Thursday, February 16, 2012

The Queen's speech at Lambeth Palace


In an ecumenical gathering of faith leaders at Lambeth Palace, the religious leaders of the nation showed their affection and support for the Queen in her Jubilee year. She, in turn, made one short speech in which she encapsulated perfectly the essential religio-political raison d'être of the Established Church:
Your Grace, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Prince Philip and I are delighted to be with you today to pay tribute to the particular mission of Christianity and the general value of faith in this country.

This gathering is a reminder of how much we owe the nine major religious traditions represented here. They are sources of a rich cultural heritage and have given rise to beautiful sacred objects and holy texts, as we have seen today.

Yet these traditions are also contemporary families of faith. Our religions provide critical guidance for the way we live our lives, and for the way in which we treat each other. Many of the values and ideas we take for granted in this and other countries originate in the ancient wisdom of our traditions. Even the concept of a Jubilee is rooted in the Bible.

Here at Lambeth Palace we should remind ourselves of the significant position of the Church of England in our nation’s life. The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated. Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.

It certainly provides an identity and spiritual dimension for its own many adherents. But also, gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely. Woven into the fabric of this country, the Church has helped to build a better society – more and more in active co-operation for the common good with those of other faiths.

This occasion is thus an opportunity to reflect on the importance of faith in creating and sustaining communities all over the United Kingdom. Faith plays a key role in the identity of many millions of people, providing not only a system of belief but also a sense of belonging. It can act as a spur for social action. Indeed, religious groups have a proud track record of helping those in the greatest need, including the sick, the elderly, the lonely and the disadvantaged. They remind us of the responsibilities we have beyond ourselves.

Your Grace, the presence of your fellow distinguished religious leaders and the objects on display demonstrate how each of these traditions has contributed distinctively to the history and development of the United Kingdom. Prince Philip and I wish to send our good wishes, through you, to each of your communities, in the hope that – with the assurance of the protection of our established Church – you will continue to flourish and display strength and vision in your relations with each other and the rest of society.
The secular-humanist atheists are incapable of grasping these essential truths, but a few politicians might take note. God Save the Queen.

157 Comments:

Blogger Nowhere man said...

"The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated. Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country. "

How then does the CofE defend its continued support for the exclusion of Catholics from high office such as Prime Minister? How does it square its defence of religions with its persecution of Catholics and Catholic worship since its inception?

Sounds like a load of rubbish to me.

16 February 2012 08:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

It's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Christian faith as the one true faith.

It seems to me to place all faiths on an equal footing and to value a belief in a God above worship of the one, true God. Religion as cultural wisdom, guidance for the way we live our lifes. Anglicanism as the defender of all faiths! This from the Supreme Governor of the Church of England!

16 February 2012 08:13  
Blogger martin sewell said...

First rate from Her Majesty.

16 February 2012 08:26  
Blogger m0rjc said...

I find it odd that the press are presenting this as a fight against secularism, yet the below would seem to be exactly what secularism - the political understanding that does not favour any single faith position above another - is about.

"gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely."

I fear that our press have misunderstood the word "secularism". Either that or I've misunderstood the word, in which case I need to find another word for what I mean. Given the confusion about it, maybe we need a new word anyway.

16 February 2012 08:43  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"How then does the CofE defend its continued support for the exclusion of Catholics from high office such as Prime Minister?"

And you, 'Nowhere man', have the audacity to accuse Her Majesty of talking rubbish.

16 February 2012 08:48  
Blogger Nixon is Lord said...

Secularism seems to do quite well without the "help" of any established churches in Sweden, France, the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, the Czech Republic, Estonia....
You're inventing reasons to cling to Establishement. Just pitiful.

16 February 2012 08:48  
Blogger m0rjc said...

Yet all this seems to have come in the wake of a ruling which, if I understand it correctly, says that it is not right to force councillors to attend prayers. Christians can still pray, but do so before the meeting officially starts.

The ruling sounds fair to me. After all, I doubt a Christian would be happy if made to pray to another god at the start of a meeting. This ruling would seem in line with what Her Majesty has suggested. I note that Her Majesty did mention "non faith" as a valid position in the transcript above.

16 February 2012 09:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Which of these other religions that Her Majesty has praised is recognised as equal by the Most High God or is He not a Jealous God then?

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do."

"The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated (Was not the Coronation Oath clear enough, Your Majesty?). Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions (then what on earth does the word 'Maintain' mean exactly?)."

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth then makes her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible {not the Qur'an, Veda etc}(which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

Then the Queen shall kiss the Book {not the Qur'an, Veda etc} and sign the Oath.

Take it old Ernst missed something??

E S Blofeld

16 February 2012 09:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

ps

If she wants to become 'The Defender of Faiths' how does thisw relate to..Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

Just a a wondering.

E S Blofeld

16 February 2012 09:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

PPS

Your Grace

"Please prove you're not a robot"

Sounds like a line from a IPSOS Mori questionnaire?

For those with poor sight, the right sided image to register a comment is a nightmare to view and input.

Your squinting humble communicant

Ernst Blofeld

16 February 2012 09:47  
Blogger Richard said...

Maybe there's more than one Christianity. Many people commenting on various web sites would seem to equate Christianity, at least in England, with a general sense of "Doing Good". Other people would claim quite loudly that such people are Not True Christians, as Mr Blofeld above seems to suggest.

How much of what we're seeing comes from that difference in expectations?

16 February 2012 09:54  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

This has only led to more complication. The Queen speaks of Anglicanism as if it is a religion in its own right, yet Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher's comments are something quite different. "The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning."

Being Defender of the Faith is trying to uphold that. The Coronation Oath speaks of something else, "the protestant faith" which has not been determined by the Church of England but by committees of the state.

And by implication, Her Majesty suggests that the Church of England is all one similar group of believers. This is patently not the case given the recent Synod shambles.

16 February 2012 10:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Richard said

'Maybe there's more than one Christianity. Many people commenting on various web sites would seem to equate Christianity, at least in England, with a general sense of "Doing Good". Other people would claim quite loudly that such people are Not True Christians, as Mr Blofeld above seems to suggest. "

A very false premise lad.

The clue to who people associate themselves with 'equate Christianity, at least in England, with a general sense of "Doing Good"...is in the name and the works and sayings of that particular individual that Christianity is associated with..Not mohammed, Confucius, Buddha. Need I help you. Jesus Christ His Life, Sayings and Works!

Ernst believes the people questioned knew exactly What/Whose life they wanted to be associated with.

Trust that clarification helps, young man.

Ernst Blofeld

16 February 2012 10:14  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Papal Oath

|To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture." |

Ooh dear, that rules out Ernst and others who do not view the RC as the sole authoratitive head of Christian Faith. He swears allegiance to RC Tradition etc to the exclusion of all others in the Christian faith, Her Majesty swears to Protestant Faith as opposed and excluding the implied authority of RC.

She is therefore failing to honour her oath that is relevant to her Protestant people that she supposedly represents as Head.

Catch Ernst's drift lad.

Ernst.

16 February 2012 10:21  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

How can the Anglican pope say that the role of Anglicanism is to defend all faiths?

Is that all?

Does it mean that it accepts the existence of Buddha, the Hindu pantheon, Odin and the gods of Valhalla, Olympus, Alah - even the God Prince Phillip as revered in the jungles of Papua New Guinea?

How does that work?

Is there no TRUTH? Or is it all sky fairies?

16 February 2012 10:53  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

She's my Queen too YG - and as much as I am proud to be her subject and have taken the military oath of allegiance to her, her heirs and successors, I fear that this silly diatribe will be remembered as yet another nail in the coffin of Monarchy in the UK.

16 February 2012 11:04  
Blogger Berserker said...

This gathering is a reminder of how much we owe the nine major religious traditions represented here.

Does the Queen mean Britain? Or have I missed the point?

A quick list and I come up with:

Christianity...Hinduism..Buddhism,...Confucianism... islam...Shintoism...Taoism... Judaism... Sikhism...

Although it is debatable whether Shinto is a religion.

Presumably she is not including Wiccas and Druids?

16 February 2012 12:41  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
'The Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely. Woven into the fabric of this country, the Church has helped to build a better society – more and more in active co-operation for the common good with those of other faiths'.
My understanding of Her Majesty's speech is not that she has let down the Sovereignty of God, but as Monarch of all the UK people she has expressed her view that the CofE has contributed to the tolerance and co-operation with other religious groups. Even the tolerance of atheists to follow their own lack of faith.
The problem with some religions and atheists in particular, they become extreme in their condemnation of those with faith different to their own. This has been a problem we know for a long time that if you allow for a freedom to behave in a certain way, those that assume that freedom then try to restrict the freedoms of those who originally granted them freedom. (is that clear?)
Your Grace, you rightly admonished Nowhere man but M0rjc also has failed to comprehend previous posts, no councillors were ever forced to attend prayers in council meetings. In their haste to condemn, they fail to do their research.
Her Majesty on this occasion with many faiths in attendance, gave praise to the established church for their part in maintaining freedom for all. On other occasions I know that she would speak out for Christianity boldly and without hesitation.
ps. I don't like the new encryption.

16 February 2012 13:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.

I am sure that the Puritan forbears of my country would have agreed that the purpose of the CoE was to 'protect the free practice' of their faith. What complete nonsense. The purpose of an Established Church to to define metaphysical Truth as presumed by the state. Because it is established, it declares other religions (or non-religions) to be false by implication. To Establish Christianity is is assert that it is true to the exclusion of all other competitors. If the CoE doesn't even believe this anymore, then why is it still established - other than to undergird the Monarchy?

It's important to not let this understanding slide away into relativism. It explains why secularists want to effectively establish secularism as the 'state religion.' They don't what a metaphysically "neutral" state. They want the law to presume that theistic religion is false.


carl

16 February 2012 13:13  
Blogger Richard said...

I understand that the prayers were part of the minuted process of the meetings, so while a councillor could turn up late that fact would be minuted and would appear as a black mark on their record.

The judge in the case was reported in the media as suggesting that the prayers be moved to before the meeting actually started.

I admit I've not read the actual court transcript, something I perhaps should do as in so many of these cases it can be very enlightening.

16 February 2012 13:17  
Blogger Richard said...

(I changed my profile name to be my name after posting the first post and seeing it came out as "m0rjc" which is some login name I have in the system somewhere. We are the same person.)

16 February 2012 13:18  
Blogger Jon said...

Poor The Queen - she's condemned if she does, and damned if she doesn't. She's a woman with a tricky enough job as it is, reconciling the political necessity to recognise the faith of others with her role as defender of one faith. Then you add in her own personal faith, which is purported to be strong.

