Wednesday, March 07, 2012

“The most significant intervention yet into the debate on gay marriage”


So says John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor of The Daily Telegraph, on the statement issued by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.

The Archbishop is of the view that ‘gay marriage’ would be a ‘profoundly radical step’, and has issued a letter to be read from the pulpit of 2,500 churches during Mass this Sunday, reminding them of their ‘duty’ to support their church’s teaching. Since there isn’t to be a referendum on the matter, it is difficult to see why this is ‘the most significant intervention’ in this debate. Not least because Archbishop Vincent is by no means the most senior Roman Catholic cleric in the land.

That status surely goes to Cardinal Keith O’Brien (if not, in England and Wales, to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, who has been rather trappist on the matter). Cardinal O'Brien is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, and he accused the Coalition of a ‘grotesque subversion’ and of ‘shaming the country’. He said ‘gay marriage’ is a further ‘aberration’ of a ‘degenerating’ society, and is akin to slavery. This was indeed a ‘most significant intervention’.

And then there’s the Church of England. Though the Telegraph derides it at every turn, mocking its leadership and pouring scorn over its internal debates, it remains the Established Church in England, and so rather more ‘significant’ in terms of political intervention. We have heard from former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who says that the ‘gay marriage’ proposal ‘constitutes one of the greatest political power grabs in history’; it amounts to ‘cultural vandalism’.

And we’ve also heard from the Church’s second most senior cleric, the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu, who compared David Cameron to a ‘dictator’ for changing a fundamental social structure. He threatened a ‘rebellion’ in the Lords and told the Prime Minister: "You’re going to get it from across the benches and in the Commons." That’s pretty significant, don’t you think, Mr Bingham?

And then we have the most senior cleric in the land, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams who is of the view that the state has no right at all to legalise same-sex marriage, reasoning that human rights legislation ‘falls short of a legal charter to promote change in institutions’. The Archbishop has told Parliament that Anglican churches will not solemnise ‘gay marriages’, and is adamant that marriage will remain a union between one man and one woman.

With respect to John Bingham, who appears to be locked in the Telegraph’s peculiarly myopic Romeward-gazing bubble, this is by far ‘the most significant intervention yet into the debate on gay marriage’, not only because it comes from the Primate of All England and the Primus inter Pares of all primates of the Worldwide Anglican Communion, but because Dr Williams is a known liberal-lefty and a self-declared, long-time supporter of gay rights. We fully expect Roman Catholic cardinals and archbishops to submit to the Magisterium and bow to the infallible authority of the Pope in the dogmatic teaching on faith or morals. There is absolutely no surprise when an evangelically-inclined former Anglican archbishop seeks to uphold the Church’s traditional teaching on the family and human sexuality. And when an Archbishop of African heritage talks of ‘dictators’ trying to change our cultural heritage, this does not astonish or amaze.

David Cameron said: "I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative." In doing so, he aligns his conservatism with the rather antithetical socialist instinct to engineer society, and also with the modern liberal tendency to tolerate all lifestyles and beliefs under the increasingly intolerant aegis of human rights.

When the Prime Minister faces opposition from the liberal-progressive leadership of the Church of England – as well as from its conservative-evangelical and High-Church traditionalists – he surely has a fight on his hands.

That, Mr Bingham, with all due respect, is why the Archbishop of Canterbury has made what is by far ‘the most significant intervention yet into the debate on gay marriage'. For if David Cameron cannot carry a liberal-lefty cleric with him on this liberal-lefty reform, the argument is lost, and the political fallout for the Conservative Party will be immense.

119 Comments:

Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

Cardinal O'Brien came across as a nutter.

And with Robert Mugabe's regime publicly supporting him he really is in trouble.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/robert-mugabe-aides-hail-cardinal-o-brien-for-opposition-to-gay-marriage-1-2156735

7 March 2012 at 09:43  
Blogger Just Me said...

Instead of supporting common ground on this issue, once again it's deteriorated into a dick size competition between Catholics and Anglicans.

7 March 2012 at 09:52  
Blogger David B said...

Wouldn't much of the furore over gay marriage be obviated by adopting the French model, where, as I understand it (please correct me if I don't) all legal unions (They may as well be called marriages) are solemnised legally?

After which the family can have any other ceremony they wish, whether religious, humanist, pagan or quite simply a do-it-yourself ceremony.

Or none at all.

As long as there is no compulsion - and why should there be? - on particular clergymen to celebrate any union they don't want to, then what is the problem?

David B

7 March 2012 at 09:55  
Blogger Jon said...

Derek's right. When the Catholic Church and Robert Mugabe are opposing your every move, you know you're doing something good!

How long before the Coalition wants rid of these turbulent priests?! Perhaps Mr Cameron will accede to the demands of Mr Clegg for reform of the Upper Chamber on the condition that the Lords "Spiritual" are removed!

7 March 2012 at 09:56  
Blogger Jon said...

+1 for David B

7 March 2012 at 09:57  
Blogger James Reade said...

It's always got to be about socialism hasn't it? Always got to crowbar in some kind of angle on why socialism is the most evil thing ever.

It's about not doing social engineering, it's about governments acting as governments do, playing politics. It's about the separation of church and state. Let them do what they like with the legal definition of marraige. Why should the church be able to impose its version of marriage on everyone else? Is that Biblical? I think you'll find it's not. That's actually social engineering - and you're engaging primarily in it.

In this case you're much closer to a Catholic, clinging to tradition, than clinging to the Bible.

7 March 2012 at 10:00  
Blogger bluedog said...

Bravo, Your Grace, some very relevant and entirely accurate points.

However, it doesn't really matter if the Roman Catholic hierarchy lead the charge in the first instance. There is some way to go in developing the arguments against same sex marriage and in promoting them. The homosexual lobby seem to have developed an early lead and are clearly not satisfied with the civil partnership concession.

Your communicant feels that the Anglican church should focus on quietly developing secular arguments to oppose SSM. Thus the CofE position is acceptable to the widest possible demographic in the electorate. There are very many who instinctively feel that SSM is wrong, and as communicant Mr D Singh points out, based on emotion not logic.

Leave the fire and brimstone to Rome.

