Sunday, May 20, 2012

Hating the Image of God


Through the past week of His Grace’s ASA saga, he has received dozens of highly critical emails and hundreds of condemnatory tweets impugning his integrity, orthodoxy and motives. Even this morning, one talked of his ‘hate mongering’ and it being ‘better to drown urself than persecute god's children’. It is, perhaps, simply the price one pays for expressing an opinion or holding a view which is not quite harmonically consonant with the zeitgeist. If one wishes to avoid criticism, one remains silent and inert.

It is quite easy to ignore the ad hominem, being invariably unreasoned and unreasonable, emanating, as it does, from the immature mind which mistakes insult for argument and conflates conviction with hate. But perhaps no comment has been more hurtful to His Grace than one received from Peggy Sherwood, President of the Jewish Gay and Lesbian Group. His Grace had politely requested their assistance in clarifying whether or not her organisation had complained to the ASA about the Coalition for Marriage advertisement which is now the subject of a formal investigation. Someone on their behalf had commented on this blog that ‘...this has been done in our name and without our knowledge or agreement’.

This, of course, contradicted the documentation received from the ASA, which informed His Grace that they had received 24 complaints, ‘including the Jewish Gay and Lesbian Group’, which, of course, shifted the weight of opposition from an insignificant number of sundry individuals to an organisation which potentially represents thousands. His Grace informed the JGLG that ‘the ASA have used your corporate identity to inform His Grace (and others) that the JGLG did complain (either about the advertisement being factually incorrect or 'offensive and homophobic'). This would appear to be a false affirmation which the ASA have not bothered to check with you’. And he enquired to know if one of their members had misled the ASA that he/she was speaking on their behalf, and, since the President apparently knows the identity of this person, whether he/she might be prepared to contact His Grace directly. He also sought to discover what action the leadership of the JGLG might take against this person for (apparently) bringing the JGLG into disrepute.

He received a terse response, instructing him to ‘turn the other cheek’ and assuring him of their best wishes at all times, ‘except those occasions when he appears not to recognize the image of God in the image of others’.

So, to believe that marriage is a union of one man and one woman is now to deny that gays and lesbians are made in the image of God. To believe in the orthodox Jewish view that marriage is concerned with the conjugality of maleness and femaleness for the purpose of procreative companionship is taken by the President of the Jewish Gay and Lesbian Group as a denial of the divine imprint upon homosexual humanity.

It is curious how one can easily ignore the sort of hatred and bile expressed in the comment section of Pink News, essentially because it is woefully ill informed and irredeemably puerile. But this sort of barb from the President of the Jewish Gay and Lesbian Group niggles to the point of offence. Nothing that His Grace has ever said, done or written could possibly reasonably be inferred as an expression of his belief that gay and lesbian people are not made in the image of God.

His Grace wrote back to Ms Sherwood, pointing out to her that he has been content to host upon his blog a theological argument for same-sex marriage, and also that it his clearly expressed view that the state should not interfere with those churches, synagogues, mandirs, gurdwaras and mosques who may wish to confer some manner of blessing upon homosexual unions if they wish.

She (naturally) liked the first of these, but no apology was forthcoming for her assertion that there are occasions when His Grace fails to recognise the image of God in the image of others. She did not entertain the merest possibility of offence caused.

One of the stories His Grace missed over the past week (because he was maddeningly deflected and distracted by the ASA) was that of four men being hanged in Iran for engaging in homosexual activities. It disgusts and offends against justice that any society might deem the consensual release and sharing of the cosmic energy of sexuality to be a capital offence. We may share differences over various sexual codes; on the understanding and importance of purity; on the prohibition on mixed marriages (ethnic or religious); on the condemnation of close-kin marriages, or the insistence of the careful observance of cleanliness relating to the woman’s menstrual blood and the man’s emission of seed. We may differ between approbation and disgust for the pervasive promiscuity, public nudity and ubiquitous abortion which is little more than child sacrifice to the sex-obsessed gods of the age. But all these points of difference serve to heighten the sense of separation of the religious believer from the neo-pagan world.

There is no hint of a suggestion that those who choose to journey along the wide path are not just as equally made in the same image of God as those who tread the narrow path: we are all fallen; we are all sinners. ‘Male and female he created them’ is not an expression of hatred or bigotry: it is an affirmation of the community of the married, the fruitful in seed. That which has no seed within its flesh is not fruit and never will be: the potato cannot be a peach. No number of diktats, directives or state-enforced definitions of uniformity will ever change that. And if it be ‘hatred’ to express such a view in a reasoned and intelligent manner, then it is our accusers who impugn, malign and denigrate; it is they who hate; it is they who cease to see that we, too, are made in the image of God.