This is a role which would be beyond the most able contortionist. Surely it demonstrates the fact that the established settlement is almost indefensible now, to the extent that it's putting the Queen in the position of having to compromise her personal beliefs for political purposes, and to contravene her role as defender of the faith. Unless Her Majesty and her Government are of the view that all faiths are equally valid routes to God (which I would suggest many here would view as un-Christian) then the Queen is left in an impossibly contradictory position.

Something has to give.

16 February 2012 13:19  
Blogger Jon said...

Carl - I don't agree that a secular state automatically presumes that there is no God. It just says that, since we can't all agree what he/ she/ they look like or how many of him/ her/ them there are or what his/ her/ their characteristics are, it ought to be a matter of private conscience rather than public policy.

Simply - the government shouldn't take sides in the private expression of faith. You may see that as an attack on Christianity in the UK or US because those are (allegedly) the majority faiths. But if Egypt or Saudi Arabia enshrined secularism in their constitutions, would it still be so? Or would it be the guarantor of your freedom to worship as you choose?

16 February 2012 13:22  
Blogger Richard said...

@Carl

The cases that have brought this to my attention are all cases that came down to one person's rights against another. One of the people was religious and argued that their demands should be respected because of this. When they lost the case they cried foul.

The cases, and the publicity around them, have been instigated by an organisation that has a strong agenda of making England what it sees as a Christian country. It is quite an extreme agenda to us non-Christians.

It strikes me as strange at times that a people who are supposedly meant to think of others and love their neighbours are, in some cases, so willing to completely ignore the rights and feelings of other people in favour of following their own dogma. In so many of these cases I can imagine the Christian's response if they found themselves in the opposite position.

I take secularism to the the political ideal that favours no religion above others. It is a level playing field. There was some quote on the lines of "You are free to discourse and argue from your faith, but for your argument to stand you must convince others in terms that are universal to them". So "God says so" is not a reason for a law, but "It harms others" is.

This does not mean banning religion. It means that some religions no longer have the automatic privilege they are used to, but it also means that those without religion or of a different religion are not disadvantaged.

You could claim that it is a law that claims that religion is false, but only by taking a "For us or against us" approach.

I'd personally hate to see religious law becoming the law of the land. For example I don't believe that Christians would be immune from enacting the same kind of Blasphemy law we have just seen played out in Syria. There were demands for a blasphemy law in Ireland. Maybe some would see having such a law as a necessity for a "state that believes the theistic god to be true", but we can see the demonstrable harm laws like this cause.

16 February 2012 13:33  
Blogger Prodicus said...

It would be interesting to know whether the Prince of Wales has read and agrees with his majestic mother's words, and how far he intends to follow her example?

16 February 2012 14:08  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jon

the government shouldn't take sides in the private expression of faith.

The problem is that the state cannot be neutral on such matters. Presuppositions always form the foundation of law. Always. Certain questions must be answered.

1. What is the nature of man?
2. What is the purpose of man?
3. What is his place in existence?
4. What is the nature of good?

You are not going to find the answers to these questions in a laboratory, or a Political Science text book. They are religious questions where 'religion' is broadly defined.

Secularism is not a neutral position between religions. It provides its own answers to all of the listed questions based upon its own metaphysical understandings. It seeks to drill those answers into law. In such a way would it seek to privilege its own position to the exclusion of all others. You aren't actually advocating that the government not take sides in a religious disagreement. You are asserting that theistic disagreement requires the establishment of a non-theistic metaphysical system as the basis of law.

carl

16 February 2012 14:33  
Blogger Richard said...

Our law has been developed over time in the many cases that make up our legal history. It has worked well. Our judges do seem to do a reasonable job of balancing the competing needs.

How could we have a theistic law? Even amongst different Christians people believe different things to be good. We cannot please everyone. Would we head to the situation in some Islamic states where different flavours of Islam fight amongst each other? In one case the wrong flavour of Islam is decreed heretical by the government.

I'd place secularism as strong agnostic.

16 February 2012 14:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Richard

"You are free to discourse and argue from your faith, but for your argument to stand you must convince others in terms that are universal to them". So "God says so" is not a reason for a law, but "It harms others" is.

A couple of qualifications.

1. "God says so" is in every part a reason for law if the electorate so agrees. It may not be a legitimate authority to you. It is certainly a legitimate authority for me. If I can convince a majority by these terms then I have not performed an illegitimate act in a democracy.

2. "It harms others" is not an objective neutral statement. It depends upon prior definitions of 'harm' and 'others.' Different systems will produce different understandings as any review of the abortion debate will attest. It therefore assumes a prior standard. You have already introduced metaphysics into the argument. The only difference between us is that I have stated my metaphysical authority up front.


carl

16 February 2012 14:49  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 February 2012 15:42  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Carl maintains that 'Secularism is not a neutral position between religions'; which however eloquently stated, is not universally accepted. I suggest that Secularism is not generally accepted as being a self serving pseudo-religion either.

He also states:-

'The only difference between us is that I have stated my metaphysical authority up front'

To make my non aligned point I offer as a neutral example, consider the reality of the contest for metaphysical authority between Hinduism and Islam - which as he will need no reminder, resulted in the deaths of over a million Indians during partition in 1947.

The resulting recognition of the right of a country (Pakistan) to be founded purely on the house rules of one specific 'true' religion, has brought nothing but minority discrimination, grief and continuing conflict. The claims Carl makes regarding meaning, truth and 'God's will', in underwriting Law, is in my opinion no different than the case used by the Islamists to justify their existence politically and theologically.

This extract comes from
CONFESSIONS OF A SECULAR FUNDAMENTALIST: Mani Shankar Aiyar

'Its (Secularism) fundamental character is equal respect for all religions, with the state refraining from professing or propagating any religion. This principle is encoded in the Indian Constitution without impinging upon the personal beliefs of the people. Secularism, however, is not a purely political doctrine; it is as much a social phenomenon, particularly in a multi-religious society. Upholding the principles of secularism, however, has not been easy for many, in the wake of the ideological and political advance of the Sangh Parivar'.

http://www.hindu.com/br/2005/03/15/stories/2005031500221800.htm

16 February 2012 15:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. One would assume here that the Queen is speaking as head of state, underwriting religions’ right to exist as part of our constitution, for want of a better word. But no, here she is as supreme governor of the established church. Rather sticks in a Christian’s throat, this display of togetherness. Just goes to show that this recent convert to disestablishment was correct in his re-evaluation. Holding the two posts together has clearly become incompatible in our immigrant soaked country, mores the pity. The resulting contradiction is a clear struggle for the Queen. God alone knows how Charles would conduct himself – probably apologise for the existence of Christianity in the UK, and praise the virtues of Islam and Sharia, amongst other foreign influences…

”Good afternoon, this is the Anglican faith information line. An equal opportunities site.”

”For information on how to become a muslim, press one, a hindu, press two,…………….., a satanist, press nine, or an Anglican, press zero.”

”You have pressed zero. You will now hear the Archbishop of Canterbury berate you for dismissing the other religions all too readily.”

16 February 2012 17:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say, this ‘please prove you are not a robot’ is bloody awful. Still it’s defeated Tingey today, what !
{HOWLS OF MIRTH RING FROM INSPECTOR TOWERS}

16 February 2012 17:57  
Blogger David B said...

The Queen said

'gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely. '

Isn't it rather that the Church of England has been dragged kicking and screaming into the a more secular position, where one sect is less favoured than others?

Is she aware of the treatment of George Fox and Friends?

Here is a nice little quote which rather fails to show that Her Majesty has quite got things right.

"From 1739 onward Wesley and the Methodists were persecuted by clergymen and magistrates, attacked in sermon, tract, and book, mobbed by the populace, often in controversy, always at work among the neglected and needy, and ever increasing. They were denounced as promulgators of strange doctrines, fomenters of religious disturbances; as blind fanatics, leading the people astray, claiming miraculous gifts, inveighing against the clergy of the Church of England, and endeavoring to reestablish popery. Wesley was frequently mobbed, and great violence was done both to the persons and property of Methodists."

Sadly, it seems, The Queen is ignorant of the obstruction of faith communities to live freely done by the Church she leads.

It is secular values which have actually contributed to freedom of religion.

16 February 2012 18:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "If I can convince a majority by these terms then I have not performed an illegitimate act in a democracy."

Let the fight begin then! Oh, it already has half a century ago.

16 February 2012 18:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector
The number for a Satanist as we all know is 666.

Ernst
Are you a Traditional Catholic now?

The "Papal Oath" is claimed to have been taken by all Popes down to and including Pope Paul VI. Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI, had no coronation ceremonies, and did not take the oath and Traditionalists regard them as 'false popes'.

There is no evidence that any pope took such an oath during his coronation ceremony.

16 February 2012 18:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 February 2012 18:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "It explains why secularists want to effectively establish secularism as the 'state religion.' They don't what a metaphysically "neutral" state. They want the law to presume that theistic religion is false."

The State 'religion' under this creation is a form of liberal democracy. It has individual freedom as a core principle and from that a relationship between the State and its citizens can be inferred. Since Society is a collection of individuals with a combination of individual and shared interests, one of the functions of the State is to arbitrate between competing interests. To do that requires a means of arbitration and some principles to do so. Of course, you know all of that. What it means in practice is that groups with shared interests, such as religious adherents, are protected from each other by the State given that they both may have absolute ethics they wish to apply. If we apply some sort of John Rawls approach to that, doesn't it seem better to arbitrate between them from above? Afterall, you may be in the oppressed one with the alternative setup of a theocracy if you are unlucky. You see, I can argue this sort of stuff and listen to counter-arguments. If Muslims were in charge then who's to argue against what Allah says and his followers enact on its behalf?

16 February 2012 18:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. On the subject of satanism, below cut and pasted from wiki. If you ever doubted where secularism will lead to, here it is...

The Nine Satanic Statements outline what "Satan" represents in the Church of Satan:

Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.
Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates.
Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development", has become the most vicious animal of all.
Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years.

16 February 2012 18:56  
Blogger len said...

This speech made by the Queen leans very much (IMO) towards a 'multi faith ' Society.I have great respect for the Queen and think she does a great job for the people and this Country, but I also realise there are bounds that she must stay within which restricts her somewhat.
If your chosen religion is not to be preferred above all others then what is the point of having it, and would 'that sort of religion'( the politically correct, don`t rock the boat)sort of religion be worth defending?) Probably not!.
I am all for free speech and every one has a right to 'their religion' as long as it doesn`t harm others. But I am going to continue to say that Jesus Christ is the Way and the only Way and salvation is found in no other!.True Christianity is the only religion in the World that has a Saviour all the other religions you have to save yourself which is an impossible task, if you (man) is the problem how can man resolve himself?)