7 March 2012 at 10:30  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Perhaps it's the most significant because it has the biggest scale. The Anglican Bishops have spoken out against it, but the Catholic Church now dedicates a homily to it. In that way it is the most significant intervention.

7 March 2012 at 10:45  
Blogger graham wood said...

Mr James Reade said:
"Why should the church be able to impose its version of marriage on everyone else - is that Biblical?"

What a strange question which reveals deep ignorance of both the nature of the church and Scripture. But let that pass.
For your information the church does not now "impose" anything, it simply reflects and passes on the authoritative word of God on this issue as on others.
Firstly, marriage is not a church instituted tradition, but rather a God given one, universally recognised and practiced, that is, heterosexual, between one man and one woman for life. Those who oppose this simple definition which was endorsed fully by Christ himself are not opposing "the church", but rather the clear will of God. Are you not aware of this fact?
Secondly, it is not the church which initiated what is called this "greatest power grab" of modern times, but rather a Godless secular government, and an extremely naive prime minister.

Thirdly, there are countless numbers of people worldwide who are not Christian, or of any faith, who support the traditional view of marriage. In the UK such people deeply resent a small minded opportunist politician assuming some sort of ownership over marriage. Likewise the electorate do not understand why a tiny minority of homosexual fanatics (less than 1% in the UK) should be allowed to dominate the majority.
The "social engineering" you refer to is entirely initiated by this foolish government. There is no evidence at all of a national clamour (as opposed to government) for any change in the law at all.
To reverse your question many of us ask:
'Why should Mr Cameron impose his version of marriage upon everyone else?

7 March 2012 at 10:46  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

The problem with there not being a "separation between church and state" on this matter is that Cameron's changing the definition of "marriage" to suit the "gay" lobby, will compel all CofE priests who are "Marriage Officers" to officiate over a ceremony which is patently against the teachings of all Christian Churches, Islam and Judaism. I believe I am correct in saying this filters through into all other faiths as well, though some, it appears are more tolerant of it.

If Messrs Cameron and Clegg wish to give the "gay" community equality the European model is sensible and practical. It requires that ALL unions are conducted by the Civil Authority, including same sex unions. These are strictly legalistic in every aspect and there are no religious connotations or even symbols present. "Marriage" on the continent is a legal state and is even, in many, referred to simply as a "Civil Union."

The problem with the current proposals is that it is badly drafted (as usual by some ignoramus with complete ignorance of the religious feelings, teachings and overtones involved) and so sweepingly "inclusive" it introduces an element of compulsion on objectors which is both repugnant and unacceptable in a civilised society.

7 March 2012 at 11:23  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
It may well be the 'most significant intervention yet' for John Bingham. With all that is going on in terms of bribery in the media, he might have been promised brownie points for getting through Purgatory.
Let’s not knock him, it's important that the message gets out no matter who takes the credit for the 'most significant intervention yet'.

7 March 2012 at 11:28  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

James Reade has said many times but...

Ernst tries to understand the logic in this comment and others previously but continues to see what you are arguing about. It is most unclear.

"Why should the church be able to impose its version of marriage on everyone else?" It has been acceptable since time immemorial throughout oral and recorded documentation that a man and a woman comprise a legal act to God and their Society in Marriage. Is that Biblical? Err YES! Do read.

Originally, God only created man. The first man, Adam, did not have a companion. God did not intend to leave Adam in this situation, but God had a point to make with Adam first. God knew it was not good for man to be alone, but man did not understand this.
Adam was able to look at each animal carefully and understand that none of these animals would make a good companion for himself.
Adam was able to look at each animal carefully and understand that none of these animals would make a good companion for himself.

Mans view in Dictionary's is defined as..'the mutual relation of husband and wife. The institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. An intimate or close union."

Genesis 2:24
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

I hope we can conclude from the verse that homosexual relationships are NOT recognised or approved by God.

Man is NOT the companion for man, neither threfore is wonan the companion for woman.

Woman was created for man. This same verse also implies by is statement that polygamy is also NOT what God intended for man either.

Genesis 2:24 states that the two would become one flesh. During sexual intercourse, the husband enters into his wife, joining with her, and for a moment in time becoming one with her. But there is more to it than just the physical uniting of bodies. Sex causes an emotional bonding between the two people. This is the reason fornication (having sex outside of marriage) is wrong.

2b contd

7 March 2012 at 11:39  
Blogger David Ould said...

Robert Mugabe is a nutter. But he is right.

7 March 2012 at 11:40  
Blogger Hereward said...

Thin end of wedge. Equality and diversity trumps traditional societal norms.

Initially gay "marriage" may not be forced on the the CofE but it is likely to be imposed on the established church not too long after civil introduction and may eventually be forced on all denominations.

Based on guest house and adoption agency precedents it is conceivable that any Church offering marriage ceremonies will not be allowed to discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Mosques of course would be exempt to enhance multiculti religio-diversity or some such tosh.

This social engineering is badly misguided. Society as a whole will not benefit from legalised immorality or marginalisation of Christian belief and practice.

7 March 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Con'd to conclusion;

Sex is not only a privilege within marriage, it is also a requirement...see I Corinthians 7:1-9. If homosexuals, such as Priests or Bishops, say they will sexually abstain as sexual partners to people they marry, this shows the perversion, as God says it is a requirement of marriage!
There was specific instruction in the OT regarding this, especially for newly weds.
In fact, under the Old Law, the Jews had an interesting rule for newly married couples.
Deuteronomy 24:5.
5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

For one year after a marriage, the husband was free from any obligation that would take him away from his wife. He could not be sent off to war. He could not be sent on a business trip. For one year, he was to concentrate on bringing his wife happiness .

The affection due a wife by a husband and all the other intimate sweet nothings that accompanies it as is the affection is due a husband from his wife and all the romantic things that go along with it..
Divorce of the Marriage relates to only man and a woman. In general, a husband and wife may not divorce and marry someone else without committing the sin of adultery. This is because, to God, the husband and wife are still married. Just because the husband and wife claim to end their marriage does not mean that God is going to go along with them.
In fact, in Malachi 2:13-16, God plainly states that He hates divorces.

Marriage has been handed down through the oral tradition pre historical records.

The marriage practices of All the People in the OT is historically recorded both as monogamous (Commanded by God) as well as polygamous (We will do as we please) which was frown on by God but the people did the same as the heathens around them, in disobedience to God and His commandments. THEY SINNED KNOWINGLY!!!

