981.

And your point is? (How can she save anyone or intervene as she is NOT God and has no power? Else why did she not change the water into wine at Cana rather than pester her Son when He clearly did not think the time was right (Aside from the fact that changing water into wine requires supernatural/Godlike ability)(!!!))

or

you would realise how absurd it is to separate Mary from God/Jesus, for (and you really ought to have picked this up by now {as it is RC Dogma,wink, wink. yes?}) she is what she is only because of the indwelling of grace within her.(Roman Catholics and Protestants/non catholics use the word in substantially different ways and completely different meanings that creates a great, impassable chasm (Greek chasma) and cannot be bridged) For us, hers is the first and most perfect "Yes" to the Gospel, and when we say "Yes", because of the ecclesial nature of Christianity, we join our "yes" to hers. (RC Gibberish passed as genuine but nothing in the Bible, "YES"??)

John 2: 5
5 His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it."

Shame that RC's forget this saying even coming from His mother regarding JESUS as He is the one to follow, no one else.(Why Ernst's "Yes" is in obedience to Christ Alone
)
or did Ernst miss His Wonderful Saviour state to others and for all eternity as recorded in the New Testament 'Whatever She says to you, do it'??
or
Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father (or my mother??) but through me ((or my mother or apostles or deceased saints etc?).”

Ernsty

WV 'affib' . INDEED!

17 December 2011 at 02:43  
Blogger English Viking said...

Manfarang,

No, you're wrong there Sir, it is all about rote.

Mr Integrity,

Wrong again, Sir, spell-checking induces laziness, which produces poor spelling.


Johnny,

I was trying to look on the bright side, but you are probably right - we're fecked.

Dodo,

True, what does it matter what HG thinks?

Feck him.

17 December 2011 at 03:44  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

How can she save anyone or intervene as she is NOT God and has no power?

So if a security guard had dived in front of the bullet, the security guard wouldn't have saved his life?! Obviously, Mary has no power to do anything by herself, she has no power to exist by herself, she always needs her creator and redeemer, but she works, as she did at Cana through her prayers. It's remarkable how, in order to uphold your human tradition, you Protestants cut down the logical the possibilities and prevent scripture from speaking:

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father

You go on:

rather than pester her Son when He clearly did not think the time was right

So you really think Mary twisted his arm against his will?! That's a higher doctrine of Mary than I have!

and you really ought to have picked this up by now {as it is RC Dogma,wink, wink. yes?})

Not that he ought to have started believing Catholic doctrine, rather, he ought to have picked up what Catholics actually believe, rather than the calumnies your teachers tell you we believe.

Roman Catholics and Protestants/non catholics use the word in substantially different ways and completely different meanings that creates a great, impassable chasm (Greek chasma) and cannot be bridged

Rather difficult to get into that, until you clarify.

RC Gibberish passed as genuine but nothing in the Bible, "YES"??

Well, we could start by noticing that the the whole text is laid out to make Mary the Daughter of Zion.

Shame that RC's forget this saying even coming from His mother regarding JESUS as He is the one to follow, no one else.

That is another wicked lie. Look, you and Len do not know or understand about Catholicism. Why don't you stop making such comments?

Why Ernst's "Yes" is in obedience to Christ Alone

And not to scripture then:

I urge you, then, be imitators of me.

If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.

Obey your leaders and submit to them

And we have confidence in the Lord about you, that you are doing and will do the things which we command.

Even our Lord was obedient to Mary:

And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

You write:

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father (or my mother??) but through me ((or my mother or apostles or deceased saints etc?).”

You have not the faintest idea what we believe, have you? Just an awful hatred of it.

17 December 2011 at 09:25  
Blogger len said...

Albert what do you make of this,?


The Mystery of Mary Coredemptrix

in the Papal Magisterium.


Holy Father tells us in the same catechesis of 29 May 1996:

'It was fitting that like Christ, the new Adam, Mary too, the new Eve, did not know sin and was thus capable of co-operating in the Redemption.

Sin, which washes over humanity like a torrent, halts before the Redeemer and his faithful Collaborator. With a substantial difference: Christ is all holy by virtue of the grace that in his humanity derives from the divine person: Mary is all holy by virtue of the grace received by the merits of the Saviour. [180]'

(Please note the source!)

17 December 2011 at 09:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR: "@ DanJ0 (06:13)—In 2008, the Telegraph, using statistics from the ONS, gave the British Pakistani birth rate as ‘almost five’. Even if it does fall, it will still be significantly higher than our birth rate."

I think you need to be quite careful how you read those statistics as the key terms (e.g. 'foreign women') are very important. It is very likely that new immigrants will bring the TFR with them from their origin country, it's the 2nd, 3rd etc generation stats that are more important.

Also, as far as I know the ONS doesn't collect statistics on TFR by ethnicity within the British (or English and Welsh) population. I think they have to be inferred, which is why it's academic sources that usually have these statistics in them.

17 December 2011 at 10:16  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Len said 17 December 2011 09:49

You are wasting your time , my good fellow.

We are merely misinterpreting plain english from their own sources or even when declared by those successors of Peter himself! tsk tsk.

Must be something in the translating from word to brain receptors?
Back to school for us then and Ernst must give his english professor a piece of his mind for the wasted education, the old fool.

Ernst

17 December 2011 at 10:56  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len &

And your problem with The Mystery of Mary Coredemptrix. is what exactly len? You don't accept orthodox teaching regarding the Incarnation or the Trinity, so its the same here.

Every word you write about Our Blessed Lady reveals your ignorance of the Bible and of Catholic teaching. What you don't know you make up and I now believe this is both deliberate and malicious.

Let's start with the term Coredemptrix which causes you so such alarm. You both claim to be language scholars so will know the prefix "co" does not mean equal, but comes from the Latin word, "cum" which means "with".

The title of Coredemptrix applied to the Mother of Jesus never places Mary on a level of equality with Jesus Christ in the saving process of humanity's redemption. It denotes Mary's singular and unique sharing with her Son in the saving work of redemption. The Mother of Jesus participates in the redemptive work of her Saviour Son, who alone could reconcile humanity with the Father in his glorious divinity and humanity.

The value of Mary's consent at the time of the Annunciation, her obedience to and faith in the angel's message is the perfect antithesis of Eve's disobedience and disbelief, and had a beneficial effect on humanity's destiny. Just as Eve caused death, so Mary, with her "yes", became a cause of salvation for herself and for all mankind.

Catholics believe Mary is united to Christ in the whole work of Redemption, sharing, according to God's plan, in the Cross and suffering for our salvation.

Mary devoted herself whole-heartedly to God's saving will and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally, as a handmaid of the Lord, to the person and work of her Son, under and with him, serving the mystery of redemption, by the grace of Almighty God.

Mary was not merely passively engaged by God, but freely cooperated in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience. St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race ... the knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."

Stop insulting the Mother of God and the intelligence of Catholics with your lies.

17 December 2011 at 13:26  
Blogger Manfarang said...

English Viking
It's all about synthetic phonics.
The Thai education system was based on rote learning and that's why it was so bad leaving most Thais with a poor level of Maths and English.
English will be the official language of ASEAN when it forms an economic union in 2015

17 December 2011 at 14:27  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ernie the Milkman observed ...

"Must be something in the translating from word to brain receptors?"

How correct you are. Its the same with all human beings. And this is why St Paul taught that: " ... the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

Its why Jesus commissioned and appointed leaders of His Church: "As the Father has sent me, I also send you."