132 Comments:

Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Well said Cranmer.

Much of the debate from Christians has too often been divorced from an 'affirmation of the community of the married' in favour of an attack on the purported nature of those who oppose us.

Thank you for reminding us about the fundamental "fruitfulness" of the image of God. I wonder what fruits we'll bring forth in the coming days on this issue?

20 May 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger Flossie said...

I have every sympathy with His Grace. The response from the President of the Jewish Gay and Lesbian Group does not surprise me one bit, having been involved in these issues for a number of years now, and having long ago been banned from posting comments in both the Guardian and Independent, not having in any way breached their posting guidelines but simply because they disagreed with my views on homosexuality.

Your assurance that they are loved by God every bit as much as the rest of us are does not wash with most of the LGBT community though, even those who profess to be Christian. They cannot detach themselves from the mindset that all we who oppose the gay agenda, no matter with how much theology, reason or compassion, are haters and bigots, and wishful of seeing gay people sharing the dreadful fate of the poor men in the picture above. His Grace must have seen this himself from Changing Attitude just as much as Pink News. Look at the image of a noose swinging on the Pink News website.

Christians, along with some other faiths, are the last bastion against complete capitulation to the LGBT agenda of the breaking down of sexual barriers. Hence the extreme hostility towards us. The Pope is the most hated, being in their eyes the most immovable – just put a moderately supportive comment in the Pink News comments about him, and see how quickly you get eaten alive! Previous commenters have wished him some truly evil ills, including death wishes (slowly and horridly, and preferably soon) which would certainly qualify as hate speech in any other milieu.

I don’t know what the answer is, or how to counter these tactics. I discovered long ago that you cannot reason with people whose mindset is so different. You cannot convince that ‘homophobia’ is in fact fear for the future of mankind and for the kind of education our children will receive once all sexual barriers are inevitably broken down. It simply has to be ‘hate’. Sadly many people are intimidated by these accusations, including many in influential political circles who will not admit to being intimidated but pretend that it is all about equality. David (no b*lls) Cameron stand up.

20 May 2012 at 11:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie: "Your assurance that they are loved by God every bit as much as the rest of us are does not wash with most of the LGBT community though, even those who profess to be Christian."

I think you've slipped it a bit there. I don't suppose the gay Jewish and Christians need any assurance from other people that they are made in the image of their god. Their complaint is that the blog owner doesn't recognise the position himself through his words and actions despite the demands of his religious beliefs.

"Christians, along with some other faiths, are the last bastion against complete capitulation to the LGBT agenda of the breaking down of sexual barriers."

I don't know who owns or deploys this LGBT agenda people allude to but as a gay individual I'm completely happy for you and other religious people to maintain whatever sexual barriers you wish in your own lives. The problem comes when religious people try to argue for sexual barriers to apply to other people despite those people not holding those religious beliefs.

20 May 2012 at 11:28  
Blogger graham wood said...

Excellent and very fitting riposte again Cranmer.

Acoording then to Ms Sherwood of JGLG "To believe that marriage is a union of one man and one woman is to deny that gays and lesbians are made in the image of God."

But this was never part of the discussion, is not part of the C4M advert, and is a wholly false charge.

On the contrary, it is the "gay" ideology which in effect seeks to deny the image of God in mankind.
It is precisely because mankind is made in the image of God (i.e. as distinct from animals, in having a capacity to know God), and irrespective of subsequent behaviour, inherent or acquired, that marks out mankind.

It is homosexuals, by seeking to abolish or diminish the gender distinction of God's image in male and female, which dishonours that image. They attempt to reverse that distinction via SSM and by redefining marriage, and it is that gross error which defaces the image, as expressed in "male and female made he them".

Further, it is for the very reason that mankind does possess that image which makes the restoration of homosexuals (and indeed all sinners) still possible through the Gospel of Christ.

20 May 2012 at 11:31  
Blogger IanCad said...

YG,
You've handled this whole affair wonderfully.
Firmness, a little gentle ridicule; Now you end it with a display of compassion.
It has been a pleasure to watch from the sidelines.
Many Thanks.