It IS Biblical and Historical!

Ernst

Mr Wood said 7 March 2012 10:46
To reverse your question many of us ask:
'Why should Mr Cameron impose his version of marriage upon everyone else?
Brilliantly put, that man.

7 March 2012 at 11:45  
Blogger A.K.A. Damo Mackerel said...

'Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who says that the ‘gay marriage’ proposal ‘constitutes one of the greatest political power grabs in history’; it amounts to ‘cultural vandalism’'

Oh the irony. Wasn't Henry VIII the greatest culture vandalist in British history?

7 March 2012 at 11:52  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

How the hell did Robert Mugabe get involved in this?

7 March 2012 at 11:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Some mad fish mused 7 March 2012 11:52;

"Oh the irony. Wasn't Henry VIII the greatest culture vandalist in British history?"

Well, as a good RC he had associations with the best culture vandalists in history and learned how to use it to his advantage.

Why go to a pope and pay for annulments or do 'favours' when you can be a pope yourself or Why request a pint of milk from another's engineered cow when you can engineer your own cow yourself.

Ernst

ps

God smiled because He had other plans for this cow!

7 March 2012 at 12:09  
Blogger Anglican said...

I am currently reading Peter Hitchens 'The Rage Against God'. I do not agree with all his judgements, but only a few hours ago I read:

'Only one reliable force stands in the way of the strong over the weak.....forms the foundation of the rule of law.....restrains the hand of the man of power. And, in an age of power-worship, the Christian religion has become the principle obstacle to the earthly utopians for absolute power.'

In Britain, Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand we can see this taking effect, with growing assaults on Christian beliefs, values....and the definition of marriage. Same-sex marriage has become a prime weapon in their armoury.

7 March 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger David Ould said...

Mugabe compares gays to "pigs".

7 March 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

David Ould said...7 March 2012 13:29

Mugabe compares gays to "pigs".


Well then, he is a murderous tyranical bigot. What is new?

All sinners are sinners, unfortunately some slap the adulterers (She/He did'nt find out then?..shh, mums the word.*wink wink*) and serial sex addicts (Spread them oats while you can, you'll find the right 'one' at the end. Pleasantly forgetting all that ploughing is happening in somebody else's field, who possibly had hoped they might be or had been led to believe that they just might be 'the one'! Plough unto others before they plough unto you? seems to be the lifestyle) on the back and say ' Good on ya' rather than say. It Is Wrong.

Homosexuality is a sin but so is sinning outside marriage, as detailed above.
Consistency is required, not a cock eyed view of humanity and our part in it and unneccessary cheap cardboard cut out villains, established to make others feel better about themselves.

He died for ALL sinners!

Ernst

7 March 2012 at 13:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Wow!

At long last Judaeo-Christians standing up, shoulder to shoulder, like soldiers for our glorious faith:

‘Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.’

Remember lads the old Roman commanders’ battle order:

‘Stand firm.’

7 March 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Well said "just me".

His holiness really gets his knickers in a twist over Catholics - again.

They can't win - even he agrees with them.

He reminds me of one of those supporters of Man City who just can't get over the fact that Man United is a better team.

7 March 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

What on earth is the fuss about?

If you want to talk about something important, discuss the 5°C expected rise in global temperature that will arrive some time between now and about 2100, and the famines, wars and mass extinctions that will result.

7 March 2012 at 14:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

I agree each Christian Church has to make a joint and united effort to defeat this nonsensensical legislation. This should not descend into a competition about who is making the most "significant contribution". It is not a contest between Anglicanism and Catholicism and should not be presented as such.

That said, could the Church of England deliver a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to every parish offering an Anglican view and have confidence it would be read at each of their Sunday services? Indeed is their an Anglican view? Given that each priest in the Anglican Communion has pastoral discretion it would be up to particular priests to decide and, as we know, many support homosexual relationships and may well agree with such unions being Blessed in a Church.

Whatever its faults, the Catholic Church speaks with one voice on this. Whatever its strengths, the Anglican Community speaks with many voices.

7 March 2012 at 14:27  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

James Reade said...
Why should the church be able to impose its version of marriage on everyone else?


Alternatively, why should a minority group of militant homosexuals be able to impose its version of marriage on everyone else?

Bitter experience makes it clear that attempts by government to impose revolutionary social change always leads to very unwelcome unexpected consequences. To give two examples: legalisation of abortion has moved a long way from its original stated objectives; and abolition of grammar schools which has actually lead to a reducion of opportunity and social mobility.

7 March 2012 at 14:46  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Nowhere man said...

Well said "just me". INDEED, well said YOU!

His holiness really gets his knickers in a twist over Catholics - again.

They can't win - even he agrees with them."
Presumptuous nonsense, man.

Maybe RC's could win if 'They' agreed with 'HIM'!
Though it would be like being 'Garrotted' by Satan himself to agree to this, would it not?

"He reminds me of one of those supporters of Man City who just can't get over the fact that Man United is a better team." He would remind you Dodo, He would! ;-)
Tsk Tsk.

Ernst

7 March 2012 at 15:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst, dear chap, it is not about one group "winning" or "losing".

It is about the integrity of the Christian Gospel on marriage and on homosexuality. On both the Catholic Church has one authoritative voice based firmly on scripture and on 2,000 years of teaching. Protestantism in general, in all its manifestations, and Angliganism, in particular, is divided.

(And Manchester United is a better team than Manchester City - at the moment.)

7 March 2012 at 15:44  
Blogger Oswin said...

My post has gone astray - in short: Cameron is a dangerous bloody fool!

7 March 2012 at 16:08  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Way to go Dodo...

As said earlier - will Williams send out a missive to be read out in every church to state the CofE's opposition to gay marriage.

If he can't even do that what is he there for?

The CofE is rather like the Peoples Front of Judea

http://bit.ly/wUrEqZ

Its time to close Christian ranks on this issue 'bish.

7 March 2012 at 16:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Nowhere Man: feel the Anglican pain on this one, do not rejoice in it!

7 March 2012 at 17:10  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

As said earlier - will Williams send out a missive (He should but as he is a liberal ecumenical luvvie, he won't)to be read out in every church to state the CofE's opposition to gay marriage .