And its why He appointed Peter their leader and invested him with His authority on earth:

" ... 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."

Sola Scriptura? On its own? The above is clear to me and Catholics.
There is nearly 1 billion non-Catholic christians with 30,000 different denominational beliefs.

The 'Bible alone' teaching is insufficient. We need someone to clarify parts of the Bible to put everyone on the right path. We need someone to correct us because some are wrong in their beliefs.

'Sola Scriptura' cannot be true. It is a deception that any educated person can perceive. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest it is the greatest deception to enter Christianity with the consequence of removing souls from the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

17 December 2011 at 15:15  
Blogger Oswin said...

Johnny & English Viking: I was chatting to a sizeable group of university students t'other evening, in my local watering-hole; a nice bunch of kids they were, completing a cross-curricular 'freshers' assignment, out here, in the sticks.

During our conversation, I was amazed at their vociferous agreement, when a 'local sage' started on his favourite theme of ''deport the muslims'' et al.

Indeed, they soon advanced beyond the usual agrarian grumblings, to observations of their home-areas, and of their university.

They knew there was a battle to be fought, and were sick of the lickspittal liberal posturing of the past, that had lumbered their generation with such a problem.

I'd never thought to hear shepherd, student and woodsman agree so readily; it was a most heartening, and surprising experience.

We are far from ''fecked'' - the awakening has at last begun.

17 December 2011 at 15:26  
Blogger len said...

Dodo the Deluded ,
Wind him up and watch him go.

You are so thoroughly brainwashed into the Catholic religion that you spout out the Catholic doctrines like some sort of machine.
God gave you a brain (of your own)why don`t you use it?.

17 December 2011 at 15:35  
Blogger len said...

The Five solas are five Latin phrases that emerged during the Protestant Reformation and summarize the Reformers' basic theological beliefs in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day. The Latin word sola means "alone" or "only" in English. The five solas articulated five fundamental beliefs of the Protestant Reformation, pillars which the Reformers believed to be essentials of the Christian life and practice. All five implicitly rejected or countered the teachings of the then-dominant Catholic Church, which had in the reformers' mind usurped divine attributes or qualities for the Church and its hierarchy, especially its head, the pope.

(Yes this IS from good old wicky, cut and pasted in time honoured tradition(mine ha, ha,)

17 December 2011 at 15:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Oswin. The times they are indeed a changing. White folk in authority seem to have dropped the tragic ‘multicultural’ word, apart that is, the BBC Midland news team. Bah !

trencherbone. One for your Islamic carol list – “Ring out you solstice bombs”

17 December 2011 at 16:02  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len

'Sola Scriptura' - in my opinion, the greatest deception to enter Christianity, resulting in confusion, division and. paradoxically, the undermining of the very authority of the Bible.

Your interpretation of Scripture is as good as the next man's?
Think of it, over 1 billion protestants in more than 30,000 sects, all believing different things based on their own readings of the Bible!

How Satanic is that?

17 December 2011 at 16:47  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len

Ps
Having explained the term to you, you haven't answered what the nature of your difficulty is with Mary being referred to as Coredemptrix.

Your base tactic is to throw out a lie and run for cover.

17 December 2011 at 17:04  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Oswin (15:26)—It’s joyous to hear that the young have seen through their liberal brainwashing, and there was I fretting that the survival instinct had been bred out of them. Bless you.

17 December 2011 at 17:40  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (10:16)—On the question of TFR and ethnicity, this ONS page is headed ‘Estimated fertility rates for UK and non-UK born women’ and concludes:

The diverse fertility levels of migrants from different countries of birth are important when analysing the impact of migration on fertility in recent years. … [T]he TFR for UK born women was 1·6 children per woman, compared with 4·7 for women born in Pakistan and 3·9 for women born in Bangladesh. In contrast some countries have rates closer to those of women born in the UK, these include women born in EU countries, East Africa, old Commonwealth countries, China and Hong Kong.

17 December 2011 at 18:13  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0—The ONS must have the statistics for TFR and ethnicity for UK born women. Even the dentist has a form asking about your ethnicity.

17 December 2011 at 18:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR, your first comment matches what I said i.e. 1st generation immigrants bring their TFRs with them. It doesn't mean subsequent generations maintain them. I don't know why the ONS doesn't publish the statistics, I'd have thought they'd be interested in collecting them for sure.

I think you want the Pakistani and Bangladeshi figures to be high so you can worry people about an 'inevitable' majority at some point. However, I don't think you can make that assumption.

Infant mortality in the UK is a fraction of what it is in Pakistan. We have fairly small houses. People, especially immigrants, tend to live in towns and cities in the UK. Social status is different. And so on. I think these have a downwards pressure on ethnic TFRs.

17 December 2011 at 18:46  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (18:46)—I’d rather the Pakistani and Bangladeshi figures were zero. As it is, downward pressure or not, Pew expects the UK ‘to have the largest increase in the number of Muslims in Europe in the next 20 years.’ Even if the decrease in the Muslim birth rate forecast by Pew materializes, Muslims will still be outbreeding everyone else.

17 December 2011 at 19:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Len & Ernst,

There is something interesting about the fact that neither of you has attempted to answer the biblical passages I quoted against things you had said. I am sure this will not have been lost on my Catholic brethren whom you constantly accuse of being unbiblical!

Len, you have at least raised a counter-objection. The problem here is that the passage does not do the work you claim it does. The Holy Father was referring to the writings of St Irenaeus, who, with one eye on St Paul's Second Adam theology, noticed a connection between Eve and Mary:

Irenaeus: As Eve was seduced by the word of an angel and so fled from God after disobeying his word, Mary in her turn was given the good news by the word of an angel, and bore God in obedience to his word. As Eve was seduced into disobedience to God, so Mary was persuaded into obedience to God; thus the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve.

So all the passage means is that Mary enabled our salvation, in contradistinction to Eve, in the sense that by being obedient to God, the incarnation took place in her. Neither does this mean Mary was not redeemed herself by Christ, as the Holy Father also said:

The Son of Mary won the definitive victory over Satan and enabled his Mother to receive its benefits in advance by preserving her from sin. As a result, the Son granted her the power to resist the devil, thus achieving in the mystery of the Immaculate Conception the most notable effect of his redeeming work.

Now I understand you will not like the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but there is no room for any accusation that Mary somehow takes away from Christ as redeemer.

17 December 2011 at 19:53  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Dodo the Deluded ,
Wind him up and watch him go.

You are so thoroughly brainwashed into the Catholic religion that you spout out the Catholic doctrines like some sort of machine.
God gave you a brain (of your own)why don`t you use it?.


That's exactly the kind of thing that makes your particular brand of Protestantism look so bad. You haven't answered Dodo, you've just become rude. Okay, rudeness abounds on this blog, but, as surely as you think Catholics don't take the Bible seriously, so cradle Catholics think people like you don't take the Bible seriously (that's not my view BTW - at least, not of all Protestants). So if you wish to disabuse Catholics of this belief, you really do need to engage with the objections that Dodo has cited. At the moment I expect he is enjoying having his prior belief confirmed. Now if you really can't do better than that, then you really ought to tone down your condemnations of Catholicism.

17 December 2011 at 20:00  
Blogger len said...

Albert,
I concede one thing.Catholics have got a very clever religious system.How to perpetuate error,how to 'interpret 'scriptures to their own advantage. I admit its clever!.
Make Heresy 'infallible',its very clever.
Very clever.
But its not the gospel.