I would think secularists and the 'god of this age' would be quite prepared for anyone one to have a 'religion' as long as they did their 'religion' on the sidelines and didn`t upset anyone. Revealing the reality of the true condition of fallen man who is hopelessly lost and in dire need of a Saviour is part of the remedy for the ills of Mankind.The Gospel of Jesus Christ is an offence to many but the Gospel is also a much needed 'reality check 'to a dying World.

16 February 2012 19:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

It gets worse. Scroll down and you'll find the Satanic agenda.

'Pentagonal Revisionism' is a plan consisting of five major goals:

1. Stratification — "No one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity."

2. Strict taxation of all churches — "The productive, the creative, the resourceful should be subsidized. So long as the useless and incompetent are getting paid, they should be heavily taxed."

3. No tolerance for religious beliefs secularized and incorporated into law and order issues — "Amnesty should be considered for anyone in prison because of their alleged "influence" upon the actual perpetrator of the crime. Everyone is influenced in what he or she does. Scapegoating has become a way of life, a means of survival for the unfit. As an extension of the Judeo-Christian cop-out of blaming the Devil for everything, criminals can gain leniency, even praise, by placing the blame on a convenient villain. Following the Satanic creed of "Responsibility to the responsible", in a Satanic society, everyone must experience the consequences of their own actions—for good or ill."

4. Development and production of artificial human companions — "An economic "godsend" which will allow everyone "power" over someone else. Polite, sophisticated, technologically feasible slavery. And the most profitable industry since T.V. and the computer."

5. The opportunity for anyone to live within a total environment of their choice, with mandatory adherence to the aesthetic and behavioral standards of same — "Privately owned, operated and controlled environments as an alternative to homogenized and polyglot ones. The freedom to insularize oneself within a social milieu of personal well-being. An opportunity to feel, see, and hear that which is most aesthetically pleasing, without interference from those who would pollute or detract from that option."

Sounds awfully familiar!

16 February 2012 19:30  
Blogger David B said...

Len, I'm quite happy for you to preach, as long as you don't take umbrage if I take issue with your preaching.

I don't know whether you would tell me not only that I am going to Hell, but that I deserve to go Hell, but I have had many say it to me. That is offensive, but that is OK, as long as others don't seek more protection from being offended than they afford to me.

But surely you would agree that some limitations on freedom of religion -all religions - are a good idea.

Limitations on killing dissenters or those who are presumed to be witches, beating the shit out of kids because their scriptures tell them that they can, demanding that women shut up and cover their faces, whether they want to or not, disapproving of homosexuality is one thing, calling for them to be killed in the name of religion another, and actually doing it something else again.

That sort of thing.

Preach all you like, as long as it doesn't disturb the horses, but please don't ask for a privileged position to do so.

David B

16 February 2012 19:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Indeed. The Inspector first came across this lot when researching into NAZI doctrine years ago. The only apparent difference is ‘artificial human companions’. The NAZIs advocated slavs for that purpose, but we can imagine their treatment would have been the same, as non humans.

The Inspector would be interested in the thoughts of this site’s prominent secularist David B on the connection between secularism and satanism...

16 February 2012 19:48  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

'I am all for free speech and every one has a right to 'their religion' as long as it doesn`t harm others'.

I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying Len; But some, myself included would argue that that is rarely the case. Subscribers to Major religions who's texts encourage them to crudely demonise and discriminate against homosexual people, "hurt" them through their mob handed condemnation, just as much as any thuggish street or State, 'Queer-Bashers'.

There has to be better way for everyone to live their lives in peace and freedom.

16 February 2012 21:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no Thomas Aquinas (the foundation of the catholic church) without Ibn Rush..his section on just war is simply a translation of Islamic fiqh from Ibn Rushd's book...

16 February 2012 21:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dreadnaught. The only religion that bashes homosexuals the Inspector knows about is Islam. Do list the others...

16 February 2012 21:24  
Blogger David B said...

@Dodo

Wow what a compliment! prominent secularist!

My view is that it is perfectly possible for a satanist, a Christian, an atheist, an agnostic, a follower of any other religion to be a secularist, and that it would make sense for all of them to be, as secularism is the best guarantee of freedom to follow what they believe, within, as I said above, reasonable legal limitations.

As a secularist and an atheist, I will happily argue with you about your religion, but defend your right to hold it.

David B

16 February 2012 21:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B said ...

"Wow what a compliment! prominent secularist!!

Not me. Getting your Catholics mixed up!

Of course you're perfectly free to believe what you want. However, as carl said earlier any state has to base it's laws on some foundation. Science can neither prove nor disapprove the existance of God.

"Secularism is not a neutral position between religions. It provides its own answers to all of the listed questions based upon its own metaphysical understandings. It seeks to drill those answers into law. In such a way would it seek to privilege its own position to the exclusion of all others."

And that's why this Christian will do all he can to protect Christian values.

16 February 2012 22:11  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

David B. Why would I chose to do something different from what my God teaches me to do, even if it does offend a few.

16 February 2012 22:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh no!

Anonymous comments are permitted once more! Hold onto your seats folks.

Dodo the Dude

16 February 2012 22:13  
Blogger Richard said...

Re "True Christianity is the only religion in the World that has a Saviour all the other religions you have to save yourself which is an impossible task, if you (man) is the problem how can man resolve himself?) "

Maybe because the other religions don't define the need for an external saviour, or the concept of being "Saved" like you do.

If you're a Buddhist then Buddha lead the way, and the way is beautiful to you. I've heard Buddhists talk of Christian heaven as a terrible idea because to them an eternity in a situation where you're not heading for Nirvana is not good - and Nirvana is ideal. If you believe like that, and your world view is structured like that, then that religion is beautiful to you and something like Christianity does not make sense.

It is a mistake to think that people of other religions judge their own religions using Christian expectations.

16 February 2012 22:25  
Anonymous His Grace's most tedious communicant said...

Richard

Do bear in mind who your addressing!

16 February 2012 22:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Who's claiming my title?

16 February 2012 22:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Definite link between secularism and satanism. This site has not heard the last of this, not by a long way, don’t you know, what !!!

16 February 2012 22:35  
Blogger David B said...

@Mr Integrity

If you had read my posts you would realise that I am not worried about being offended, if what you say offends me, as it well may.

If your God tells you to offend me, fine, as long as your don't demand special privilege if I offend you in turn.

It is if your god, or anyone's god, tells them to massacre me that I take exception to - as I take exception to the very real persecution of Christians in some parts of the Islamic world.

Argue things out is fine. Agree to disagree is fine. massacre aren't - that is a good secular value as I see it.

David B

16 February 2012 22:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Buddha was a princely layabout. He had time to search for Nirvana. Everybody else was striving to survive.

16 February 2012 22:39  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

" Dodo said

"Anonymous comments are permitted once more! Hold onto your seats folks. Dodo the Dude"

Oh Strewth, not all that malarkey again. What a week it's been!

Will post this comment if Ernst can decipher the gibberish encryption generated by what appears to be a computer programmer on LSD. 'Boeing said Zebedee'

Ernst

ps

"Please prove you're not a robot"

Does it really matter anymore if you can now post anonymously! See above!!!!
Naughty Gremlins?

16 February 2012 22:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Some sense now. You are NOT going to be slaughtered by the Christians. If you are, let the Inspector know. It was him who titled you ‘prominent secularist on this site’ but any more posts like your last, distinction withdrawn...

16 February 2012 22:45  
Anonymous I'm a Robot! said...

It's good here once you work out how to get on!

Hello Ernst. Are youreally a robot? I'm looking for a friend. Do robots have a gender?

16 February 2012 22:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector said ...

"Definite link between secularism and satanism."

One and the same thing, one and the same thing. Secularism is one of satan's favoured 'religions' and most suited to our 'scientific' age.

16 February 2012 22:52  
Blogger David B said...

@Inspector

Yes I picked up that it was you eventually, and thank you.

Having said that, if you yatter on about an imaginary connection between secularism and satanism, then I will respond by yattering on about the historically accurate connection between the Abrahamic religions, all three, and massacres.

David B

16 February 2012 23:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B said ...

"I will respond by yattering on about the historically accurate connection between the Abrahamic religions, all three, and massacres."

Feel free to do so, the Christian Church has come to terms with its past.

16 February 2012 23:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

What an utter shower Question Time was tonight. I've heard that finding good balanced panelists to go on this show is like discovering rocking horse manure but this truly was scraping the barrel.

A fat useless discredited New Labour (Well, old liebour dressed as mutton) peer, who will not apologise nor try to see that his useless government, of which he was deputy but without the milk bar badge..think he ate it? has landed us bang in the middle of a pile of Faeces.

A fat useless discredited New Liberal peer, who cannot see anything as a problem....defining marriage for same sex or civil partnerships between a Man and a Woman...incompetence and arrogance are such a heady mix when a fool is prepared to charge right in!

A fat useless Conservative who should be allowed to become a discredited peer..Wonderful display of all things to all men/women. Visibly hurts the poor fellow to his soul to have to publicly support what could be described as right wing policies. What a trooper.

Very Very attractive bimbo, who believes everything can be solved with entrepreneurial spirit by entrepreneurs who show spirit because they are, well..entrepreneurs. Is religion being sidelined by militant seculatism...She got stuck like that contestant on Family Fortune who answered every question with the word 'TURKEY'..Insert 'entrepreneur' for the word 'turkey'.
X
X
X
The clue to her sole obsession is the blog address; http://www.entrepreneurcountryforum.com
Pure Eye Candy but nobody appeared to be home tonight..Fleetingly considered the thought of changing my name to Ernst Stavro Entrepreneur, to impress..Such a shame!

The final choice offering was somebody who, on his own blog, asks this question;
Who the hell is Owen Jones? A brief but concise thumbnail would be, in his own words;

Socialist (puritanically devoted fabianista), Sheffield-born but Stockport-bred ( Twitterish for Professional Anus), looks a bit like a 12 year old ( but thinks and talks like a brattish 9 year old), and author of 'Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class'(That book title just about says it all really but Ernst presumes his likkle drawings and his colouring in off them with glittery multicoloured pencils is a joy to behold)

He twittered before his appearance on QT 'Got a responsibility not to cock this one up. I'll blame Liam's unlucky shirt if goes belly up' You cocked up BIGTIME..Ernst agrees, use the 'We Blame the unlucky shirt' line!