If he can't even do that what is he there for?

The CofE is rather like the Peoples Front of Judea ((Whereas Romanism says Gay is ...errr, a disorder..can't be a sin then, can it! Your theological basis for obvious exclusion is unscriptural and you only present one side of the problem. It should be Genesis 2:24 + other scripture showing it is SIN. There-fore R.C.ism is rather like Janus, which face shall we present then?)

Its time to close Christian ranks on this issue 'bish .

You first!

Ernst

7 March 2012 at 17:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst, do you actually know what the Catholic Church means by the term "objective disorder"? Please research it before leaping to say it means it isn't a sin! You wouldn't want us to think you were uninformed and, um, er, prejudiced, now would you?

7 March 2012 at 17:20  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Robert Mugabe's views are offensive because he deliberately distorts Catholic teaching on homosexual activity. As much as it is deemed sinful for sexual activity to take place outside marriage so is it sinful to abuse a person with foul epithets. A person of homosexual inclinaton is not sinful but engaging in homosexual activity is.

Christian Teaching has always maintained that marriage is between a man a woman to the exclusion of all others. Why David Cameron should try to spend time changing this (as a professed Anglican) I do not know. There are plenty of pick 'n mix people who take or add what they want.

Some people who claim to be Christian may think "gay marriage" is OK (going with the times) but it is a complete negation of sacramental meaning. The Anglican Church has too many cuckoos trying to chuck out belief in favour of fashion.

7 March 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ernst, do you actually know what the Catholic Church means by the term "objective disorder"? It very naughty but it can't be held against you (Ahh, it's not your fault) IT'S A DISORDER, STUPID! and you can join our church with it blaz'n across your tee-shirt?. Simplistic enough?? Catholic Dictionary relating to sin, Ernst presumes.

"You wouldn't want us to think you were uninformed and, um, er, prejudiced, now would you?" Moi, C'est impossible, n'est pas?

Ernst

7 March 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Good fortune to all of those standing up for common sense on this issue.

However may I suggest a more, sorry an entirely democratic strategy should be undertaken.

This in much the same way that other parts of the establishment seek to settle matters, when they are perfectly certain that a plebiscite will surely go their way.

If the CofE is sure of support for its case, which it would seem highly likely to get, let the members decide. By members I mean all those on the parishioners list who attend a Sunday congregation more then a few times a year.

A democratic mandate most especially a resounding one, has the advantage of not only stiffening resolve, but also influencing debate within the wider community.

The CofE has every right to disestablish itself, maybe this is the perfect time for it to do so?

For it would seem pointless keeping the baby once not only the dirty bath water has been drained away, but when the baby has already been murdered.

7 March 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger len said...

'We must protect the true meaning of marriage'.

It is really good to see Church Leaders of whatever denomination uniting behind this common cause!.

7 March 2012 at 18:04  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

Protestantism in general, in all its manifestations, and Angliganism, in particular, is divided.

(And Manchester United is a better team than Manchester City - at the moment. If you say so, dickie.*Ernst Chuckling as he knows Dodo will be consuming his fav tipple by the litre leading upto the last day of the season)

Looks like we have a footie divide on the blog also. lol.

Ernst

7 March 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Windsor: "Alternatively, why should a minority group of militant homosexuals be able to impose its version of marriage on everyone else?"

Cameron is not a homosexual, militant or not. But anyway, there's no imposition on you. You may marry exactly as you do now. If you don't want same sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. Simple.

7 March 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

That, Mr Bingham, with all due respect, is why the Archbishop of Canterbury has made what is by far ‘the most significant intervention yet into the debate on gay marriage'.

Well, no it isn't, because no one actually listens to him. In addition, he has plenty of institutional reason to take the position he has. RW doesn't really matter to anyone anymore. His opinions just don't count.

In addition, the battle against gay marriage is already largely lost. People may react incoherently to a redefiniton of marriage as if the word itself carries some significance. What matters however is the exclusive privileges granted to the relationship in law. Civil partnerships already exist, and they in every way but name perform the same function as marriage. You aren't going to preserve the unique societal benefits that accure from privileging heterosexual marriage simply by retaining the name. You have to guard the exclusive privilege of the relationship. That has already been sacrificed, and the public largely approves. It won't be long before the heterosexual nature of marriage is legally abandoned - with all the attendent consequences.

"Theology matters." Even materialist theology. When you buy into an evolutionary understanding of existence, you implicitly accept that the world has no necessary created order. Instead you presume that the nature of existence is fundamentally random, and order is that which men impose upon creation by force of will. Homosexual marriage is simply one more manifestation of men imposing order on the chaos to suit their liking. The population largely accepts that logic, and that's why gay marriage advances. People may be troubled at some level by the changes, but they no longer possess the spiritual, philosophical, or ethical tools to oppose the changes. All those tools have been cast aside. Instead they are confronted with a profoundly stochastic universe, and all they can find to oppose the randomness is the autonomy of man. It's no wonder they collapse under pressure.

carl

7 March 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 March 2012 at 18:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst

A short lesson in Catholic doctrine.

"Sapientis est ordinare."

God's provident wisdom orders the world. By recognizing the goals preestablished in God's plan, the wise and faithful person is able, through Grace, to order his actions and dispositions in line with God's ends.

The expression "objectively disordered inclination" in relation to homosexuality refers to tendencies where the person is not oriented towards the attainment of the end that God's plan assigns to sexuality.

The Council of Trent spoke in an analogous sense of the disorder of concupiscence. As a result of sin, the sense powers are no longer subject to reason in accord with their original ordering, but resist and rebel against God's purposes, thus pushing men to actions contrary to the moral order.

In itself, in Catholic theology, concupiscence, homosexuality, or any other disordered inclination, is not viewed as sinful in the strict sense, but is called "sin" by the Apostle Paul insofar as "it derives from sin and inclines to it."

From the moral point of view, Catholic doctrine defines homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered, because they activate the sexual inclination of such persons without (1) that unitive meaning of total self-gift to the other which can be realised only in the matrimonial union of man and woman and (2) openness to the procreative meaning whereby human sexuality is further ordered to the good of the child.

The disordered inclination in itself is not in the strict sense sin; acting on the disposition is sin.