17 December 2011 at 20:05  
Blogger Albert said...

But its not the gospel.

And that's not an answer, it's just an assertion. I could more or less turn it back on you, except that it wouldn't be one system, but as many systems as there are teachers. I don't recall you being able to defend sola scriptura after the first few exchanges, nor sola fide, nor your (admittedly not Protestant) Christology. Now you can always say that while you can't defend your position, some other Protestant could. That may be true, but admitting that would be to deny sola scriptura. By that doctrine, you need to be able to defend your position by scripture, and if you can't you must revise your position.

In contrast, notice how scripture shows you need a breadth of ministry and not just an individual with a Bible and the Holy Spirit to keep on the right path:

And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

As I've said before, I don't expect you to become a Catholic. I just think you should tone down your rhetoric.

17 December 2011 at 20:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR: "I’d rather the Pakistani and Bangladeshi figures were zero."

I'd rather we made it a lot more difficult to bring in spouses from abroad although I'm not sure how that could be done in practice.

17 December 2011 at 20:20  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len said ...

"I concede one thing.Catholics have got a very clever religious system ... Make Heresy 'infallible',its very clever.

It's not human cleverness at all - its the Divine order! The Church has been given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and power by Christ to loose and bind on earth.

"And I will give to you (Peter) 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."

It really cannot be much clearer and for someone who believes in 'Sola Scriptura' I'm astounded you do not understand it!

17 December 2011 at 20:57  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector,

That was hilarious. Thanks!

Re the mulled wine, does heating it for a short time to a drinkable temperature, as you would Japanese sake (which is around 15%) evaporate the good stuff?

If that's the case, I'd suggest placing a hood over your kettle to collect the vapours, with a hose connected to gas mask you would be wearing while waiting for the wine to heat. Might work, but would require quick thinking and a good imagination should you need to explain yourself to someone who comes to investigate the muffled, but ever-louder bellows as the evening progresses merrily.

18 December 2011 at 03:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "I concede one thing.Catholics have got a very clever religious system."

They've had 1700 years of effort, often cumulative effort, to build an edifice like that. Islam is doing something similar, albeit without the central control structure.

18 December 2011 at 05:26  
Blogger len said...

It is really sad that the Catholic Church has taken what God meant for good and turned it into a self seeking religious Empire which has deified man. The Pope sits on a golden throne dripping with wealth and Jewels, whilst the Son of Man(Jesus Christ( had only the garment upon His back.)
The Prince of the Power of the Air takes what God has created and bends and twists it until it become his 'own creation'.He does this because he hates God and hates God`s Creation... man and wishes to destroy him.Satan has done all he can to close the door to salvation and false religions are one of his 'creations'to this end.
There are many false religions which are placed in front of men to lure and attract them away from the only path which leads to God.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
(This is THE truth for all who can grasp it,there is no other way!)

18 December 2011 at 12:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. It is really sad that the Catholic Church has taken what God meant for good and turned it into a self seeking religious Empire which has deified man.

Albert and Dodo have spent a great deal of time and patience instructing you on where YOU have gone wrong in your understanding of the RCC. You’re quite shameless in spreading your lies. Your demonic status grows on this site...

18 December 2011 at 15:50  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

If Len believes that only faith can get you into heaven, what about those too young to be able to make that decision of faith? Where do they go?

18 December 2011 at 16:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Paul Twigg. No doubt Len will be trawling the net, once he sees your question. But the answer could be in part the furnace of hell if their parents are Catholics...

18 December 2011 at 17:12  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (18:46 on 17 December)—Twenty-four hours after you made your observation about the size of our houses being a limiting factor on birth rate, my calcified brain has remembered a news item about homes being built for Muslims in Oldham, with ‘up to seven bedrooms’. I don’t know whether the developer, the Manchester Methodist Housing Association, is part of the Methodist Church. I do hope not.

18 December 2011 at 18:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny, that's a curious and slightly disturbing story. I can't see it taking off nationally though. If anything, we're into high-density housing now. Still, it should attract Catholics to the area too. The ones who aren't quietly using contraception, that is, so that they can use their limited resources to raise their chosen number of kids without a material disadvantage.

18 December 2011 at 18:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Is there any biblical evidence that would convince you that your particular brand of Protestantism is wrong. It's just that, instead of arguing from the Bible, you always end up saying that sort of thing (12.19).

18 December 2011 at 19:45  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Albert

I concluded some time ago it was fruitless discussing Christianity with len or Ernsty.

What astonishes me is that they can believe they are capable of understanding the hidden depths of the Bible, the mysterious revelation of God, unaided and unassisted by millenia of devoted study by so many Saints and Church Fathers.

They have taken 'Sola Scriptura' to its logical end-game. Other than a virulant disgust for what they misrepresent as 'Roman Catholicism', they say little or nothing about their 'faith' or the nature of the personal relationship they claim with Jesus.

We are put here to know God, to love Him and to serve Him. Do either know who they claim to love? If pushed on their 'theology', their rational knowledge of God, they are evasive, abusive towards 'Catholicism' or post various 'authorative' text from Scripture - again, usually attacking the Pope or the 'Church'. Ask about the nature of God, the nature of Christ, or try to explore the path of salvation in the Gospels and the role of the Church, and its a 'no-show'.

That wonderful summation of our responsibilties in Luke:
"But he said to him: What is written in the law? How do you read it? He answering, said: You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with all your strength and with all your mind: and your neighbour as yourself. And he said to him: You have answered right. This do: and you shall live."

And restated in Matthew:
"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depends the whole law and the prophets."

To love God with heart, soul, might and mind and express this in love of others. These are awesome responsibilities! To use all one's power to know God intimately, spiritually and intellectually. But alone, as len would have it? On an individual reading of the Bible without the aid of scholars and Church Doctors? Without assurred and certain guidance?

The Catholic Church bases all its teachings on solid foundations. What drives its doctrines and teachings? A slow development of an ever unfolding understanding of the mystery of God revealed in His Word, prayer, Biblical study and research and, crucially, with the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Still, credit where it's due. Their persistant mendacity about Catholicism, shere inventiveness about 'history' and the endless quotations of scripture to 'prove' their points, can be effective as it wears one down.

Still, as they say, know one's adversary. And I think I understand him a little better now.

18 December 2011 at 23:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "To love God with heart, soul, might and mind and express this in love of others. These are awesome responsibilities!"

I'd give up now if I were you, Dodo. The chances of you even catching up with atheists in the love of others thing is pretty damned small if you're like you are here in real life.

19 December 2011 at 08:19  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

But DanJ0, I do love you - just not in that way or your lifestyle.

19 December 2011 at 16:28  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DTKD (16:28)—God must be relaxed about the gay lifestyle or He would never have made gay men. For once, take your lead from God rather than the magisterium.

19 December 2011 at 17:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

Your principle seems to be that it is moral for people to do whatever they feel tempted to do.

Are you serious?

19 December 2011 at 18:18  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert—When God made gay men, He must have had an inkling they’d be physically attracted to each other, and He must be content with that or He wouldn’t have made them gay in the first place. Society seems to have survived the temptations presented by heterosexuality so I don’t see why homosexuality should be a problem. God doesn’t see it as a problem.

19 December 2011 at 18:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

The "God made X" is theologically more complicated than you are putting it, because of the doctrine of original sin. Essentially, we're all messed up to a degree, and as a result we cannot move from "I find X attractive" to "Therefore X is morally okay".