Owen Jones? Who the hell cares!

Regret paying my weekly installment on the bleed'n TV license card now.

Ernst

17 February 2012 00:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst

Oh dear! I watched the football. Had a few whiskeys to celebrate the 'Red Devils' success and come to terms with the 'Blues' win.

Sounds like I missed a lot of fun! AndI'm gutted I missed the eye candy. No lust in your heart, I trust? Just an appreciation of the beauty of the femine form.

17 February 2012 00:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

You know the TV license is free at your age?

17 February 2012 00:53  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

"No lust in your heart, I trust? "

Goodness lad, what with old age and creeping dementia, Ernst can barely remember what day of the week it is, let alone carnal memories! LOL.

"Just an appreciation of the beauty of the femine form".
Indeed, however this comment will self destruct in 10 seconds.

Wish His Grace would do something about this encryption, it's reeking havoc with old Ernst's mince pies. Gone bleed'n cross-eyed posting a comment and mis-spelling like mad tingey.
Took 3 attempts to get verification right!

Ernst, fella.

WV;bedreddin hydula..STREWTH!!!!

17 February 2012 01:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

I agree. It's a bl**dy pain in the ar**! Regularly takes me two to three goes too.

Don't forget your free TV license. Ask the District Nurse next time she calls. Make a note so it doesn't slip your mind.

17 February 2012 01:12  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Very interesting, and not at all surprising.

I contend that the Queen and her family are not what some may call bible believing christians.

Nothing inherently wrong with that, although the truth should be told.

17 February 2012 01:17  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Don't forget your free TV license."

Not quite got to 75 yet but the way the country is going financially and it's impact on me pocket, Ernst sometimes wishes he was..So he may have the same cash flow as those benefit claimants that appear to be able to claim everything and yet do work on the hush hush.

Tiddles is agreived that she is back on whiskas and not those gourmet cat meals anymore.
Have assured her that once we get the country's GDP growth right and a better return on savings it's la dolce vita again.

She turned, raised her tail and showed me the one eyed salute that cats are so fond of when the are being manifestoed..did the same whenever Gorbels Brown was on telly. Such a discerning cat!

Ernst

ps the verification is even coming up with foreign apostrophe's and diacritic marks, it's a bloom'n conspiracy...AAAAGGGGHHHHHHHH

17 February 2012 01:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Atlas shrugged said...

It was inevitable!! HeHeHe

Hello old girl.

Ernst

17 February 2012 01:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst

Believe me the benefits are not as generous as they seem if you haven't got children.

Job seekers allowance is £55 per week per person and Housing Benefit will cover the permitted rent in a given area. Council Tax is minus Water Rates.

Where I live a couple living together without children will receive £110 per week plus rent. The rent is set at £320 per month for a one bedroomed property which just do not exist! Average rents in the area are in excess of £450per month. Water rates are £50 per month which have to be paid.

So, adding it all up they would recieve the princely sum of £760 per month and have outgoings of £500 per month. This leaves £260 per month for food, clothes, fuel and general living expenses. Heating a house can cost in excess of £100 per month in the winter months!

Count your blessings. Imagine trying to keep body and soul together on less than £40 per week with no prospect of employment! Young people are despairing and no wonder.

17 February 2012 01:47  
Blogger David B said...

@ESB&Tiddles

One point of agreement - the verification is getting bloody hard to read.

David B

17 February 2012 01:49  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo did not read comments correctly!

"So he may have the same cash flow as those benefit claimants that appear to be able to claim everything and yet do work on the hush hush."

Ernst is fully aware of those genuinely hard pressed struggling to make ends meet but writes regarding cheating miscreants who are legion lad.

Ernst

17 February 2012 02:17  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

David B said..

Its about as crystal clear as the cigarette smoke is in fog!

Just had new prescription glasses recently and even changing the font size is near useless.
Wouldn't mind much if I could guess words but one set is in gibberish!

Ernst

17 February 2012 02:23  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo made Ernst giggle out loud

'Had a few whiskeys to celebrate the 'Red Devils' success and come to terms with the 'Blues' win."

Dear boy, perhaps by the end of the season you maybe downing it by the 1 ltr bottle? *Chortling to self*

As a geordie who remembers the first period of the glory days of the Keegan era with misted eyes, old Ernst is glad we are not stuck in relegation blues.

Ernst dear boy.

17 February 2012 02:37  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

I believe it would be most informative if we could ask some strait forward questions of our Royal Family, the Pope, and The ABofC, you never know we might just get some interesting, maybe even some honest answers.

Like

Do you honestly believe that Jesus was actually the son of God, the creator of the universe?

Do you honestly believe that Jesus is therefore God made flesh.

Do you honestly believe that the Bible is the true word of God, and therefore is of divine origin.

Do you believe that Darwins theory of Evolution has anything useful to say about either the origins of life, or the assent of mankind.

I would like to ask many more questions including many supplementary ones, although of course I would insist on the use of a state of the art lie detector, before bothering to listen to any of the answers.

17 February 2012 03:17  
Blogger Oswin said...

Just tried the 'speaker' button option re' the 'word verification' thingy - it's worse still!

Sounded like nowt on earth; must be one of those damned robots!

17 February 2012 03:34  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Oh and BTW may friends, it is good to be back, you will undoubtedly hear from me again soon enough.

I have been getting into some very heavy reading material over the last months, and it has stimulated me to further exertions.

Proverbs chapter ii verses 1-9.

"My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my Commandments with thee;"

"So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding:"

"Yea; if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for treasure; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord,and find the knowledge of God.

"For the Lord giveth wisdom; out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding."

"He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous; he buckler to them that walk uprightly."

"He keepeth the paths of judgment, and perserveth the way of his saints."

"Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgement, and equality; yea, every good path."

"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding."

"For the merchandise of it is better then the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof of fine gold."

"She is more precious then rubies; and all things that thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her."

"Length of days in her right hand; and in her left hand riches of honor."

"Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace."

"She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her; happy is everyone that retaineth her."

"The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens."

"By his knowledge the depths are broken up and the clouds down the dew."

17 February 2012 03:57  
Blogger Manfarang said...

So where is all this interfaith in the 39 Articles?
I would have thought YG would have made his way to a pew in the Free Church of England by now.

17 February 2012 05:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh boy, Trevor Phillips has really put the cat amongst the pigeons/doves now. I'd link to the Torygraph article but I can't on this device. Check it out anyway, including the handy little poll insert.

17 February 2012 09:18  
Blogger William said...

ESB+T

William is thoroughly enjoying Ernst and Tiddles commentary. Many thanks for the *titters* and *guffaws* this morning.

17 February 2012 09:36  
Blogger Richard said...

This seems a good write-up on the subject of secularism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/16/what-mean-secular-state-neutral

And yes - I like others am finding it harder to prove I'm not a robot. Anyway, better pop off to change my oil, recharge my battery and have a few servos replaced. :-)

17 February 2012 10:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. if you yatter on about an imaginary connection between secularism and satanism,

Hardly imaginary, old chap. Rather say they are like twins, albeit non-identical. At the moment you can place one polythene transcription over the other. There are differences, but most surely they will blur as our ‘human progression’ continues. For example, abortion. Covered by Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.. Thinking here of the physical, mental and emotional relief of liquidizing a not wanted baby. And we are on the road to euthanizing our old – soon to be the same relief there as secularists start empty the nursing homes…

then I will respond by yattering on about the historically accurate connection between the Abrahamic religions, all three, and massacres.

Er, that’s what you do anyway. You take the Inspector for a fool Sir !

17 February 2012 18:26  
Blogger David B said...

I don't take you for a fool Inspector.

The latest Jesus and Mo seems somewhat apposite.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/

17 February 2012 20:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. ‘Twas humorous indeed, but just a moment. Doesn't beheading await the creators of the strip when Allah’s people catch up with them. It just goes to show you might as well throw your lot in with our existing Christian traditions than reach into what really is unknown territory. Same goes for the quare fella on this site whose gay hide the Inspector would gladly save should Mo want to string it up...

17 February 2012 20:49  
Blogger David B said...

Inspector, secularism is the guarantee of freedom of religion subject to reasonable legal restraint.

There are many Christian secularists, though I don't try to hide the fact that I am an atheist - antitheist - secularist.

You might consider throwing yourself into Christian secularism.

It's a good idea, to my mind.

What problems do you have with it?

David B

17 February 2012 22:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. One big problem. Barking militant Islam has given ALL religion a bad name. One can easily see a secularist government in the future suppressing religion “for the good of all” and really, who could blame them. You say there are many Christian secularists, but alas, they haven’t thought it through. The safest thing is the status quo.

Incidentally, a future government which is secular may not have any restraining morals behind it. And you know you can’t can’t guarantee it will. Have you read about the Stalin show trials of the late 1930s ?

17 February 2012 22:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B said ...

"I am an atheist - antitheist - secularist"

This mean not only that you absolutely reject all notions of a deity or deities but also that you are actively opposed to all those who do believe in a god or gods?

Am I correct?

17 February 2012 22:41  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

"Anti-theism requires more than either merely disbelieving in gods or even denying the existence of gods.

Anti-theism requires a couple of specific and additional beliefs: first, that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes.

If a person believes these things, then they will likely be an anti-theist who works against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it."

17 February 2012 22:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, there are something like 37 African countries where homosexual acts are illegal. Uganda has been toying with the death penalty for gay people, with anti-gay sentiment encouraged by some of our Christian cousins in America. It puts people like me in prison, possibly for life. A little over a year ago, one of its minor tabloids famously printed pictures of "TOP HOMOS" with "Hang Them" written on the headline. Uganda's population is 85% Christian by census, about half of whom are Catholic.

17 February 2012 22:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. What you have here is the general problem of the lower races. All kinds of nonsense abides, from murdering children to eat their body parts as some kind of ‘cure’ for an ailment, routine raping of women (...it’s alright, it’s cultural, don’t you know...), casual murder in the course of robbery, to female circumcision. but we’re NOT allowed to criticise these underlings as we are all bloody well equal now !! If anyone want’s to know why the Inspector is a right wing Christian would be coloniser of these racial losers, there’s part of the answer.

17 February 2012 23:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Is it being suggested Catholicism or the Christian Churches more widely supports the death penalty in Uganda for homosexual acts?

In fact, the Catholic Church does not regard homosexual tendancies as sinful or harmful but a disorder.

Christian organisations oppose this legislation, including the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church.