7 March 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Dodo - said it better than I could (after two Peroni's and a meal out at the pub)..

We may all have inclinations to sin, but the mark of man is to resist it. Be that theft, violence, buggery or just sloth.

DanJ0 - you just aren't getting it. a few days ago you justified homosexual buggery by way of saying that some heterosexuals do it. One disgraceful act can in no way justify another mate.

Now you say that if you don't like homosexual marriage then don't do it. That somehow is your justification?

So you would say the same about paedophilia, incest, murder?

Grow up.

7 March 2012 at 19:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Nowhere Man. Succinctly put, you silver tongued devil. You have the Inspector’s admiration...

7 March 2012 at 19:48  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

What a complete load of fuss and nonsense this all is. The Church does not own the word beyond those who subscribe to its doctrines. No one is being forced to accept marrying gays in church. Marriages existed long before Christianity and still does all over the world where it has nothing to do with the god of the Christians but much to do with local custom and culture.

In our culture now, a civil partnership carries the same status in law but also under law it is illegal if the couple is of the same sex - it can't be legal and illegal at the same time so let commonsense prevail and move on.

7 March 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Nowhere Man, you said it better than me but I'm afraid one has to spell these things out for dear old Ernst as he does so misrepresent Catholicism.

Inspector, where on earth did you come across that design of Sid? Very creative!

7 March 2012 at 20:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lordy, it's a bundle of laughs here tonight with both Les Enfants Terribles and Nowhere Man together. I can almost hear the banjos playing in the background.

7 March 2012 at 21:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 March 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger Roy said...

Hereward said...

Thin end of wedge. Equality and diversity trumps traditional societal norms.

Initially gay "marriage" may not be forced on the the CofE but it is likely to be imposed on the established church not too long after civil introduction and may eventually be forced on all denominations.

Haven't you ever heard of something called Civil Disobediance? Can you imagine the early Christians allowing the state to dictate to them what they should and shouldn't do?

It is said that Cameron quite likes being compared to the bully Flashman. He still has some way to go before he can be compared to the Emperor Nero.

The established Church, and all others, can simply say that they will NEVER perform any marriages that are not between a man and a woman.

The Roman Catholic Church should also have shown some guts in connection with the adoption laws and should have told the government that they would carry on placing children for adoption with couples consisting of a man and a woman as before. Of course the government could have used force to close them down (which they would have been reluctant to do just before the general election) but then the government's contempt for the welfare of children and for religious freedom would have been laid bare.

However the RC like other denominations will get a chance to redeem themselves and display some guts if a future government does try to force them to hold gay "marriage" ceremonies.

7 March 2012 at 22:00  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I can almost hear the banjos playing

Compared to this lot The kid on the bridge was is an Ivy League intellectual and a talented little plucker to boot!

7 March 2012 at 22:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJo, oh I think you'll find Christians of all denominations are united one on this particular issue. Even len and Ernst agree with Catholics. And have you read carl's contribution?

What's the matter? Feeling out numbered? I'm afraid this issue could result in a backlash against homosexuals. Not really an outcome anyone wants for a very small minority. Best to keep your heads down and stay silent.

7 March 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

I'm afraid this issue could result in a backlash against homosexuals.

My dear Dodo

You are likely correct, therefore has it ever occurred to you, that this may be one of the main reasons why homosexuality has been so promoted by the establishment over especially the last 20 years?

Do we really believe that the majority of even homosexuals themselves really give a sod one way or another about being able to get married to each other, never mind doing so in a church?

Most hetros' these, and any other days only bother to get married for the purpose of starting a family.

I would have thought that one of the primary advantages of being a homosexual was not feeling socially or religiously obligated, or motivated to become married at all.

Which is why this whole issue has almost infinitely more to do with the ultimate destruction of traditional society, by selectively undermining its better institutions, and by ever more dividing society as a whole, into ever more conflicting identity groups, then it does to individual liberty.

Thus while the fleas at the bottom are pointlessly arguing among each other, the ravenously hungry spiders at the top can carry on weaving ever more webs for which to ensnare the uninitiated.

It is a technique which our slave masters have been using since the dawn of civilization itself, but never more so then when they are busy building ever larger empire.

7 March 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Atlas, I don't necessarily disgree with your initial analysis. I just don't think there is an organised conspiracy afoot. Satan, on the other hand, uses people to his own advantage and is at work in all this.

Attacking the Christian Church through child abuse in Catholicim and homosexuality in Anglicanism. What scandal awaits Orhodoxy, one wonders? In tandem, undermining the fabric of society by promoting aggressive atheism and secularism.

The family is the basic building block and has been under attack for a generation. Divorce and serial marriage, contraception and abortion, sexual 'freedom' and finally homosexuality. And there's vast sums of money to be made in all of this too.

And, of course, individuals at the top benefit. They always do. That's the way of the world. We see this in modern, unfettered capitalism and the pornification of our culture.

But organised and orchastrated? No. Evil doesn't have to be. It takes advantage of man's fundamental predisposition towards sin. This in a society without Christian values runs amok.

8 March 2012 at 00:10  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Atlas, I don't necessarily disagree with your initial analysis. I just don't think there is an organized conspiracy afoot. Satan, on the other hand, uses people to his own advantage and is at work in all this.

Very possibly, however that sounds like an organized conspiracy to me, why does it not to you?

Is Satan not organized?

I would say he is not only highly organized he is even more established and institutionalized.

8 March 2012 at 04:09  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

DanJ0.

Still not getting it are you. Now you conjure up banjos and the KKK.

No-one here hates gays - we just understand that homosexuality is a disorder.

No-one can help what caused it - usually a peculiar upbringing or subjection to homosexual abuse as a child (I'm paraphrasing P Tatchel on that and squaring it with what gays I know and work with have told me)- but you can control those urges and not commit homosexual acts.

Marriage is defined as a legal union betwixt a man and a woman.

If Government changes that to something else it will no longer be marriage. The very act of redefining it will destroy its very meaning. It will be a pyrrhic victory.

8 March 2012 at 06:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "What's the matter? Feeling out numbered? I'm afraid this issue could result in a backlash against homosexuals. Not really an outcome anyone wants for a very small minority. Best to keep your heads down and stay silent."