After all, start to apply that principle more widely and you'll soon end up endorsing things you wouldn't normally endorse. Therefore, the "God made X" argument is insufficient to justify "X is therefore moral". You need other grounds for that, and it is precisely on those other grounds that you and Dodo will part company.

19 December 2011 at 18:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Sorry, Dodo, I'm just catching up on your earlier post to me.

I think the sola scriptura doctrine places people in an invidious position. When someone comes up with an interpretation of scripture which they do not know how to deal with, instead of being able to say with the Psalmist:

LORD, I am not high-minded : I have no proud looks.
2. I do not exercise myself in great matters : which are too high for me.
3. But I refrain my soul, and keep it low, like as a child that is weaned from his mother : yea, my soul is even as a weaned child.
4. O Israel, trust in the Lord : from this time forth for evermore.


they must either be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, or claim some inner illumination which means they do not have to attend to scripture after all or follow their own teachers, and thus, in principle repudiate the very principle of sola scriptura.

Newman saw this clearly, he said that they must put their trust in

their own teachers and divines, who expressly disclaim that they are fit objects of it, and who exhort their people to judge for themselves.

19 December 2011 at 19:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR: "Society seems to have survived the temptations presented by heterosexuality so I don’t see why homosexuality should be a problem."

Well, quite. The homosexual and heterosexual thing is like right-handed-ness and left-handed-ness at its core. Left-handed-ness can be seen as sinister, odd, being marked by the devil, etc if ignorant and superstititious people are so inclined. Alternatively, we can just make left-handed can openers and scissors for those people and all get on with life as best we can. I prefer the second option, myself. Seems rather obvious to me.

19 December 2011 at 19:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "But DanJ0, I do love you - just not in that way or your lifestyle."

You're being trite. It's a serious matter, you know. On your terms, I mean.

19 December 2011 at 19:26  
Blogger len said...

Albert,(19:00)

The irony will be totally lost on you no doubt,You have a man who suits in a' magic chair 'giving you infallible doctrines which oppose the Word of God.

You just couldn`t make it up.

And then these 'infallible men' contradict each other.
And this is the religion you follow???

Give me strength!.

19 December 2011 at 19:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

You have a man who suits in a' magic chair 'giving you infallible doctrines which oppose the Word of God.

An assertion that you have singularly failed to substantiate. You worry about what you regard as the "errors" of Rome and yet you give house-room to tritheists and deniers of the incarnation (tritheists and deniers of the incarnation by the standards of the Reformation in which you put your "faith" ("faith"? a slip of the pen, surely? Faith should be placed in God alone, not in men or movements)). Under the circumstances, even if you could substantiate your belief that Rome is in error, wouldn't you still be guilty of straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel?

19 December 2011 at 20:24  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert (18:48)—On the one hand are the theological arguments and doctrines that reflect all the prejudices of Man. On the other, the example of a loving God. I hope Christians will forgive me for saying it, but their lives often seem to be ruled by too much of the former and too little of the latter.

19 December 2011 at 20:26  
Blogger Albert said...

I think you make a very fair point Johnny. The only question is, on a given topic, is a particular position merely the prejudice of man, or is it the wisdom of a loving God? My point is to say nothing more than that this cannot be decided simply by looking at the activities we find attractive. And if that is the case, then Dodo is unlikely to find your "God made gay men" argument convincing.

19 December 2011 at 20:40  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert—this cannot be decided simply by looking at the activities we find attractive

Dan probably doesn’t find the activity of heterosexual, or lesbian, sex attractive but he’s prepared to live and let live. As believers in the God who, in His wisdom, caused some men to be homosexual, Christians should be even more prepared to do the same.

19 December 2011 at 20:57  
Blogger William said...

"Faith should be placed in God alone, not in men or movements"

or Mary wouldn't you say Albert? Or can one put one's faith in Mary because she is coredemptrix with Christ?

19 December 2011 at 21:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR: "Dan probably doesn’t find the activity of heterosexual, or lesbian, sex attractive but he’s prepared to live and let live."

I don't, and I am.

There's something of the naturalistic fallacy in the usual religious arguments against homosexual behaviour. We don't think people with congenital spinal problems are committing evil if they use their arms instead of their non-working legs to drive their wheelchair to get around. Yet there's something about sex that implies morality for some people even if it is consensual and harmless and an expression of love, and when there's no other alternative for the whole of one's life except abstinence.

19 December 2011 at 21:37  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

William
Now I thought we'd have covered your misunderstanding about Catholics and Our Lady - at length. Why be so troublesome?

Mr Rottenborough
God has, in your terms, 'caused some men' to be all sorts of things. He gives us free will, His revelation and Grace to overcome our evil inclinations.

len
Do grow up! You are like a little child. You really don't understand Christianity or Catholicism.

DanJ0
I wasn't being trite at all.

19 December 2011 at 22:02  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

Dan probably doesn’t find the activity of heterosexual, or lesbian, sex attractive but he’s prepared to live and let live. As believers in the God who, in His wisdom, caused some men to be homosexual, Christians should be even more prepared to do the same.

Who's saying that we shouldn't live and let live? I have no interest in criminalising, persecuting or even teasing homosexual people. I don't like to see them unjustly discriminated against. But that doesn't mean that therefore I think gay sex is morally acceptable. It's just that, unless homosexuals are somehow requiring me to accept their behaviour as moral, or worse, force me to pretend their relationships are equal to heterosexual marriage, I think that what homosexuals do to each other is none of my business. In fact, from a political point of view, I used to be somewhat "pro-gay", and would be again, if homosexuals would stop attempting to force their own opinions on the rest of us.

19 December 2011 at 22:06  
Blogger Albert said...

William,

As the Catechism puts it:

By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith".

As such, faith can only be in God alone. Mary's greatness stems from her faith, not from herself.

19 December 2011 at 22:10  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dan (21:37)—Yet there’s something about sex that implies morality for some people

I dare say the ‘something’ stems from the repugnance felt by the straight majority at the sexual acts of the gay minority. At the same time, the straight men who are repulsed by gay sex are turned on by lesbian sex so there’s no logic at play here, only deep-seated instincts. That straight men use religion to preen their own morality and condemn those who are different is no great surprise.

19 December 2011 at 22:13  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

I think the suggestion that an act as deeply intimate and powerful as a sexual act could be a non-moral act is pretty unreflective. Nor do I think does it do justice simply to imply those of us who disagree with gay sex down so only out of "deep-seated instincts" - indeed, considering you started by trying to argue for the rightness of gay sex from a deep-seated instinct, it's a little puzzling too!

19 December 2011 at 22:24  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert—As God made gay men, in the full knowledge that they would need to express their sexuality physically, it is He who argues for ‘the rightness of gay sex’.

19 December 2011 at 22:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

they would need

The point that I am making is that your argument forecloses the conclusion. I don't think we should ever assume that people "need" to have sex. What would you justify if you did? Rape for those who can't find a consenting partner? If you do accept the "need" you could say that a lot of bad behaviours are "needed". So, you still need another argument, I think.

In any case, as I have already said, humanity is messed up by original sin, so we cannot move from "I desire X" to "therefore X is morally okay". In short, I think you are falling into the is/ought gap.

19 December 2011 at 22:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's curious that even masturbation is an immoral act to some of these people.

19 December 2011 at 22:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "God has, in your terms, 'caused some men' to be all sorts of things."