20 May 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

gw: "It is homosexuals, by seeking to abolish or diminish the gender distinction of God's image in male and female, which dishonours that image."

A similar sort of reasoning was used by some Christians to defend the anti-miscegenation laws in the States a few decades ago.

20 May 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

It is quite easy to ignore the ad hominem, being invariably unreasoned and unreasonable, emanating, as it does, from the immature mind which mistakes insult for argument and conflates conviction with hate.

Could not agree more.

When people make attacks on someone else's personal integrity, intelligence, or motives, it is a strong indication that they either know they have already lost the argument, don't have an argument, or simply don't wish to engage in one for whatever reason.

It is therefore very easy to ignore these obviously immature reactions, however I do fine it sometimes frustrating that certain individuals on this site refuse to make reasoned arguments against my own propositions.

For I am genuinely interested to know what they may be.

I have made many serious allegations against The RCC, yet no one has as yet attempted to in anyway refute them.

The fact that The RCC, and to a lesser extent The CofE have engaged in all kinds of pure evil in the past, is clearly undeniable.

My main point is that I consider that both of these elements of the establishment, as well as the establishment as a whole have not essentially changed their MO, and so are still up to their own tricks, albeit in a more subtle, but no less ungodly manner.

As I have not been given, or found any evidence to suggest that they have indeed changed to any notable degree, I assume that they have not.

We should ask ourselves, when exactly did the state, its oligarchical owners or its established religious or otherwise institutions become in anyway conducive to the interests of the ordinary people, when they were so clearly in direct opposition to same in the past?

I contend that they have not essentially changed at all, and await evidence to suggest that any of them have.

Government in all its forms has only one purpose, and that is to control the minds of the people in the interests of the people who control the government. Indeed the word government actually means control of mind, or indeed MIND CONTROL.

Again

I strongly suggest it is becoming ever more apparent that our democratically elected representatives are not in reality running anything at all worthy of note.

That the exact same mainly family owned and controlled institutions who were controlling our minds and therefore actions, as far back as one cares to mention, are still doing so to this very day. All that really happened was that democracy was introduced not to replace oligarchical control, but to simply better hind our slave owners from the attention of the public.

20 May 2012 at 12:21  
Blogger Jessica Hoff said...

As a new communicant, I am surprised at the criticism of YG. We are all made in God's image and all marred by the effects of Original Sin. All Your Grace was doing was affirming what has been believed by the Church from the beginning.

20 May 2012 at 12:34  
Blogger graham wood said...

Danjo.
"DanJ0 said...
gw: "It is homosexuals, by seeking to abolish or diminish the gender distinction of God's image in male and female, which dishonours that image."
A similar sort of reasoning was used by some Christians to defend the anti-miscegenation laws in the States a few decades ago."

Danjo. You mix apples and oranges.
In any event the argument is false whoever endorsed it.

20 May 2012 at 12:47  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Marriage needs you Cranmer. Let the hand of truth hold your human hand. Let the lies die their natural death. Keep moving forward alongside the living truth.

20 May 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

gw: "Danjo. You mix apples and oranges.
In any event the argument is false whoever endorsed it."

It has a superficial truth to it. Afterall, why would god make distinct races if he didn't want them to remain separate?

20 May 2012 at 14:00  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

It is important to understand why sexual perversion as defined in Holy Scripture is as prevalent as it has always been, albeit more up-front as well as more openly supported by all of our secular as well as religious institutions, whether they say so or not ( The RCC and many associated with it, for example ).

If obeying the laws of God were easy to do, we would all be doing so, however they are not, and never have been for logical reasons. This most especially for those who seek ungodly material power over their fellow creations.

Stealing the products of others peoples hard work, is easier then working for it oneself, ( punitive taxation for example ).

Murdering anything in opposition to ones own interests, is easier then properly fairly dealing with their justifiable grievances.

Sexual perversions of all kinds are more sexually exciting, precisely because they are against the Laws of God.

And so on, and so forth.

We are given a choice to obey or disobey these laws, and have as a whole chosen the easier path, which is clearly the ungodly one.

Having said that, it should be self apparent that the 10 commandments are most beneficial to all those who are obedient to their precepts, even though the results of doing so are not often to be found in material wealth, or an over self indulgent sex life.

Now, for the Good News.

We are apparently going to be judged at some future time. I guess that what others get up to mainly in the privacy of their own bedrooms, will be of little or no consequence to ourselves, as long as we have made our position clear to those who break Gods Laws, as to the true nature of the dangers they may be exposing themselves to.