It could equally result in a backlash against Christians given prevailing attitudes in Society. As a minority group, you might also be better keeping your heads down and staying silent. Especially the Catholic minority given our nation's history. Also, homophobic ones like you give the whole lot of Christians a bad press. Apparently even kids in schools think your behaviour has the same stigma as racism now.

8 March 2012 at 06:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nowhere man: "[...] but you can control those urges and not commit homosexual acts."

You still don't 'get it' either. One doesn't 'commit' homosexual acts like they're a crime. One doesn't have special 'urges', they're the same in form as straight ones. There's no need to be celibate or to exercise special control either simply to please a bunch of religious stone-agers uncomfortable with other people living normal lives outside of their control. Your time has passed, along with its related injustices.

You may not oppress us, we won't accept it. And by 'we' there I'm not just talking about gay people, I'm talking about non-religious people. We're happy for you to live your lives according to whatever weird religious structures you like as long as you don't unduly harm others but that's about it. The boundaries there nominally fall equi-distant between us. We will tolerate you and your practices until you step over the line.

"Marriage is defined as a legal union betwixt a man and a woman."

When it's no longer that, I'll send you a gift-wrapped dictionary to celebrate. You can then pick another shared word from it you want to own and protect. It'll keep you busy anyway.

"If Government changes that to something else it will no longer be marriage."

Well, that's just stuff inside your head and you're responsible for coming to terms with it yourself. Good luck with that. Some banjo music might help you along.

8 March 2012 at 06:53  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

DanJ0, you continue to delude yourself.

In no way is homosexuality comparable with the relationship between man and woman.

Marriage is by definition between man and woman. Period.

Even if a new dictionary redefines it - that sort of thing has gone on in Red China and Soviet Russia for a long time - it does change any fundamental truth.

You seem to think that this is a purely religious debate - it is not. It is about natural law.

Homosexuality is a disorder. Society should not persecute people with that disorder, nor should it accommodate it to the extent of corrupting the nature of marriage.

Finally, no-one on this blog has made homophobic comments - they happen to disagree with you - that's all.

So stop playing that card - it's boring and sign that that you are on shaky ground..

8 March 2012 at 07:38  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Good article on the Spectator site.

http://bit.ly/wNxnLV

8 March 2012 at 07:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Will homosexual ‘marriage’ affect us? Mulhenberg lists examples.

And all those who have objections to this lifestyle or this new version of marriage will be forced nonetheless to acquiesce and embrace these things, even if it means going against one’s conscience or one’s faith. Consider just a few recent headlines on this:

-“Canadian Court: Marriage officials must marry homosexuals”.

-“Army: court-martial Chaplains for ‘religious, conscience’ objection to homosexuality”

-“Tory MP calls for churches to be banned from holding marriages if they refuse gay couples”

-“MPs vote to stop civil servants refusing to carry out gay weddings”

-“Dutch MPs voted on Tuesday afternoon for a change in the law to prevent civil servants refusing to conduct gay marriages.”

-“Lesbian couple mulls action against Christian wedding cake baker”

-“Gay rights activist calls for boycott of Salvation Army Christmas fundraiser”

-“Attorney Says School Threatened, Punished Boy Who Opposed Gay Adoption”

-“Case of counselling student forced to undergo pro-homosexual ‘sensitivity training’ goes to court”

-“Macy’s fires woman for refusing ‘transgender’ man access to women’s fitting room”

-“All Ontario teachers will be forced to undergo ‘diversity’ training by 2013: minister”

8 March 2012 at 07:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nowhere man, there have been plenty of homophobic comments and behaviour here. It was particularly bad when anonymous comments were allowed. That they whizz by you unnoticed doesn't really surprise me, it's indicative of your own bias and social blindness more than anything else. Also, writing "Period" at the end of a mere opinion doesn't give it validity or gravitas, rather the opposite actually. It's in the same ballpark as Argument by Dictionary, there's something quite funny about it and, by extension, it's wielder.

8 March 2012 at 09:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Please justify your comment:

"homophobic ones like you give the whole lot of Christians a bad press.".

Are you intolerant of a different viewpoint?

8 March 2012 at 09:39  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

Francis Maude is quoted in The Daily Telegraph yesterday as saying that he wants to rid Conservatives of the "nasty party" image by (i) introducing gay marriage, and (ii) recruiting more ethnic minorities into party membership.

The irony is that he doesn't seem to realise that these two objectives are mutually incompatible.

8 March 2012 at 10:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Windsor Tripehound

Superb!

8 March 2012 at 11:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, holding the atandard religious view of homosexuality is not homophobia at all. However, some people who hold such views are also clearly homophobic. You, for example, and especially your sidekick.

8 March 2012 at 12:36  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

DanJ0.

No-one here appears to be frightened of homosexuals let alone hate them, they simply hold that it is a disorder and as such should not be given equal standing with heterosexuality by way of allowing homosexuals to marry.

Sympathy, love and understanding is what is called for. I have gay friends who respect my belief and most have no interest in marriage - civil partnerships are all they want.

But then again they are mature and intelligent people who understand what makes this world tick...

Homosexuals have been granted civil partnerships - something denied others. This allowed them the legal protections of people in a committed relationship.

BUT now, like spoilt children, SOME of you just want parity with normal heterosexual union by way of denying heterosexuals an expression of their unique relationship of marriage.

Homosexual unions will never be on a par with heterosexual union. Its just foolish to think that they can.

8 March 2012 at 14:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nowhere man: "But then again they are mature and intelligent people who understand what makes this world tick..."

Lol. I don't share the same opinion as your token gay friends so I must be immature and/or unintelligent as a result. Damn you and your irrefutable logic, I'm going to have to turn against same-sex marriage now because I obviously don't want to be considered stupid. You've certainly got me there. :(

8 March 2012 at 15:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...

"Dodo, holding the atandard religious view of homosexuality is not homophobia at all. However, some people who hold such views are also clearly homophobic. You, for example, and especially your sidekick."

Evidence? When have I ever exhibited a hateful, irrational fear of homosexuality?

I must be immature and/or unintelligent"

We can most certainly agree on that statement - you are both!

8 March 2012 at 16:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Evidence? When have I ever exhibited a hateful, irrational fear of homosexuality?"