Even congenital defects, like having no motor control of one's legs.

"He gives us free will, His revelation and Grace to overcome our evil inclinations."

Like wanting to use one's arms and a wheelchair in lieu of one's legs? Your 'ordered towards' thing doesn't really work when there is no other realistic choice, does it? Which is why religionists of a certain flavour try to create a special version of their own reality for the rest of us where there is supposedly a choice. Horns of a dilemma, etc.

19 December 2011 at 23:04  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

DanJ0

Christians believe nature itself was disturbed by men's rebellion against God. What had been created good brought evil into the world and all of nature was affected.

God doesn't require genetic mutation to achieve perfection. Unfortunately, we turned our backs on Him and the consequences are cosmic, not just individual.

19 December 2011 at 23:26  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert (22:46)—I don’t think we should ever assume that people ‘need’ to have sex

At Prince William’s wedding, there was a reference to ‘the natural instincts and affections implanted by God’, so the authors of the Prayer Book assumed otherwise.

I suppose that, with its high camp rituals, elaborate vestments, flagellation and all-male priesthood (not to mention a Sistine Chapel plastered with naked men), the Church of Rome has always understood the importance of adopting a vehemently anti-gay stance, not unlike those straight men who seek to disguise their gay inclinations by being violently homophobic.

19 December 2011 at 23:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Christians believe nature itself was disturbed by men's rebellion against God. What had been created good brought evil into the world and all of nature was affected."

But that doesn't actually address the point. You've made one thing the stuff of morality and the other nothing to do with it yet there doesn't seem to be much difference between the two. Except, of course, that the sex one is a powerful driver of human behaviour and emotion and controlling access to it allows people to be controlled. The true purpose of religion, I think.

19 December 2011 at 23:56  
Blogger William said...

Dodo: "Now I thought we'd have covered your misunderstanding about Catholics and Our Lady - at length. Why be so troublesome?"

I'm sorry that you find my misunderstanding troublesome. What I do understand is that I am not the only one. Perhaps it's a problem with the doctrine?

Albert: "As such, faith can only be in God alone. Mary's greatness stems from her faith, not from herself."

Except that praying to Mary is surely an act of faith. It is putting your faith in her; that she will intercede on your behalf. Is there not a contradiction in saying that faith is in God alone and then praying to Mary to help you?

20 December 2011 at 00:05  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

DanJo
It was you who mixed morality and human suffering through disbility. I was simply stating Christian belief about how evil and suffering entered the world.

Mr Rottenborough
Those "natural instincts and affections implanted by God", please note natural, do not have to be acted upon outside a moral code.

And surely we can all choose to rise above our natural inclinations when circumstances require it?

Regretably too, human nature being what it is, we also have baser inclinations that have to be controlled for our own good and that of others.

20 December 2011 at 00:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "It was you who mixed morality and human suffering through disbility."

Yes. To show how crap your 'ordered towards' thing is in reality. Do you have any defense, short of a variation of "My god says so"? It's okay if not, there's nothing stopping you holding crap beliefs.

20 December 2011 at 00:59  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

DanJ0

I've given all the explanation I can above. The mystery of evil and suffering is a whole genre unto itself!

The 'ordered towards' thing, as you call it, is impeded by man's fallen state in a world that is not as it should be.

20 December 2011 at 01:33  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

William
Please, just admit it, you took an opportunistic swipe at Catholicism.

Have you never prayed to God for another person or some cause? Never asked someone to pray for you or your family? That's intercessionary prayer. Christians do it all thetime. What's the difference with asking Mary to join her prayers with ours?

You're troublesome because you don't want to accept the Catholic devotion to Mary - fine - and seek to misrepresent this to attack the Church - not fine.

In other words, I believe you're being disingenuous.

20 December 2011 at 01:41  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert stated wrongly 17 December 2011 09:25

Ernst,

How can she save anyone or intervene as she is NOT God and has no power?

"So if a security guard had dived in front of the bullet, the security guard wouldn't have saved his life?! Obviously, Mary has no power to do anything by herself, she has no power to exist by herself, she always needs her creator and redeemer (But Mary's Immaculate Conception actually refers to the stain of 'Original Sin', something which every human other than Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary are born with. Why then would she need a redeemer. Have you not read the gospel of James, a ‘protevangelion’ that gives succour to your presuppositions regarding Mary), but she works, as she did at Cana through her prayers. It's remarkable how, in order to uphold your human tradition, you Protestants cut down the logical the possibilities and prevent scripture from speaking:"

You really do not comprehend the foolishness you write, the false comparisons, do you or are we mistaken?

How can you compare a security guard and the Son of God in the same sentence, with the eternal salvation of a soul as Ernst has laid out.
Can any security guard really ‘SAVE’ another man, let alone himself? What has salvation got to do with the taking of a bullet by one HUMAN for another? Comparing a man’s actions and ability with God’s smacks of desperation or must Ernst quote all that God declared about Himself to Job and see how that security guard of yours fares, hmmn,

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father (So Christ empowers the works because He goes to the Father. What has this to do with Mary and other saints etc after death and what they do for the living believers? Show me from scripture)

You go on:

rather than pester her Son when He clearly did not think the time was right

So you really think Mary twisted his arm against his will?! That's a higher doctrine of Mary than I have! (Never an answer to the question is there? What were her supernatural credentials as the Mother of God that RC's claim for her/ her empowering by the Holy Spirit?? Who did she raise from the dead, heal or prophecy from God her husband..Where oh where except in the fanciful minds of fools, who love a farfetched fable rather than the truth) and you really ought to have picked this up by now {as it is RC Dogma,wink, wink. yes?})

Not that he ought to have started believing Catholic doctrine, rather, he ought to have picked up what Catholics actually believe, rather than the calumnies your teachers tell you we believe.(Dear fellow, Ernst reads your own writers who revel in declaring her bounties against any scriptural evidence that she had such things)

Ernst

20 December 2011 at 02:40  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert further stated wrongly 17 December 2011 09:25


Well, we could start by noticing that the the whole text is laid out to make Mary the Daughter of Zion. ( But she is NOT! You quote the gibberish of Pope John Paul II, that great RC theologian, yes? From L'Osservatore Romano (the newspaper of the Holy See.) from 8th May 1996, page 11 , http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm18.htm.

Shame that RC's forget this saying even coming from His mother regarding JESUS as He is the one to follow, no one else.

“That is another wicked lie. Look, you and Len do not know or understand about Catholicism. Why don't you stop making such comments?” (Ernst reads the writers of your own religion, who glow with religious zeal/dedication to her rather than her son!)

Why Ernst's "Yes" is in obedience to Christ Alone

And not to scripture then :(All Scripture is all about Him, He is the centre of all)
I urge you, then, be imitators of me. (What, like Pope Alexander VI etc etc were?. YEAH, RIGHT!)

If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. . (What, like Pope Alexander VI etc etc)

Obey your leaders and submit to them (Ernst and others must submit to people like like Pope Alexander VI etc etc, yes?)

And we have confidence in the Lord about you, that you are doing and will do the things which we command. . (What, like Pope Alexander VI etc etc)

Even our Lord was obedient to Mary: (He was an example for us and how all children should be to BOTH His parents not only Mary, as Joseph was his legal father)

And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.

You write: Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father (or my mother??) but through me ((or my mother or apostles or deceased saints etc?).”