"The Christian church ... must be permitted to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all. We believe that this legislation would make this mission a difficult if not impossible task to carry out."

17 February 2012 23:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "What you have here is the general problem of the lower races."

It's culture. And it's one reason why we won't be quiet or tardy here about cementing our equal rights while we can. Of course, one might be tempted to wonder how 85% of the population identify as Christian yet don't follow the organisational directives. Perhaps some of them favour the Old Testament punishment because it chimes with their prejudices. We had that here in the UK for centuries. I don't trust you lot as far as could throw you, to be honest. If you ever got full temporal power back then we're probably doomed, along with old women with cats, and assorted other religionists.

17 February 2012 23:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Prolonged exposure to this right wing Christian blog site has injured you. The Christian religion should not induce a state of paranoia in anyone but the wicked. Talk this over with a professional for God’s sake, and do try to get out more. There are some nights on this blog when it’s you against the world. Think about what the Inspector has said now.

17 February 2012 23:41  
Blogger David B said...

@Inspector

Secularism is a restraining moral.

@Dodo who said

'Anti-theism requires a couple of specific and additional beliefs: first, that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes.'

I want to be careful here, and excuse some forms of theism which most theists would regard as heretical. I don't think the theism of Spong and his ilk particularly harmful.

But generally, yes, I do take the view that religion is not a net good, and is generally harmful.

And, what is more, I have a respect for truth. Since many religions contradict one another, the most of them necessarily cannot be true.

I take the view that none of them are true, as the term religion is generally understood.

'If a person believes these things, then they will likely be an anti-theist who works against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it.'

I would certainly argue to that end, but not support measures to suppress it, unless it is so outrageous as to support killing apostates and that sort of thing.

A commitment to secularism, which I have, as I say within reasonable limits, is a guarantee that religion should not be suppressed.

At the same time religion should not receive any sort of exceptional privilege, IMV, and I certainly argue against that.

The arguments that some people make for privilege for religion apply equally to all the Abrahamic religions, and all the others too, as I see it.

I'm agin it.

I don't want to see kids indoctrinated into Islam in schools that my taxes support. Do you?

Do you want to see one religion privileged over another, and if so on what grounds?

I don't.

David B

17 February 2012 23:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I've shoved stuff which is happening in the real world today into your face and I expect you're overwhelmed. You can mull it over if you like. You tell me to get out more yet I've travelled around a number of countries in Africa, North, South and East. You're coming across as a bit naive and local to me at the moment, the world is a lot different to the common, shiny, and modern North/Western view of it.

18 February 2012 00:04  
Blogger David B said...

A Inspector 13.41

I gather that DanJO is a homosexual who takes issue with many religious views on homosexuality, and the persecution of homosexuals by followers of many religions, historically and continuing to the present day.

I am not a homosexual, but I stand at his right hand,

David

18 February 2012 00:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Gavid B

In my view now you're being disingenuous. You've declared yourself to be an anti-theist. That's honest but don't start back-tracking. It just makes you look stupid.

I repeat for the benefit of others who may be taken in by your duplicity:

"Anti-theism (holds) that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes ... (it) works against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it.".

As for homosexuality, the Christian Churches are very clear on their position. Why bleat on about the past? You're just constructing a straw man.

18 February 2012 00:56  
Blogger len said...

The main objection to 'religion' by those who advocate a 'gay' lifestyle is that homosexuality is condemned by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

This is made perfectly clear by these religions.

However homosexuality is only one facet of what constitutes the 'fallen nature' of man.By condemning homosexuals the 'Christian' goes against the Gospel of Jesus Christ(not all Christians understand this!)
There is a vast difference between 'condemning' and 'convicting' someone of their need for a Saviour.And much confusion and anger arises from 'condemning 'people.I agree this is a fine line to walk between condemning and convicting someone. and we do not all do this as well as we should (myself included)

Jesus made this quite clear in His statement.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16, 17 Bible KJV)

(This is the Tue Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the LOVE of God. the GRACE of God , the MERCY of God in fact the GOOD NEWS)

18 February 2012 08:07  
Blogger len said...

'True'(typos)

18 February 2012 08:10  
Blogger David B said...

Disingenuous how?

I am a secular anti-theist.

David B

18 February 2012 08:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B said ...

"Disingenuous how?
I am a secular anti-theist.


Why? Because you hide your hostility to God behind clever words, seek to undermine the faith of Christians, and conflate Christianity with all other religions.

This illustrates your approach:

"I want to be careful here, and excuse some forms of theism which most theists would regard as heretical. I don't think the theism of Spong and his ilk particularly harmful."

The American Episcopalian Spong is harldy a Christian! Amongst other things he argues 'theism' as a way of understanding God is dead; that Jesus was not the Incarnate Son of God; that Genesis is myth; there was no Virgin Birth; there were no miracles; there was no Resurrection or Ascention; the Bible is not the Word of God; and there is no Final Judgement.

What's not to support? A Godless and empty version of 'Christianity' unworthy of the title.

And the double speak:

"I have a respect for truth. Since many religions contradict one another, the most of them necessarily cannot be true.
I take the view that none of them are true, as the term religion is generally understood."


Most religions cannot be true as they believe different things, so therefore all of them are false. And all because you believe in truth. Please!

18 February 2012 09:41  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

Christianity does not condemn the homosexual person, it preaches the practice of homosexuality is grieviously sinful. Catholicism also acknowledges that as a disoder the individual may not be fully control of their behaviour and therefore not necessarily fully morally culpable.

In your opinion is an active, deliberate and wilful homosexual life style consistent with the Gospel? If not what should the Churches teach based on Scripture about the possible results of such behaviours?

18 February 2012 10:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

There are 'born again' evangelicals who actively promote homosexuality as acceptable to God. What would you say to them?

18 February 2012 10:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "The main objection to 'religion' by those who advocate a 'gay' lifestyle is that homosexuality is condemned by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism."

Two things. 1. I don't object to religion, as I say many times here. I support Article 9 of the ECHR as any liberal in the JS Mill tradition would. I object to the undue intrusion some religionists advocate on the freedom of non-religionists based on their unsupported religious dogma. It's a fight for the public sphere. 2. I don't advocate a gay lifestyle, I insist on my freedom and equal rights to heterosexuals. If religionists are uncomfortable with other people having freedom and rights because of their orientation then so be it. It won't be the first time civil rights have been fought for by minorities.

18 February 2012 10:40  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
'There are 'born again' evangelicals who actively promote homosexuality as acceptable to God. What would you say to them?'.

If one is 'born again' then they are a 'new creation', born from the Spirit of God .God`s views on Homosexuality are made quite clear in the Scriptures.
So a' born again homosexual' is a complete impossibility.

When we become 'born again' the old creation must be left in the place of death(on the Cross) and nothing of the old creation will be allowed to be carried forward with the new creation.

18 February 2012 13:41  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

So homosexuality is unacceptable to God and they haven't really been 'born again' then, even though they believe so?

And what of those 'born again' evangelicals from the USA who support the death penalty in Uganda for homosexual acts?

18 February 2012 14:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. When we become 'born again' the old creation must be left in the place of death(on the Cross) and nothing of the old creation will be allowed to be carried forward with the new creation..

Inspector regrets he’s unable to find this in the bible - do help him out. If it’s a heresy you made up, just post ‘H’ followed by 'sorry'

18 February 2012 18:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Inspector, I've shoved stuff which is happening in the real world today into your face and I expect you're overwhelmed.

To paraphrase Nicholas Parsons from ‘Just a Minute’ ”The audience enjoyed your humorous and arrogant reply so we award you a bonus point”

18 February 2012 19:00  
Blogger len said...

OoIG(pt 1)_Really Inspector, Do I have to teach you the basics of salvation?.
What do they teach you in that Catholic Church?.

Here are a few scriptures for you to' mull' over.
God says in order to go to Heaven, you must be born again. In John 3:7, Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Ye must be born again.”(This is a command by Jesus not a suggestion!)
Also;
'We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.(Romans 6:4)

(How dead is dead Inspector?.)

also;Mark 8:34-35 (NIV) Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it."

(The Cross in Biblical terms is not a pretty ornament worn around the neck but an instrument of execution)
THE OLD CREATION -- The first (now old) creation was made by the Lord Jesus, with the first Adam as its [representative] head.

"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers--all things were created by Him" (Col. 1:16).

When Adam sinned the entire race died in him, as did all creation. "As in Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:22). The resultant judgment and condemnation were judicially accomplished on the Cross in the death of Christ unto sin.

"God sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3).

"The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also, and the works that are in it, shall be burned up ....

"Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, in which dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:10,13).

Calvary judicially ended Adam and all of his creation.

18 February 2012 19:22  
Blogger len said...

OoIG,(part 2)


THE NEW CREATION -- When the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father on high, there was a completely new beginning.

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" (Rev. 3:14).

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to His abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3).

ALL NEW IN CHRIST JESUS -- All now is created anew in Christ Jesus, by the Father.

"Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new" (2 Cor. 5:17).

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Gal. 6:15).


The distinctive character of Jesus is that He is "the beginning, the first-born from the dead"--not merely the first-born of, but the firstborn out of. He is the first-born from among the dead, as well as the Head and first-born Heir of all subsisting creation. Thus it is that He rises into a new creation, leaving behind that which had fallen under vanity or death through its sinning chief, the first Adam.

(God either sees you 'in Christ or 'in Adam')This is why I am so against the futility of religion without the' new birth.'

'He who has the Son has everything'conversely if all you have is 'religion'; then you have nothing ..All is Christ. In Colossians 3:11 Paul said, "Christ is all and in all." Christ is everything. That is a monumental truth that affirms the utter sufficiency of Jesus ..

18 February 2012 19:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

I'm afraid len is shifting his ground and getting muddled up.

He talks now of becoming born again, rather than being born again. Is it a process or an event?

The comment about the old creation not being allowed to be carried forward with the new creation is obtuse.

I'm waiting to hear how he determines who has been born again given the different evangelical views around about homosexuality. They range from executing them to permitting the lifestyle!

18 February 2012 19:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len, you spin artist. None of that is justification for what you said. Verily, you maketh it up alongeth the way...

18 February 2012 19:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. The Bible is a powerful book. Needs proper reverence when reading it lest you go astray. Pity you have one...

18 February 2012 19:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Another silly 'hit and run' contribution from our guerrilla evangelical. He'll be back in a few days when he thinks no one will notice and make a further innane comment. Sad really.