Salvation was never supposed to be ultimately obtained within this material existence. We are instructed that our ultimate sentence is to be served out somewhere else.

Also.

I suspect, but have no way of knowing that as we are all serious sinners to only differing degrees, homosexuality will be judged not by the act itself, but by the true motivation which lay behind its practice.

The deliberate systematic breaking of Gods Laws, and therefore clear rejection of our creator God, often known as Satanism is the real unforgivable sin, not of necessity the individual acts associated with same.

I remain hopeful that if we are to be judged, many of our most ungodly sins must be forgivable, otherwise we are ALL in the very deepest of do-do's, however pious we may believe ourselves to be.

Therefore I have little doubt that the people who murdered these individuals are going to a far warmer place then the people they murdered/killed.

For those who need reminding.

For God said, and I quote.

Thou shall not KILL.

20 May 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace said;

It is, perhaps, simply the price one pays for expressing an opinion or holding a view which is not quite harmonically consonant with the zeitgeist. If one wishes to avoid criticism, one remains silent and inert.

Whilst talking to a fellow church member this morning we discussed the prevailing view as broadcast in the media that the LBGT agenda is both reasonable and right.
This is contradicted by the knowledge that the majority of the population with respectable families no not ascribe to such a view and the PM is perhaps having second thoughts re SSM to save votes and thus his own skin.

Flossie was unsure how to change the mind-set of the people and the understanding of 'Homophobia'.
This is a word invented by the LBGT lobby to discredit any discussion against their lifestyle. It should not be recognised by any right thinking individual. To bring about a change to the so called popular mind-set is to promote the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By increasing through God’s Grace the believing population the pressure will then be on them to go with the flow of a more Christian society. I do believe however that we need a Parliament with more Integrity towards Godly pursuits.
Great post and ‘don’t let the buggers grind you down’, to quote a politicians watch.
Sad Photo.

20 May 2012 at 14:37  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

'Sexual perversions of all kinds are more sexually exciting, precisely because they are against the Laws of God'

How come you can state this with such certainty Atlas?

20 May 2012 at 14:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

The problem comes when religious people try to argue for sexual barriers to apply to other people despite those people not holding those religious beliefs

You yourself on this very blog have argued for the imposition of sexual barriers to prevent incest. You have asserted that a family would be damaged by sexualizing certain relationships within its boundaries. You would do so regardless of any consent expressed. Thus you acknowledge that family is not just a private matter but has a public component. How is this any different from arguments made on this weblog against gay marriage? Those arguments are principally focused on the structure and purpose of marriage, and the damage that will be done to marriage by abolishing its explicit connection to children and generation.

I suspect the key word in your quote is not 'barriers' but 'religious.' One suspects that you desire to isolate from the public square any idea that might have its roots in (theistic) religious presuppositions. You have no objection to barriers per se. This is self-evidently true since you would impose barriers for incest. You simply want those barriers rooted in presuppositions that reflect your materialistic understanding of anthropology. In other words, you want them to reflect your 'religion' and not mine. Your presuppositions, and not mine. How expedient for you to simply dismiss me from the public square by saying "Your arguments are all ultimately rooted in religion, and so have no place here." The unspoken premise being "Only my religion is allowed in here, thanks."

Which I guess explains why your barriers are acceptable while mine aren't.

carl

20 May 2012 at 15:12  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

YG, for what it's worth, you have my support. And admiration that you are able to rise above the opprobrium that has been directed towards you; from people who should know better.

20 May 2012 at 15:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "In other words, you want them to reflect your 'religion' and not mine. Your presuppositions, and not mine. How expedient for you to simply dismiss me from the public square by saying "Your arguments are all ultimately rooted in religion, and so have no place here." The unspoken premise being "Only my religion is allowed in here, thanks.""

I don't have a religion. I argue based on what we see before us and what we share between us. You usually argue using mythology and superstition and scare stories and a bleak, depressing, god-awful absolutism. Some other people here argue based on sugarcoated religious belief, asserting this or that about what marriage comprises. To those I answer in like manner. The difference between those people and me is that I argue for a superset which allows their desires to be satisfied whereas they want to oppress mine. It's where the problem comes, exactly as I have said.