“You have not the faintest idea what we believe, have you? Just an awful hatred of it.” I show the natural blasphemy that comes from such a vile interpretation of scripture when you do not consider the natural conclusions such a view leads men to.

"Have mercy upon me, O Lord; consider my trouble which I suffer of them that hate me, Thou that liftest me up from the gates of death: That I may show forth all Thy praise in the gates of the daughter of Zion: I will rejoice in Thy salvation." (Psalm 9:13-14 KJV)
" Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.
And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.
" (Isaiah 62:11-12 KJV)
"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.." (Zechariah 9:9 KJV)
" Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD." (Zechariah 2:10 KJV)

ps

How then can our Lord dwell in the midst of his mother??? What a fine world you inhabit, the natural meaning of scripture can mean anything..bit like torturing statistics. They say anything you want in the end!


RC Gibberish passed as genuine but nothing in the Bible, "YES"??
Think I was right the first time!

Ernst

20 December 2011 at 03:02  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo sweetly asked @20 December 2011 01:41

"What's the difference with asking Mary to join her prayers with ours?"

Never heard someone say 'Hail Edith, full of grace, the Lord is with you where you are in heaven as a believer.
Blessed have you been as an old friend to others.
Hail Edith, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen'

Or if it's because she is better known than Edith to RC's, would Mary Magdalene suffice or Priscilla or Dorcas?

Why would you believe Mary's prayers have more merit than Edith's. Why should we not pray to King David or Moses and show devotion to them instead of Mary.

"you don't want to accept the Catholic devotion to Mary" Religious Devotion - the act of consecrating; dedication to the service and worship of a deity.

In other words, I believe you're being disingenuous. *Choking sound*

Nighty night, doody the deluder.

Ernst

20 December 2011 at 03:29  
Blogger William said...

Dodo

"Please, just admit it, you took an opportunistic swipe at Catholicism. " Denied. I genuinely believe that praying to Mary is putting your faith in her.

"Have you never prayed to God for another person or some cause? Never asked someone to pray for you or your family? That's intercessionary prayer. Christians do it all thetime. What's the difference with asking Mary to join her prayers with ours?"

The difference is; it is not an act of faith to ask my brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for me. It is an act of faith to believe that those prayers will be answered. Also, I do it because our Lord has said "when two or more are gathered together ...". So it is Biblical.

Albert

When you were a Protestant presumably you would pray to God? Perhaps you would distinguish between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit? Or maybe you just prayed to God? So it would be interesting for me to know what happened when you became a Catholic? Do you find yourself still praying to God alone or do you also now pray to Mary? What would you say, qualitatively speaking, is your split between praying to God and praying to Mary? Or does it depend on the situation?

20 December 2011 at 08:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I've given all the explanation I can above."

I guessed that already, and no slipping and sliding the point is helping you here. You're scuppered, aren't you? At this point, I could follow you around the threads demanding you answer and inviting people to draw conclusions when you don't.

Or you could appeal for help like you did when I did something similar with the abortion clinics thing some time back. Not that the risible borrowing of the Just War justification which resulted actually helped.

20 December 2011 at 08:17  
Blogger len said...

The whole issue of interpretation of the Bible and the role of Mary is covered quite magnificently in this article

bible-truth.org/Principles.htm.


This article explains how Mary could never be 'The Mother of God'
as God is a Spiritual Being and Mary was a physical being.(pages34&35)Also prayers should be addressed to God through Christ(Matt 6:9 Heb 4:16)

20 December 2011 at 08:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

At Prince William’s wedding, there was a reference to ‘the natural instincts and affections implanted by God’, so the authors of the Prayer Book assumed otherwise.

Well, you've quoted rather selectively from the 1928 Prayer Book. The whole passage upholds the teaching that we cannot justify our sexual behaviour on the grounds that we "need" it:

Secondly, It was ordained in order that the natural instincts and affections, implanted by God, should be hallowed and directed aright; that those who are not called of God to remain unmarried, but by him are led to this holy estate, should continue therein in pureness of living.

The passage is quite clear, there are two types of persons: those called to the single life and those not called to the single life. The latter are called to heterosexual marriage as is clear from the preceding paragraph:

First, It was ordained for the increase of mankind according to the will of God, and that children might be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy name.

Thus, on the basis of the text you have appealed to (which I suspect neither of us recognises as strictly authoritative) we can say that if you are not called to heterosexual marriage, you are called to a single, continent life.

The 1662 BCP is much less bashful, but the teaching is the same:

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;

You go on:

I suppose that, with its high camp rituals, elaborate vestments, flagellation and all-male priesthood (not to mention a Sistine Chapel plastered with naked men), the Church of Rome has always understood the importance of adopting a vehemently anti-gay stance, not unlike those straight men who seek to disguise their gay inclinations by being violently homophobic.

I know you're being ironic, but actually there is a truth in that. What you have just indicated is that the Catholic Church, taken as a whole, probably understands homosexuality and sexuality in general rather better than people, who do wish to learn from 2000 years of experience, realise. More generally, the Catholic Church did not become the largest Christian community by far with over half of all the world's Christians, and something like a sixth of the world's population, by being prudish about sex.

20 December 2011 at 09:54  
Blogger Albert said...

William,

Except that praying to Mary is surely an act of faith. It is putting your faith in her; that she will intercede on your behalf. Is there not a contradiction in saying that faith is in God alone and then praying to Mary to help you?

It's not an act of faith in the biblical sense of the word "faith". All we do when we pray to Mary is simply ask her to pray for us. For this reason, it is better to say "ask for the prayers of Mary" rather than "pray to Mary", but it all means the same thing. Now if I ask you to pray for me, I am not putting divine faith in you am I? So what's the difference with Mary?

So it would be interesting for me to know what happened when you became a Catholic?

Actually, I learned to pray to Mary while still an Anglican.

Do you find yourself still praying to God alone or do you also now pray to Mary?

99% of my prayers - more probably are directed to God alone, but I will often ask Mary to pray with me and for me.

What would you say, qualitatively speaking, is your split between praying to God and praying to Mary?

I might ask Mary to pray for me when I am struggling to pray myself, especially if what I am praying for is very important, for scripture says:

The LORD is far from the wicked,
but he hears the prayer of the righteous.

20 December 2011 at 10:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

Apologies, I mistyped a sentence. The penultimate sentence of the last paragraph should have read:

What you have just indicated is that the Catholic Church, taken as a whole, probably understands homosexuality and sexuality in general rather better than people, who do not wish to learn from 2000 years of experience, realise.

20 December 2011 at 10:05  
Blogger William said...

Albert

"I might ask Mary to pray for me when I am struggling to pray myself, especially if what I am praying for is very important, for scripture says:

The LORD is far from the wicked,
but he hears the prayer of the righteous."


So by asking Mary to pray for you the gap is bridged between you and God by virtue of her righteousness. It is through her righteousness that your prayers are heard or, at least, become more powerful.

20 December 2011 at 11:43  
Blogger William said...

Dodo

"You're troublesome because you don't want to accept the Catholic devotion to Mary - fine - and seek to misrepresent this to attack the Church - not fine."

Or maybe I find it difficult to reconcile your "devotion to Mary" with what I believe Christ has done for us (and told us to do) and you take that to be a direct attack on the Church?

20 December 2011 at 12:12  
Blogger Albert said...

William,

So by asking Mary to pray for you the gap is bridged between you and God by virtue of her righteousness. It is through her righteousness that your prayers are heard or, at least, become more powerful.