19 February 2012 00:28  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

len said and unfortunately Ernst was per-occupied with new Bible study material today but

"OoIG(pt 1)_Really Inspector, Do I have to teach you the basics of salvation?. ERrrr YES!

"What do they teach you in that Catholic Church?." Say 2 Our Fathers and 3 Hail Marys and nowt of much worth it, sadly, appears!

Dodo spluttered
"I'm afraid len is shifting his ground and getting muddled up. " *Choking on coffee sound*
and
"He talks now of becoming born again, rather than being born again." Ernst is particularly annoyed with this staement as he searched through Len's comments 3 times to see if he had missed something and could not even see it implied....Now my eyes are sore and going all crossed.

Prov 14:5
5 A faithful witness will not lie, But a false witness speaks lies.
or
Col 3:9-10
9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him
or
Prov 19:5
5 A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who tells lies will not escape.
Prov 19:9
9 A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who tells lies will perish.
or
Prov 12:19
19 Truthful lips will be established forever, But a lying tongue is only for a moment.
and
A lying tongue is not only something God hates, it is also something that is an abomination to Him.
Finally..
Prov 6:16-19
16 There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.

Or do you merely copy Augustine, who wrote quite extensively on the subject of lying (Most expertly). He says,with Ernst highlighting key points;
"For not every one who says a false thing lies, if he believes or opines that to be true which he says....Now whoever utters that which he holds in his mind either as belief or as opinion, even though it be false, he lies not...For from the sense of his own mind, not from the verity or falsity of the things themselves, is he to be judged to lie or not to lie. Therefore he who utters a false thing for a true, which however he opines to be true, may be called erring and rash: but he is not rightly said to lie; because he has not a double heart when he utters it, neither does he wish to deceive, but is deceived. But the fault of him who lies, is, the desire of deceiving in the uttering of his mind; whether he do deceive, in that he is believed when uttering the false thing; or whether he do not deceive, either in that he is not believed, or in that he utters a true thing with will to deceive, which he does not think to be true: wherein being believed, he does not deceive though it was his will to deceive: except that he deceives in so far as he is thought to know or think as he utters (Augustine, Retractions, Book 1. last Chapter, from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol 3). "
Economy and Reserve preached from the highest authority!

If you must deceive to appear to have won an argument, then you have already lost!

Ernst, Boys!

19 February 2012 01:12  
Blogger len said...

I think the problem with religionists is that they want salvation on THEIR terms!.This is nothing more than pride(although they will never admit it!)What they are saying in effect is that we CAN do it ,we CAN save ourselves!.(of course religionists will never put it as bluntly as that but in effect that is exactly what they are saying!.

To accept that salvation is a total work of God from start to finish seems to be such a blow to the pride of some that they will do anything not to accept this fact!.

19 February 2012 11:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst

You really must try to keep up with your pal's various posts. As I've said, he's a 'hit and run' merchant who drops the odd loaded comment and then disappears for days.

He's what he posted a few threads down:

"This (prayer for salvation) will enable God to breathe New Life into your Spirit reviving it.... then this New Life will start to transform your soul (mind will and emotions."

And although he implied differently the prayer is perfectly in accord with Catholic teaching.

“Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen."

My invitation to len to point out where this departed from Catholicism was, as usual, ignored.

And I'm still waiting on him explaining the differences in the various 'born again' positions pertaining to homosexuality. These range form acceptance of this lifestyle as being in accord with God's will, through to supporting the death penalty for such behaviours.

len
I've given up trying to work out if you're just intellectually challenged or biggotted against the Church. Mind you, it could be both, I suppose.

Do answer the questions and spare us the lectures!

19 February 2012 13:16  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,

I would rather be a 'fool' for Christ than join a religious system which purports to be the way, the only way, and you are condemned to Hell if you don`t join the club!.And you call me a heretic!.
In fact I agree totally with Paul when he says"I count ALL things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish(being polite here) in order that I may gain Christ and may be found in Him."

If it takes a loss of intellectual pride to gain Christ I would gladly throw intellect away.

Tell me(and I hope you will answer this time as you have refused to do so in the past)if you walked away from the Catholic Church and had nothing more to do with it would you remain 'saved'?.

Your answer will tell me if you are following Christ or the Catholic Church,don`t tell me both because the Catholic Church is clearly not following the Living Word of God as it sets its 'traditions' above and beyond the Word of God .

I await your answer with interest!.

19 February 2012 14:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. I think the problem with religionists is that they want salvation on THEIR terms!

Now there is an excellent example of YOUR Christianity. Dodo certainly has you banged to rights. YOU are the one laying down the terms, and they are YOUR terms. What gives you the arrogant right to tell others they are in or out. Salvation is a mystery to us, or at least it should be. None of us know if when the time comes, it is ours. Instead of spreading the word to those who haven’t heard it, you busy yourself bringing down those who have, like some damn disease. Some humility from you, you humble creature !

19 February 2012 16:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len asked...
"Tell me(and I hope you will answer this time as you have refused to do so in the past)if you walked away from the Catholic Church and had nothing more to do with it would you remain 'saved'?"

I have answered before.

One clarification. Unlike you I do not prejudge my salvation ot that of others. I hope and pray for it and with faith in Christ and with the assistance of His Church, will achieve it.

Do you believe you are saved? That Heaven is quaranteed you? You need not turn up for the Last Judgement as it's a done deal?

The Catholic Church has always taught that anyone who knowingly and deliberately, rather than through innocent ignorance, commits the sin of heresy by rejecting divinely revealed doctrine, or the sin of separating from the Catholic Church, then for them salvation would not be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

As for this nonsense:

"Your answer will tell me if you are following Christ or the Catholic Church,don`t tell me both because the Catholic Church is clearly not following the Living Word of God as it sets its 'traditions' above and beyond the Word of God."

This just reveals your prejudice and ignorance. The Catholic Church absolutely and unconditionally follows Christ and its Sacred Traditions are entirely consistent with the Gospel of Christ.

Who are you in your pride and arrogance to judge the Catholic Church? You who is confused about the Incarnation and the Trinity? You who a few months ago suggested St Paul met Lucifer on the the road to Damacus, not the Resurrected Jesus? You who cannot explain whether spiritual rebirth is an event or a process?

Now you answer my question about 'born again' Christians holding diametrically opposed opinions on homosexuality. And while you're at it explain how your posted 'Prayer for Salvation' squares with your belief one must be 'born again' before accepting Christ and just where it differs from Catholic teaching.

And please no long diatribe against Catholicism simply intended to distract attention from your confusion.

Just answer the questions as plainly as I've answered yours!

19 February 2012 18:49  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Don`t you ever listen?.

You are like a stuck 'record'which keeps on repeating the same line.Do you actually read my responses or are you so filled with hate that you just keep wanting to' have a go' at me..regardless?.

Well it might satisfy some sort of desire to lash out with you but it is rather unproductive and I might add rather boring for all concerned.
You seem to be 'cherry picking ' which scriptures you will obey but
rejecting others which do not line up with your particular 'theology'.

Unlike you I question everything and if it doesn`t line up with scripture I examine it very closely.I think you would be advised to do the same .

I advise you to take another look at what I have posted previously as to keep on going over the same ground is rather unproductive.

I have no personal animosity towards Catholics only in religious systems which I believe lead people away from Christ.

If you were to preach Christ and HIS Gospel there would be no need for further conflict(unless of course you still feel it necessary to release whatever frustrations you are feeling...... which seem to be many)

I realise (of course) that you cannot answer my question(14:18) because if you question ANY of the elements of Catholicism your 'House of Cards' will come tumbling down!.

So even when you KNOW that you are wrong you still have to defend your 'House of Cards for fear of the whole edifice collapsing about your ears!.This is I believe called 'being in denial'.

19 February 2012 21:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

Er, I did answer your question! Just which bit of it did you fail to grasp?

Let me repeat my answer:

"The Catholic Church has always taught that anyone who knowingly and deliberately, rather than through innocent ignorance, commits the sin of heresy by rejecting divinely revealed doctrine, or the sin of separating from the Catholic Church, then for them salvation would not be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."

Understand?

And, as I thought, no answer at all to any of my questions! Of course I do understand why.

19 February 2012 22:22  
Blogger non mouse said...

HM and Prince Philip have interesting expressions on their faces ... it'd be worth a penny or two to know what's behind them. Mind- I see I'm not the only one who noticed the colour contrast.

I'd give nothing to know the thoughts of the other two.

20 February 2012 02:46  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, still no answer for me then?.

Do you want me to post all the Catholic heresies so that you know what they are? Perhaps you cannot see the 'Wood for the Trees'?.

20 February 2012 08:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

More evasion and bitter words. You think you understand my faith, fine. In truth you're clueless about it.

So do stop banging on about Catholicism and tell me about your faith. You could start by answering my questions?

20 February 2012 17:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

Here they are in case you didn't read them:

Now you answer my question about 'born again' Christians holding diametrically opposed opinions on homosexuality.

And while you're at it explain how your posted 'Prayer for Salvation' squares with your belief one must be 'born again' before accepting Christ and just where it differs from Catholic teaching.

20 February 2012 17:06  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
One cannot be born again before accepting Christ!.If one could be born again without Christ then Christ would be unnecessary for salvation!.

(Have a look at this article this explains why we MUST be born again and the utter futility of religion to bring about salvation as ordained by God.I know the truth of this by direct experience as I was baptised as an infant, confirmed at a later date but I know that none of these events saved me until I was born again!)

The Doctrine of Regeneration, Part 2
www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-298

20 February 2012 18:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

Yes, I do understand that!

Now explain this prayer for salvation you posted:

“Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen."

Clearly any person praying this to the Father must have accepted Christ already and yet, contrary to your earlier stated position, it suggests an ongoing process of salvation and not a single event.

Once 'born again' can you lose salvation through sin?

20 February 2012 19:35  
Blogger Richard said...

Perhaps one reason Christianity is seen by some as less relevant is because we see bickering like this. You're arguing over who gets to heaven.

How can either of you know this?

Isn't it besides the point? I saw a homeless person outside a church after a service recently. Isn't that more important than who inside gets to heaven?

Do parables like the Pharisees and Samaritan come to mind?

Call me a heretic, but isn't the idea to find the right place here in a sort of loving others kind of way, rather than fight over who's got the right dogma?

21 February 2012 07:08  
Blogger len said...

Richard ,

The Truth (about Christ) will set you free.Conversely deception will keep you in bondage.Is truth important?.
Many have been(and still are Worldwide) being martyred for making a stand for the the Truth about Christ.Is it love to leave people in deception .. but say I love you? Or should we tell them the Truth....in love?.
Is truth important....Is it worth bickering over, is it worth dying for?.....You bet!.