Dodo, there's simply no point producing evidence. When I did that in spades over your unethical use of multiple IDs here you squirmed like a squirmy thing, trying to avoid accepting you were caught with your pants down and your pecker in your hand. I don't think I can bear the embarrassment of watching you go through that again. If anyone else is interested then it's about behaviour and the time to look is back around the period of the rainbow fish avatar.

"We can most certainly agree on that statement - you are both!"

*shrug* Okay.

That said, you've been doing these context-free cuts of bits of text for a while now, turning or changing the meaning around from the original to suit. There's not a lot of intellectual honesty in your behaviour by doing that, is there? Once in a while, maybe, but this is becoming a habit.

Actually, speaking of ethics, honesty, integrity, and so on, I can't help noticing that Nowhere Man has a very similar tone to you, uses very similar phrases to you, like "you don't get it", "grow up", and so on. He's also a Catholic, or has Catholic sympathies, double acts with you, and has had a run in with the blog owner. You're not up to your usual tricks running another ID to bolster your positions again, are you? Perhaps from a phone this time to get an alternative IP address? Oh Dodo, I know you're incorrigable, have no shame, and don't really see anything wrong with it but I really do hope not.

8 March 2012 at 17:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Not homophobic, DanJ0, homocritical. It’s gay marriage this time, but it could be a gay Olympic games, gay taxi ranks, gay tax breaks, gay housing projects. Anything that makes you people feel special about yourselves, at the rest of society’s expense...

Ironic isn’t it. Homosexuals have campaigned for years just to be included in society. Now they have that, the next step is to be pampered. Part of the condition perhaps ?

8 March 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Paranoia DanJ0, must be a terrible affliction. You're getting as bad as Ernst who thinks every Catholic blogger is me and even some who question Catholicism.

So no evidence of homphobia then? Thought not. Objections to the redefinition of the words "gay" and "queer" and the misappropriation of the rainbow, hardly constitutes an irrational fear of homosexuality.

As for your sordid little attack on my integrity, well you soon shut up when you let slip you were both an Catholic and Anglican Godparent despite being a "considered atheist" who believes religion constitutes "child abuse". Then you were young and it was before the internet!

8 March 2012 at 18:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, Nowhere Man has even adopted the same theme about natural law which you were trying to get your head around on another thread. It's certainly a very spooky coincidence and, let's face it, you certainly have form already.

8 March 2012 at 19:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "As for your sordid little attack on my integrity"

There's nothing really left of that, to be fair.

8 March 2012 at 19:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Not much of yours I'd say, goddad!

Fail to 'win' (you do like winning debates, them being strategic encounters) and you fall back on childish insults. Indicative, I'd say.

8 March 2012 at 20:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And still no evidence of "homophobia".

8 March 2012 at 20:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You know, the more I look at the style and tone and use of words there, the more suspicious it looks. I'd actually be surprised now if it wasn't you. It's hardly paranoia. It's just what happens when someone uses deceit for advantage and betrays basic trust. How can you ever be trusted again after that?

8 March 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger len said...

Seems to be a Catholic too ....surely just another coincidence?.

8 March 2012 at 20:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Men, weasel at 300 yards. Take aim, FIRE ! Second rank advance. First rank, take aim...

8 March 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo was boasting of other IDs he was using too and inviting me to spot them. How many has he had that we know about now? Ten or so? I gave up counting in the end. In my experience of forums, people who do what he was doing, and may still be doing, are unable to stop themselves. It's like a power trip, I guess, being able to fool people that they're someone else, especially while they're simultaneously using their main ID too as Dodo was doing.

8 March 2012 at 20:27  
Blogger len said...

OoIG.

Missed! more lives than a cat(7 at the moment)

8 March 2012 at 20:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bah !

8 March 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0, is it because another Catholic joined us? Someone who saw through your nonsense like last time and told you straight? That's what's bothering you and causing this little, baby outburst. Or is it jealousy because you're not the centre of attention?

Never mind, len still loves you - Godfather.

8 March 2012 at 21:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

*banjo sounds*

8 March 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Keep plucking away ....

There was an old man named DanJ0
Who incessantly plucked his BanJ0
All day and all night
With all of his might
Until he became quite whacko

8 March 2012 at 21:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 plucked and he plucked and he plucked
Seeing no harm in his conduct
His eyes grew dim
His limbs became slim
‘til all that was left was his bile duct

8 March 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
Without love you are nothing,and (possibly .....nowhere...man !)

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity [love], I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing"

1Corinthians 13 does teach that the foundation and motivation of doing anything for the LORD must be, always and only, love.

9 March 2012 at 08:08  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

DanJ0..

It seems that I missed out on quite a spasm on your part last night. I had better things to do - like drink Stella (a lager, not a girl, if your asking) down at my local last night.

It was a special occasion. They had cleaned out the pipes properly - a first for them I think.

You appear to have got your thong in a twist about me being Dodo.

I know this may cause you to go into meltdown - but I'm not.

So calm down dear, you can't win them all - and certainly not this debate.

9 March 2012 at 08:23  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Or maybe I am...

9 March 2012 at 08:24  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Or not...

9 March 2012 at 08:24  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

All joking aside, we are in a committed relationship.

9 March 2012 at 08:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len said ...
"Dodo,
Without love you are nothing,and(possibly .....nowhere...man !)2


So we accept homosexual marraige because we love the homosexual? We accept murder, rape, theft etc, because we love the person?

Love the sinner and not the sin. You do know the difference, do you? Nobody's asking you to condemn or convict them. No one's saying they are better or worse than anyone else who contravenes God's laws.

Are you now supporting of homosexual marriage because you love them? And what the wider consequences and harm to society?

Answer!

Nowhere man

Now why disclose this so soon? I was enjoying DanJ0 and len working themselves into a frenzy thinking you were me (or was it that I was you?).

Or is this the double bluff being played?

What they can't figure is why someone would agree with a Catholic and someone dubbed a homophobe!

Spoilsport.

9 March 2012 at 13:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

I'll serve the divorce papers on you in the morning.

9 March 2012 at 14:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector said ...

"Men, weasel at 300 yards. Take aim, FIRE ! Second rank advance. First rank, take aim..."

I think we may have a possible new recruit to th WDF (Weasel Defence Force). As the Honorary General you should consider approaching the good man Nowhere.