I note with interest that instead of answering the question I put to you, you have instead turned my response into something it wasn't.

Let me repeat: most of my prayers are simply directed to God. They are heard in their own "right" (as it were, obviously we do not have a right to be heard by God), I do not ask for Mary's prayers because I need her to "bridge the gap". I ask Mary to pray as well, because I may be struggling with prayer and scripture is in any case clear that the prayers of the righteous are more powerful than those of the wicked. We never approach God alone, but always in the Christian community. Consequently, it's not just the prayers of Mary that we seek, but also the prayers of other saints and of other Christians still in this life. Presumably, you ask friends to pray for you. So what's the problem with asking friends in heaven to pray for you?

Or maybe I find it difficult to reconcile your "devotion to Mary" with what I believe Christ has done for us (and told us to do) and you take that to be a direct attack on the Church?

Which difficulties? How is there a conflict?

20 December 2011 at 13:50  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ TWOTD (00:36)—Please note it is natural for a homosexual man to be attracted to other men.

@ Albert (09:54)—In some men, God implanted the instinct to be attracted to other men. If it’s the ‘hallowed and directed aright’ part that’s the problem, the answer is gay marriage.

As for the argument that homosexuals must lead a celibate life, a God who creates a man homosexual, gives him a daily dose of testosterone and then expects him to abstain, for his entire life, from the sex he would enjoy strikes me as cruel. The Church’s answer, that he should marry a woman and engage in sex which he is likely to find revolting and will make both him and his wife unhappy, is no less cruel.

20 December 2011 at 14:14  
Blogger len said...

When God created man He declared him 'good'.
For God to then go ahead and condemn man for traits that man displayed would be hypocritical as God was the Creator.
So what happened?.
How did what God created become 'not good?'.
Man was created to be indwelt by God`s Spirit ,the obvious answer(to what went wrong, and the only answer) is that man became indwelt by a spirit other than God`s and took on the attributes of this 'other spirit'.

20 December 2011 at 14:46  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

The whole issue of interpretation of the Bible and the role of Mary is covered quite magnificently in this article

I wonder how many of the principles laid out in that long article can be proved from scripture. In fact, I wonder if they are all consistent with scripture! The passage on Mary is terribly confused, not only about Catholic teaching (and Reformation teaching too) on the incarnation, but also about the Bible itself.

But let's begin with where it's on the right sorts of lines:

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."... Jesus said He was with the Father "before the world was." Mary, the godly young woman, was chosen by God to be Jesus' mother and give Him His physical body. Should could not be the mother of God because she did not give birth to God who is not a physical Being, but Spirit (John 4:24). Mary was a physical person and therefore could not give birth to a Spiritual being.

There is no suggestion in the Christian (i.e. Protestant and Catholic - they are agreed) doctrine of God that Mary gives birth to the Son of God in heaven. There is no suggestion that she gives birth to him as God. In a way, it's only an anti-Catholic prejudice that would allow anyone to think that we would think this. Forget Catholicism, do the people who posted this, really think Luther and Calvin believed Mary is prior to God in heaven, that she, a creature generated the creator in heaven, before all time? Seriously? And why is the passage attacking only Catholicism? It should be attacking the Reformation too!

Nevertheless, the passage is plainly unscriptural when it repudiates the title "Mother of God". Although this title never explicitly occurs, it follows of logical necessity from what scripture does explicitly say. In other words, in order to deny the title, you need to deny at least one scriptural teaching:

1. Mary's Son is the Son of God (Lk.1.35).
2. God has only one Son (Jn.1.18).
3. The Son of God is God (Jn.1.1).

Which of these three will you deny? If you won't deny any of them, then you already believe Mary is Mother of God.

Now, I can accept that you don't like the title, I can even accept the reason why: if I thought the title "Mother of God" implied she gave birth to God the Son in his divinity, before all time, I would repudiate the title. But this is not what it means. It means that the one and only Son of God, who was begotten as God before all time, was born of Mary as man. Unless we say this, we cannot give thanks to God that he came and died for us (as man). Hence, he can be addressed as God, and as Lord (NB a divine title) and so Mary can be called "Mother of my Lord" (Lk.1.43) - a title, which understood in its fullest sense means exactly the same as "Mother of God" (there are not really many "lords" are there 1 Cor.8.5?)

Yes, Jesus Christ is God, incarnate in flesh and He is our eternal God, the Alpha and Omega.(Rev. 1:8)

It's hard not to feel there is something wrong here: there seems to be a division between Jesus who is "incarnate in flesh" and the eternal Gof "the Alpha and the Omega". But if the humanity is divided from the divinity there is no incarnation and no salvation. Do you see the point Len? If you do not unite the divine and human natures in the second person of the Trinity (whereby Mary is called Mother of God) how do you unite humanity and divinity in Christ, and how do you claim Jesus is in any sense at all, God?

20 December 2011 at 14:50  
Blogger Albert said...

Roman Catholics worship and pray to Mary.

Prayers yes, worship no. It's crazy and ignorant to say we worship her: worship is due to God alone.

Never in God's word is Mary called the mother of God.

Given that Jesus is only directly addressed as "God" once (I think) that tells us nothing. Other titles do not appear in the NT like "Trinity", and, as I have already indicated, all those dense rules about interpretation are unlikely to be explicitly there in scripture either. However, I hope I have said enough to show how Mary is understood to be Mother of God in scripture, in Catholicism and in Protestantism.

20 December 2011 at 14:50  
Blogger len said...

Albert, Jesus totally man totally God does anyone totally understand this?


I think I will stick with'Mary mother of Jesus' as stated in Scripture.

20 December 2011 at 16:13  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

len said ...

""Man was created to be indwelt by God`s Spirit ,the obvious answer(to what went wrong, and the only answer) is that man became indwelt by a spirit other than God`s and took on the attributes of this 'other spirit'."

This is not a Christian doctrine that I'm familiar with! You appear to be suggesting a whole different theolgy to original sin, personal sin and redemption.

Can you give your sources for this statement?

20 December 2011 at 17:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Jesus totally man totally God does anyone totally understand this?

Indeed not! But it cannot be "Jesus the man a different person from the Son of God who is God" ergo...

That's why the Church as a whole has not been allowed the luxury of settling for "Mother of Jesus". Heretics have denied the incarnation by saying she only gave birth to a man who was not God. Since the title "Mother of God" follows of logical necessity from scripture, the Church had to respond in a way that secured the unity of divinity and humanity in Christ.

20 December 2011 at 17:19  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

In some men, God implanted the instinct to be attracted to other men.

That is a point I would deny - as my references to original sin have hopefully made clear.

If it’s the ‘hallowed and directed aright’ part that’s the problem, the answer is gay marriage.

Okay, but you are not going to be able to appeal to the BCP to do it. But you can leave God out of this and simply follow the point I keep repeating: you cannot move from "I deeply desire X" to "X is moral". Some people desire appalling things, it doesn't make them right. This does not mean by itself that gay sex is immoral, it just means you need another argument to show that it is moral. And if you are going to support any kind of legislation that is going to require anyone else to accept the equality of gay sex with married heterosexual sex, you are going to need a very good argument.

The Church’s answer, that he should marry a woman and engage in sex which he is likely to find revolting and will make both him and his wife unhappy, is no less cruel.

Wow! Where did anyone say that was the Church's answer? I would have thought that homosexuality might be grounds for nullity!

20 December 2011 at 17:27  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert (17:27)—Deny all you like. If you believe God created Man, it is undeniable that He created homosexuals.