21 February 2012 07:31  
Blogger len said...

Richard , How can we know who gets to Heaven....Well by studying God`s plan of salvation and complying with it seems a good place to start?
This is the reason God gave us His Written Word so that we can KNOW what His plan for salvation is!.

21 February 2012 07:35  
Blogger len said...

Dodo ,

In many ways being 'born again; is a mystery (like the Trinity)how it occurs is known only to God.
But Jesus, Paul (and others)have explained how being born again occurs (in part) and why being 'born again' is essential to see the Kingdom of God.
Our first birth is by the will of our parents which is the 'corruptible seed'this is being born of the flesh in scriptural terms.The flesh CAN be very religious, will sing in the choir, preach the Gospel in fact do everything to preserve itself but remains under the Judgement of God.The 'flesh' can be very' good 'and the flesh can be very 'bad'.This is the two sides of the same 'coin', this is the predicament of Humanity wishing to be 'good' but unable to carry it out with any consistency.

Salvation(and taking oneself out of the predicament which affects the whole of humanity) consists of the second birth which is being born of the Will of God

'for you have been born again not
of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.(1 Peter 1 :23)

This second birth is entirely from the Will of God through the Grace of God, the Mercy of God .There is nothing we can do to 'earn this!.

This being born of the Will of God, being Born from Above is God`s plan for the salvation of Humanity put into affect by the Lord Jesus Christ.

God`s sees the' flesh'as totally corrupt beyond redemption(even when it tries to effect this by 'being religious') so God recreates man in His image by breathing His Life into dead Spirits according to His Will.

It is only when we realise the hopelessness of trying to save ourselves and throw ourselves on the Mercy of God that God can and will act.

21 February 2012 08:03  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,

I may not know all the scriptures and all the facts about Christianity,and Albert(bless him) could probably (and does) run rings around me with scriptures)

I may not be as intellectual as some but do not see this as so much as a disadvantage the disciples were simple men(in a nice way)

But the one thing I DO know is that the re birth is God`s plan for the salvation for Humanity and if I make a stand against religion
it is only because it CAN(not always) stand in the path to salvation and sometimes this point needs to be put forcefully!.The gathering of people in Churches is a good thing but some of the doctrines being taught by religious systems are not so good.I have a love and compassion for people and do not like seeing the 'sheep led astray'.

Bless you and all who seek Life through Jesus Christ the only Way to salvation.

21 February 2012 08:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

I do understand your position on being 'born again', just believe the process happens in a different way. You believe a relationship with Christ is the sole means of salvation and, believe it not, the Catholic Churches teaches this too!

Catholicism is a deep faith and capable of misunderstanding and misrepresentation both by those in the Church and those outside the Church. At it's centre it is very simple - love God and love your neighbour.

Let's agree on that and during Lent focus on remembering Christ's redeeming sacrifice.

21 February 2012 21:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

Actually,you can be a nice guy when you want.

I'll share a secret with you. The problem with Catholic teaching is not so much the message but how some people hear it. But do remember we are all human, doing our best and some people struggle for years to understand God's message - toreally 'get it'. Don't rule them out.

Catholicism, properly understood, is a wonderfully enriching expression of the Gospel message. Trust me, it is! I spent years exploring other 'faiths' and exploring other Christian churches.

I came home not because of fear of guilt, as you often imply, but because Christianity just makes sense and Catholicism expresses it for me in its most profound way.

God Bless.

22 February 2012 00:17  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, I was listening to a teaching by Derek Prince the other day and he was explaining the purpose of the Gospel.
The ultimate purpose of God and the gospel is surprisingly simple....it is Love.Love for God and love for ones fellow man.
If we miss that we miss everything.
I was instantly convicted that I was guilty of what I was accusing others of( a form of legalism.)
The Apostle Paul puts this much more eloquently than I am attempting to do here but is is so easy(without the guidance of the Holy Spirit ) to become a 'clanging cymbal'.
'
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.'(I Corinthians 13:1)

This seems to me to be a very difficult balance to get..... to tell the truth ...in Love.

22 February 2012 08:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The Great Question that divides?

"Once 'born again' can you lose salvation through sin?" NEVER! but you can stay out of fellowship because of unconfessed sin.

Some Christians are Overcomers, some get Overtaken, whilst running the race but all complete the journey.

"You believe a relationship with Christ is the sole means of salvation. " There is no other scriptural basis for it!

However..'the Catholic Churches teaches this too'! 'sole means' .. canonicallly impossible...Heresy!

The Dilemna sometimes used regarding Abrahams faith and Genesis 12 and Genesis 15...Who, but the Romanist, is concerned to differentiate between the nature of the faith of Abraham in Genesis 12 and the nature of Abraham's faith in Genesis 15? Ernst is not bothered with the time of Abraham's justification, because we aren't the ones who are forced by means of special pleading on the grounds of making a case for on-going justification.

The great dilemna is, where do works figure in to it with respect to Genesis 12 or Genesis 15 as Ernst has been told is the justification for Grace + works?

Answer? In both places, the sole instrument referenced is Abraham's faith.

2 b Con't

Ernst

22 February 2012 16:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The Great Dilemna cont'd

The very words of Chrysostom over the claims of Rome...

Chrysostom (349-407): The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of faith alone: before circumcision, the text says, “Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.” Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, 27.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 167.

Chrysostom (349-407): They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, ‘In thee shall all nations be blessed,’ (Genesis 12:4.) at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Commentary on Galatians, 3:8.

Or the 'anonymous' church father to whom Erasmus gave the designated name of Ambrosiaster...

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:27:
Ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? factorum? Non, sed per legem fidei. Reddita ratione, ad eos loquitur, qui agunt sub lege, quod sine causa glorientur, blandientes sibi de lege, et propter quod genus sint Abrahae, videntes non justificari hominem apud Deum, nisi per fidem. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:80.

Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast basing themselves on the law and claiming to be of the race of Abraham, seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 103.

and

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:5:
Hoc dicit, quia sine operibus legis credenti impio, id est gentili, in Christum, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam, sicut et Abrahae. Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae; cum videant Abraham non per opera legis, sed sola fide justificatum? Non ergo opus est lex, quando impius per solam fidem justificatur apud Deum. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:82-83.

How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 112.

The difference between Grace + Law/Works and Grace Alone in Salvation (Can we be born daily...NO. Just as a child can not be born each day, it is a one-off event.
But just like that baby, we must grow after birth)and what daily growth is regarding moving from being a babe to Christ to maturity (from milk to meat) in Christ and Fellowship with the Father and a daily confession of our sins (1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.).

We must therefore agree to disagree..The Dilemna!

Ernst.

22 February 2012 16:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst

You are an enigmatic old s*d - and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Clearly well read; versed in scriptue and in the writings of the Church Fathers; knowledgable in the theologies of different Christian denominations and a scholar of the classics.

And yet ....

Apart from being a supporter of Newcastle, you treat Christianity in a light hearted manner. Your style of serious issues is dismissive, even frivolous, at times. Indeed, we could be talking about a football match rather than the only subject worthy of serious discussion.

There are 'heavy weights' on this blog. I count you as one of them, yet you avoid serious engagement. A considered discussion between carl, Albert and yourself on the thorny issues of salvation would be worthy of witnessing.

I am not a theologian; nor am I an expert on Catholicism. I know what I know in my heart and soul about God and I thank the Church for this. Jesus is the centre of all Christian teaching and His command to love God and our neighbour is the core of Catholicism.

I believe salvation is a journey, a process, a constant struggle against the weaknesses of our damaged nature and a relationship to Christ is essential in this battle. The Church, its sacraments and it guidance are there to strenthen us in this,to help our faith mature and to restore our relationship with Christ when we fall out of Grace - as we invariably do - and this relationship is grieviously damaged. The rest I leave to Hope in the eventual promise of Our Lord that He will bring His own home to His Father's House.

No, I don't believe in faith alone. I believe in Hope and Charity too. I believe in the centrality of Baptism and the Eucharist. No, I don't believe in Scripture alone. I believe the Church is there to enlighten and teach the Good News and to develop - not change or modify - our understanding of it.

We can agree to differ. Can we also agree to agree? Maybe the Nicene Creed is a good place to start.

22 February 2012 23:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo said

"You are an enigmatic old s*d - and I mean that in the nicest possible way." an old sud (a synthetic detergent compound and worked up into froth), is Ernst? he says foaming at mouth..tis side effects of my medication {cotton mouth}, lad! ;-)

"Clearly well read; versed in scriptue and in the writings of the Church Fathers; knowledgable in the theologies of different Christian denominations and a scholar of the classics." Ernst merely has a paasion for the important things in life..A newspaper is to be read but the Holy Bible MUST BE STUDIED and any christian literature examined against it!

"Apart from being a supporter of Newcastle, you treat Christianity in a light hearted manner. " (Never, Lad, NEVER. You confuse Ernst's joviality in discussion with a lack of seriousness..Ernst is cheerfully optimistic and hopeful because he takes Christianity seriously!)
...yet you avoid serious engagement. This is not the case as where others have written and written eleoquently and Ernst agrees, to comment would be 'de trop'. Ernst NEVER writes merely to proof he is still alive or for the sake of being contentious. Why Ernst never discusses Abortion, as it is crystal clear from scripture it is murder and murder of a human life/soul and he presumes from your commenting he reads that you, Albert, Len, William, Non Mouse, Bluedog, WTH, Oswin and others he apologisesi if he has not mentioned, agree with Ernst.

You state 'I believe salvation is a journey, a process, a constant struggle against the weaknesses of our damaged nature and a relationship to Christ is essential in this battle.' Ernst would state "I believe Christian Maturity is a journey, a process, a constant struggle against the weaknesses of our damaged nature and a relationship to Christ is essential in this battle." See the difference lad! Salvation is NOT about ongoing and trying not to sin but is 'once for all' wheras maturity is fruitfulness, discipline/chastisement, daily repentance, rewards. All maybe saved but all will not be EQUAL in Heaven lad..read scripture!
Dear boy, people quote James as if he is a rebuttal to Justification by Faith but as James was written before Paul, how is he a rebuttal?