Extra forces are badly needed too as we tackle the pesky weasel that goes by the name DanJ0.

9 March 2012 at 15:09  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Dodo.

Reporting for duty sir... weasel at 12 o'clock.

PS we can't get divorced, we are in a different kind of committed relationship.

Think THAT through guys.

9 March 2012 at 16:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector
New recruit Nowhere man has reported for duty, Sir. We await our orders.

Nowhere man
Shucks. I was trying to confuse the weasels. They really won't understand.

Be vigilant!

The vanguard normally surface in the early evening. However this can be unpredictable as weasel len is erratic in his habits and makes sneaky posts. Trainee weasel DanJ0 is persistent and tends to resort to obscene comments when wounded. His main approach is to drag one into long quasi-philosophical meanderings.

WDF - Keeping the world free from weasels.

9 March 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nowhere Man: "You appear to have got your thong in a twist about me being Dodo."

*shrug*

That's the trouble with his/your past deceit, how do any of us know whether these specially-challenged, Catholic-oriented IDs which pop up are him/you or not?

To be frank, it doesn't really matter whether you are him or not, if it looks like a Dodo and quacks like a Dodo then it may as well be Dodo.

Actually, you're not one of his special cousins instead, are you? That would explain the strong similarities in behaviour and thought.

9 March 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Dodo said:

"The vanguard normally surface in the early evening."

Don't fret my friend, the Light of Truth will send them scuttling for cover.

As for me I will be enjoying a nice Cape wine and assorted cheeses so, in a sense, they will be "talking to the hand.."

They can be swept aside in the first light of dawn.

Crikey, its a bit like Helms Deep.

http://bit.ly/x6sPmN

9 March 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

There was an old man named DanJ0
Who incessantly plucked on his BanJ0
All day and all of the night
He played with all of his might
Until he became quite whacko

DanJ0 plucked and he plucked and he plucked
Seeing no harm in his conduct
His eyes grew ever dim
His poor limbs became slim
‘til all that was left was his bile duct

9 March 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Nowhere man

Weasel seriously wounded by a well aimed blow from carl on the thread above. Worth a read - best laugh I've had for a while. He appears to have retired from the field of battle to recover.

9 March 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Inspector feels he’s met the ‘man with no name’, er that last bit should be ‘no whereabouts’ before. Do you have similar thoughts. Do say...

9 March 2012 at 23:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector, truthfully, he is no relative of 'Man with No Name'.

Don't you go buying into the trainee weasels nonsense. That's why he and the weasel do it to undermine and create doubt and division.

10 March 2012 at 00:03  
Blogger Man (aka Dodo) with No Name said...

Did someone mention my name? Please, I'm trying to stay inactive!

And just who is this Nowhere man who's being confused with me?

10 March 2012 at 00:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 March 2012 at 00:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

He's not you is he? Or are you me - or am I you? This is all getting way too confusing!

Besides, neither of us would stoop so low as to drink Stella - the very thought! And cheese and wine - do me a favour!

Sign him up to the WDF. Despite his drinking habits, he's a good man and we can use his talents.

10 March 2012 at 00:28  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 20:26: remind me never to serve in any company under your control; you've got 'em shooting each other in the back!

Come to think of it, it's akin to what you do for the R.C.C too.


The weasel has left the building...

10 March 2012 at 00:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin, you're never a weasel. I have an instinct for them.

Not confusion in the ranks. Mere subterfuge to give the enemy false hope.

10 March 2012 at 00:38  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Dodo, Drinking habits , How VERY dare you!!

Stella because the real ale is very nearly always "off" and cheese because I had a hearty lunch.

Got to watch the waistline and stay fit for the fray.

Going off in search of Carl now..

I may be some time.

10 March 2012 at 06:31  
Blogger len said...

Dodo what was the reasoning behind choosing your name?.

Dodo,
According to Encarta Dictionary and Chambers Dictionary of Etymology, "dodo" comes from Portuguese doudo (currently, more often, doido) meaning "fool" or "crazy". The present Portuguese word dodô ("dodo") is of English origin. The Portuguese word doudo or doido may itself be a loanword from Old English (cp. English "dolt").

Perhaps prophetic?.

10 March 2012 at 09:10  
Blogger len said...

Dodo IF 'nowhere man' is ONE of your 'multiple identities' then it would also make sense in a strange way.

'Nowhere man' is the title of a Beatles song and the words seem very apt.

Keep leading with your chin!.

10 March 2012 at 09:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

It's all mystery, isn't len?

10 March 2012 at 09:44  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, you are a mystery.
Your multiple identities are a cause for some concern.You and your accomplices have done much damage to the Gospel as people will think you (and your mates) are 'proper Christians'and use this as a reason to reject 'Christianity'.

11 March 2012 at 08:17  
Blogger Oswin said...

A singularly valid point there Len.

11 March 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin: were you born with a wooden spoon in your hands or did you acquire it during childhood?

Len: I happen to think your brand of Christianity is misleading, unthought out and damaging too. And your repeated attacks on 'religion' and organised churches is shameful.

11 March 2012 at 21:36  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Hmmm... Maybe I'm Dodo as well? It seems every Catholic here is being accused of being him so why not me?

12 March 2012 at 00:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Maybe you are Lakester91 but let's keep them guessing.

12 March 2012 at 00:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Oswin: were you born with a wooden spoon in your hands or did you acquire it during childhood?"

:O

Honestly Dodo, you begger belief at times. Lol.

12 March 2012 at 06:50  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 21:36 :

Hopefully, your comment was 'tongue in cheek' ?

12 March 2012 at 17:27  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
Saul (later became Paul) was a very 'religious man' and would have been welcomed into most Churches today whilst he was still Saul!.

Philippians 3:7-11:
[7] But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. [8] What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ [9] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ – the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. [10] I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his
death, [11] and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
.................
Saul the religious Pharisee became redeemed born again as Paul the servant of Christ.
...............
Dodo... can you see the difference?.

12 March 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Len: you really are like a stuck record! Was Paul Baptised into Christ? Did Paul spend time being instructed by Peter? Did he join a Christian community? Or, having met Jesus, did he believe he had all the answers himself?

16 March 2012 at 00:05  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older