Reading your comments, I gathered the Church’s answer to homosexuals was (a) remain celibate or (b) marry a woman. If they choose option (b), they’re faced with the prospect of, for them, unnatural sex.

20 December 2011 at 17:43  
Blogger Albert said...

If you believe God created Man, it is undeniable that He created homosexuals.

Obviously, that's true, but that's not what you said, you said:

God implanted the instinct to be attracted to other men.

and any premise less strong than that, would cause your argument to fail. But why don't you address the fact that you cannot move from "I desire X" to "X is therefore right"?

I gathered the Church’s answer to homosexuals was (a) remain celibate or (b) marry a woman.

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the Church's answer was that homosexuals should marry persons of the opposite sex. I don't think that's a good idea at all (all things being equal).

20 December 2011 at 18:20  
Blogger William said...

Albert

OK you can ignore my "bridge the gap" metaphor if you do not like it. However, I fail to see how I have turned your response into something it isn't. The point of the scripture you quoted was to show that Mary's prayers are more powerful than yours, by virtue of her righteousness as I said, and that therefore you ask her to pray with you, at times, so that you can leverage some of that power. Your wickedness is counterbalanced by Mary's righteousness.

Also, I do not know why you don't ask the Holy Spirit to help you pray. That's one of the things He does you know.

In answer to your questions. I would find it difficult to pray to dead people. I do not know of any Biblical reason to do so. I try to follow Christ's teachings as best I can. He recommends praying with live people.

20 December 2011 at 18:40  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert (18:20)—As far as I can see, ‘God implanted [in some men] the instinct to be attracted to other men’ is just another way of saying ‘God created homosexuals’.

If X is a natural urge implanted by God, how can its expression in a loving relationship not be right? And, that argument holds whether the relationship involves a man and a woman or two men. If God is horrified by the idea of gay sex why did He institute homosexuality in the first place?

I’m really coming round to Dan’s point of view about religious people fucking the world up for everyone else.

20 December 2011 at 18:56  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Does Dodo love me as well? If so lots of hugs and kisses x

PS - catholicism is, generally, cock. But Jesus still loves YOU.

PPS- Merry Christmas. Emphasis on the Merry

20 December 2011 at 20:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Rottenborough, you surely jest, Sir. Homosexuals need to be kept in check, lest our Western world suffer degeneration from their ‘excesses’ passing for normal. For the sake of generations to come you know. Generations homosexuals will not be producing or be responsible for. We owe it to those of the future when we will be dust. The Homosexuals are here for today people – no or little interest in the continuity of our race and culture, sadly...

20 December 2011 at 20:21  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Johnny R, yeah,yeah, but being the cynic I am I have little faith in Danjo's secular brave new world either. I think if you got rid of all the religions in the world, we would end up in the same old mess. I think it would be like the story of animal farm.

If the religious of the world could stick to the charitable idea,e.g. the love of Christ/Gospel etc.

Problem is, everything just seems to get corrupted.

20 December 2011 at 20:21  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Johnny R, yeah,yeah, but being the cynic I am I have little faith in Danjo's secular brave new world either. I think if you got rid of all the religions in the world, we would end up in the same old mess. I think it would be like the story of animal farm.

If the religious of the world could stick to the charitable idea,e.g. the love of Christ/Gospel etc.

Problem is, everything just seems to get corrupted.

I also wonder that when God was creating the universe (whilst also doing the washing up), why he would really, in the end, care about the lifestyles of gays. Seems a bit of a moot point when your creating, billions of billions of galaxies, stars, planets etc.

Just a thinking out loud exercise really.

20 December 2011 at 20:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "The Homosexuals are here for today people – no or little interest in the continuity of our race and culture, sadly..."

Looking back over the last 100 years or so, our culture has changed dramatically. For the better, I think. I dare say in another 100 years it will bear little resemblence to the culture today, homosexuals taking a part or not.

You know, we're not born in cocoons either. I have a family, just not offspring. I have friends who have children, too. Is there no room in your assertion for any of that, or must it just be an attachment to one's own offspring and an interest in the future solely because of them?

20 December 2011 at 20:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

PT: "Johnny R, yeah,yeah, but being the cynic I am I have little faith in Danjo's secular brave new world either."

It's hardly a brave new world and it's only secular in the sense that I think religion ought to be excluded from the State. People will be thankful for that if/when Islam becomes a significant presence in the UK. No, it's the Inspector's continuity really, only in the sense of evolving slowly from something else as society has always done.

20 December 2011 at 20:36  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Mr Twigg said ...

" ... when God was creating the universe ... why he would really, in the end, care about the lifestyles of gays. Seems a bit of a moot point when your creating, billions of billions of galaxies, stars, planets etc."

What a nonsensical comment. Have you been drinking, Sir!

Speaking tosh is not the same as 'thinking out loud'.

And you dare say "catholicism is, generally, cock." Catholics know about God's omnipotence.

20 December 2011 at 20:37  
Blogger len said...

Excuse me for commenting here but there are common misconceptions about exactly who' f****d the World up.'
Certainly not God.
Man was created to be filled with a Spirit, the Spirit of God. Man was created to bear the image of God, to reflect the attributes of God.Man was given free will He could either accept the Spirit of God or reject God.
Man chose (and is still in many cases) choosing to reject God.
This doesn`t leave man without a spirit he still has his human spirit which has lost contact with God.So man now relies on his soul(mind ,will, and emotions) to try and perform the functions of his spirit.The spirit of fallen man separated from God is now open to and influenced by all sorts of spirits opposed to God.
Fallen man in rebellion against God is now aligned and influenced by those spiritual forces opposed to God.
So who f****d the World up?.We did!. This started when we submitted to forces that are opposed to God and wish to destroy everything He created ...including us.

Jesus Christ came to restore God`s original plan for Humankind by clearing the way for man to have a new Spirit replacing the old corrupted one!.
This in simplicity is the gospel God making a new Creation out of the Old Creation, bringing forth Life out of Death.

So in God`s estimation we are either 'in Adam 'with all that entails( basically a fallen nature), or in Christ reborn, resurrected with New Life, reconnected with God through Christ Jesus.

Everything that belongs to the fallen nature must be left at the Cross when we become totally identified with Christ in His death and resurrection.

'I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.'
(Galatians 2:20)

20 December 2011 at 20:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As for lifelong abstinence, I see no reason why I should adopt that simply to make some Catholics happy when it is they who have a distorted, unjustifiable view of the world. We're not living in somewhere like Afghanistan where Taleban-type men decide what's proper for other people based on their religious interpretations of the world. We're a liberal society with an ingrained sense of justice. I have little doubt society will recognise the legal marriage of homosexuals soon simply as a natural extension of heterosexual marriage and the change in attitudes towards sexual orientation. Catholics will have to be content simply to manage their own lives.

20 December 2011 at 20:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anyway, is this the point where I confess to donating to a sperm bank for years? :)

20 December 2011 at 20:48  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

DanJ0

Artificial insemination is also considered an immoral act by Catholics - and it is.

What a horrible self-centred practice it is. An anonymous 'donation' and a child never knows who their biological parent was.

20 December 2011 at 21:02  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Dodo, OK, the cock element was a tad harsh. Give my the reasons why Roman Catholicism is the best religion, faith etc. I promise I will read it and not get back at you.

Can't say fairer than that?

Also if Albert wants to chip in as well...

20 December 2011 at 21:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older