"The Church, its sacraments and it guidance are there to strenthen us in this,to help our faith mature and to restore our relationship with Christ when we fall out of Grace - as we invariably do - and this relationship is grieviously damaged." Yes but How is what you stated a justification for a wrongful understanding of Salvation. Redemption is Not Repentance. Christ saved you once for all on the Cross, you cannot be taken from Him, even by yourself. Must we crucify Him daily, to keep something He gives by Grace but which we may lose? The Holy Spirit is in you, Christ's hands are around you and the Fathers hands are around Christ's. Loss of Salvation? Biblically IMPOSSIBLE but you can lead a life as a Christian that is worse than an unbelieving sinner and you can/will be chastened by Your Heavenly Father for this, with terrible consequences.

You disagree?

2 b cont'd

23 February 2012 13:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

An explanation cont'd

Ernst allows that John 5:16 is one of the most difficult verses in the New Testament to interpret. “If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.” Ernst believes the best interpretation may be found by comparing this verse to what happened to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10 (see also 1 Corinthians 11:30). The “sin unto death” is deliberate, willful, continuous, unrepentant sin. God, in His grace, allows HIS CHILDREN to sin without immediately punishing them. However, there comes a point when God will no longer allow a believer to continue in unrepentant sin. When this point is reached, God sometimes decides to punish a Christian, even to the point of taking his or her life.

That is what He did in Acts 5:1-10 and 1 Corinthians 11:28-32....perhaps what Paul described to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. We are to pray for Christians who are sinning. However, there may come a time when God will no longer hear prayers for a sinning believer for whom He has determined that judgment is due. It is difficult to realize there are times when it is just too late to pray for a person or that we have got so hardened by our continuous behaviour we do not see the danger of continuing so. God is always Holy, Good and Just, and we will just have to let Him decide when it is too late for the sinning believer.

But, Ernst's conclusion, the believer has not lost his eternal salvation!
A much used passage regarding losing salvation and Hell fire is, John 15:6, but given the context and the audience Jesus is addressing( saved disciples) Jesus is telling his 11 remaining disciples (Judas had already left), whom He knows to be true disciples who are truly saved, about bearing much fruit for Him; Jesus isn't talking to a group that includes the unsaved."If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire"..

Ernst, me inquiring fine dickie ;-)

23 February 2012 13:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo made Ernst raise his left eyebrow and smile broadly!

"A considered discussion between carl, Albert and yourself on the thorny issues of salvation would be worthy of witnessing. "

Dear fellow.

Salvation can be broken into so many segments that each deserve at least a thousand page explanation before you can even begin to discuss the matter.

There are at least 6 unsurmountable problems that presented a barrier between God and man which made communion unattainable. Each one presented a problem that was impossible for man to resolve and that only a God/Man (Son of God and Son of Man, Our Blessed Saviour, Jesus Christ) could fix and secure eternally.

Salvation/Grace was the solution...where do you wish old Ernst to start???*Cheeky titters*

Ernst, lad.

23 February 2012 15:49  
Blogger len said...

Well this is taking on epic proportions.

But salvation is a core issue with regard to Christianity and one that can easily be misunderstood.Many people both secular and religious think that by being 'good' is to meet God`s requirements for salvation and to earn oneself a place in Heaven.

One of the main issues Paul had to confront was 'legalism'.What is legalism in religious terms?.Legalism may be defined in two related ways.

1, First it is an attempt to obtain righteousness with God by following a set of rules.

2,An attempt to add EXTRA conditions for achieving righteousness above and beyond what God has laid down.

God`s requirement for achieving righteousness is laid down in Romans 4:24-25 'but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification'.

Paul`s letter to the Galatians is very important,for if you start ADDING to what God has laid down to obtain righteousness than you actually bring yourself under the law and under the curse of the Law.

'For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.(Galatians 3:10)

Of course 'works'(as a fruit of salvation) are not a 'bad thing' but when you are using them to obtain righteousness then they definitely are a bad thing!.

23 February 2012 20:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst

It's beyond my ken but I know the 'Protestant' understanding is different to the Catholic one. Even within Protestantism there is great division.

Albert has forgone blogging for Lent so I will resist attempting to engage on this subject. I know the Catholic position but am not equipped to enter into a debate on the finer points of theology.

Why do find this amusing?

len

Please don't think me rude but simply posting endless Biblical passages without engaging in a discussion about how they can be understood in the context of the totality of Scripture in unfruitful.

All we end up doing is covering the same ground endlessly and disagreeing!

24 February 2012 16:08  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, I am not interested in 'splitting hairs' on the finer points on theology.
But I am interested in what foundation I stand on!.

The scriptures speak quite clearly for themselves(it takes help from gangs of theologians to misunderstand them!)The only reason we have 'gangs of theologians claiming to have the 'correct version of the truth' is so that they can claim authority over the 'masses'(pun intended)

I think it insulting to the Holy Spirit to make claims that He cannot express Himself well enough to be understood by all and sundry!.

25 February 2012 08:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Salvation/Grace was the solution...where do you wish old Ernst to start???*Cheeky titters*

Ernst, lad.

Dodo inquired or read without perceiving!

"Why do find this amusing?"

Salvation? The ERNORMITY of the subject, dear boy, ERNORMITY hence why RC get lost within it by presuming it relates to an event nearly 2000 years ago but not fully completed by Christ. The confusion expressed by your previous comment, that you/rc's are gaining salvation daily by helping God complete what the cross was unable to acheive by your merited works (filthy rags is what the book calls our efforts).

That simple and the 'wry smile' regarding a discussion..can of worms but if you have a tin opener?.

Ernst, lad

25 February 2012 12:10  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo, regarding what Len stated..

Ernst agrees with the simplicity of Len's comment by what Ernst has prerambled in large measure.

All you NEED to be saved eternally is believe ;

John 3:16-17 states,
"16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish (die, deteriorate, destroy.), but have everlasting (Continuing indefinitely, never coming to an end, eternity) life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved (to keep in a safe condition, To prevent the waste or loss of, to conserve).
18 He that believeth (To accept as true or real, To have confidence in the truth or value of something:) on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Acts 16:30-34

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house ).

Did that salvation only save you/we/them for a day, a week, a month, a year?

Accomplished salvation is believing, why God designed his plan of salvation so is because of barrriers that seperate is from communion wity Him but the plan is His Love towards us os revealed as ;

Romans 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Ernst

ps

Why not get people who comment here to complete a 'Please prove you're not an idiot' rather than Please prove you're not a robot.

Might get rid of a few miscreants?

25 February 2012 17:52  
Blogger len said...

Ernst, Your comments certainly make me chuckle!.

'Why not get people who comment here to complete a 'Please prove you're not an idiot' rather than Please prove you're not a robot.'

This might prove to be impossible to some!.Also I have suspicions that our 'serial multiple ID 'person is active again.

26 February 2012 07:43  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Len said

"Also I have suspicions that our 'serial multiple ID 'person is active again."

Who dat den? * Huge Guffaws and Titters*

Ernst, me fellow evangelical

26 February 2012 20:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2012 23:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

That's because you've got an unforgiving and judgemental disposition len. Have you read Matthew 18:21-23?

I'm sure such publically expressed 'suspicion' without evidence must break one of God's laws.

Perhaps:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

Shame on you.

26 February 2012 23:57  
Blogger Eye of God (aka Dodo) said...

You nad, bad men Ernst and len.

Starting rumours and engaging in malicious gossip is most certainly a breach of the Commandments.

Tit, tut, and from two who claim to be 'born again' and Spirit filled too!

27 February 2012 00:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: in your case, shouldn't that be : 'in a pigs eye' ? I don't know how you dare venture out without a lightening rod, you shameful hypocrite!

27 February 2012 00:51  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo AKA The Eye of God etc, etc, etc etc....,

"I'm sure such publically expressed 'suspicion' without evidence must break one of God's laws. " Good Lord man, you haven't stopped 'fessing' since His Grace mentioned a culprit but gave no name (You immediately cast yourself as the offended culprit/victim, without the need for a prompt).

Ernst is expecting to hear from your own lips that you were the third man on the grassy knoll on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas and also the person tipping the poison into the late Pope John Paul I's cup of tea!

Any more 'fesses' please give us a heads up first, so we can sell tickets for His Grace, to assist in his bit for Simony, you really are a blockbuster communicant and like a soap operaq addict Ernst can't wait for his next 'fix' from your comment.... This blog's version of Dirty Den, AKA 'Dastardly Dodo"

You really are becoming an asset for the blog..with representation of 'what is false/insincere repentance' and 'how to remain a slave to sin'!

You are your own worst enemy, lad.

Ernst, you mad boy.

27 February 2012 10:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst: yes but I expected a line to be drawn under it all back in October. So why keep bleating on about it now?

Ps
Wanna know who shot President Kennedy?

27 February 2012 11:52  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo inquired to Ernst re


"Ps
Wanna know who shot President Kennedy?" Not in the slightest lad, as he was a over rated sanctimonius womaniser. Ta very much though.

"also the person tipping the poison into the late Pope John Paul I's cup of tea!"

Now THAT would interest Ernst, especially as he may have reconciled some outsiders by reforms he planned internally..He was of rare stock, by being genuinely decent and humble for a Pope, even if Ernsty could not agree with his views religiously.

He was not going to change things greatly from a doctrinal basis but throwing out the world that had lodged over centuries within, might have been a 'good start'!

Albino Luciani, was actually embarking on a revolution within Roman Catholicism. He wanted to set the Church in a new direction which was considered highly undesirable and dangerous by many high ranking Church officials.

It is said that he wanted, first of all, to strip many of powers by dismissing them or reassigning them into harmless positions. This directly involved the Freemasons. There were over one hundred Masons within Vatican City ranging from Cardinals to priests. Roman Catholic Canon Law stated that to be a Freemason was grounds for automatic ex-communication. Six men in particular, stood to lose a great deal if Pope John Paul I remained in power. (These were - Marcinkus, Villot, Calvi, Sindona, Cody and Gelli). There was a suspicion of a conspiracy among these men with Villot the instigator and Gelli the executioner.
He also wanted the Church's wealth shared with the poor. He was also on the verge of reversing the Church's position on artificial birth control, as well as cleaning up the messy Vatican Bank scandal. He was about to approve the birth-control pill. In his "Humanae Vitae," he urged pastoral clergy acceptance of contraception and also acknowledged those children born by in-vitro fertilization. A truly remarkable and radical change from current Church policy, indeed me fine fowl.
Satan was having none of it, was he? Recognising your sins is a start and a sign towards repentance!

Come on fella, with those Jesuit links and that black cowl and stiletto in the closet, you must be in the know. :)

Ernsty 'Bated Breath' Bloey.

27 February 2012 13:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst: I don't go in for conspiracy theories; far too speculative.

Oswin: is there a helix nebula with such a name?

27 February 2012 15:01  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older