20 May 2012 at 15:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, when some religious people demand that people are hanged for acting harmlessly and consensually on their sexual orientation because their god says so, what will you reply? "Only my religion is allowed in here, thanks"? Well, that's not good enough.

20 May 2012 at 15:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

That’s the spirit Archbishop, gays are indeed part of God’s plan and the sooner that is recognised, the happier everyone will be. But we know that God allows imperfection to spring forth, and the correct way to view homosexuality is as a disability. It has to be that way. Any organism that refuses to reproduce naturally, or does it through bizarre conditions, has to be considered naturally substandard.

Gays themselves though seem incapable of recognising they are saddled with a disability. A state of denial exists. We all know that disabled people can live rich lives, and so should they, untroubled by guilt. Of course, this recognition would also cause them to cease propagating their peculiar ideas, same sex marriage being just one.

There you are – a way forward for all...

20 May 2012 at 15:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Atlas, you scoundrel. Your attempt to ally yourself to the Archbishop regarding UNJUSTIFIED ad hominem is a disgrace. You are leagues away from him, you conspiracy nutcase. Not fit to be in the same room, you know...

20 May 2012 at 16:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Of course, this recognition would also cause them to cease propagating their peculiar ideas, same sex marriage being just one."

Something similar could be said for the religious who believe they have a connection to what they think is a Holy Spirit in their heads. They're nominally disabled too. At least people who have non-functional legs can get around on unnatural devices like wheelchairs and use drop kerbstones set in place by the rest of us. Look at Catholics. They end up worshipping painted idols, and weird stuff like that. They even have a version of Stockholm Syndrome where they end up colluding in their oppression because they've been institutionalised into feeling guilty about normal, natural, healthy stuff. The poor saps.

20 May 2012 at 16:15  
Blogger William said...

Excellent post YG, but a very sad picture. It's amasing that some secularists see no differences between Christianity and Islam and prefer instead to talk of religion whilst all the while asserting that their unproven beliefs are somehow superior and therefore the only way by which to discern all other beliefs.

There are none so blind as will not see.

20 May 2012 at 16:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, Look at Catholics. They end up worshipping painted idols, and weird stuff like that

We’ll pretend you didn’t post that little gem above shall we. Meanwhile you go on to condemn religion in general as Islam hangs homosexuals. You’ll need to do better that that. The ideal YOU wish to live your life by is actually the Christian way. You’ve just conveniently thrown out the deistic element, but a small ‘c’ Christian is what you really are. Hurts doesn’t it, you thinking you and your liberal ideas were specifically arrived at under your own intellect. And if as you get older you come to appreciate the necessary brakes on liberalism that Christianity provides, you’ll be a better Christian than many who shout they are...

20 May 2012 at 16:35  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Just to clarify some misinformation about Catholicism
Danjo. There is a lot to be critical about Catholicism so need for fictional extras.

Catholics do not worship statues.
They are sculptures of revered people called saints. No one is obliged to pray to them or even think about them.In fact if you regarded them as an idols
it would be regarded as a sin

And about ssm. If one upholds basic Christian beliefs then one can never support ssm. Anyone attending a Christian Church or calling themselves Christian supporting ssm should call themselves something else because they are not Christians.

20 May 2012 at 17:08  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

I don't have a religion.

Yes, you do. You have a complete coherent set of metaphysical assumptions that form the foundation of your arguments.

I argue based on what we see before us and what we share between us.

What you see before us doesn't provide the framework by which you interpret what you see. It doesn't provide the standard by which you judge it. That's what your religion does.

You usually argue using mythology and superstition and scare stories and a bleak, depressing, god-awful absolutism.

And you argue from an ethereal arbitrary position that has no tangible existence outside of your own mind. You might as well call your categorizations "Red & Blue" instead of "Right & Wrong."

The difference between those people and me is that I argue for a superset which allows their desires to be satisfied whereas they want to oppress mine.

Unless of course you disapprove and then you would oppress those desires as well. You would oppress the desire of the University professor who was (consensually) banging his 24-year-old daughter. Who will of course use your arguments against you. "Isn't the family a social institution? Hasn't the family changed? Shouldn't our understanding of proper sexual relationships within the family evolve as well?"

Now at this point you will explain why your arguments about protecting the family from incest are valid while my arguments about protecting marriage from homosexuality are not valid. And when you do so, you will legitimize the imposition of barriers on sexual behavior. Which is where we came in - with you being quite content with self-imposed boundaries. What was it you said:

The problem comes when religious people try to argue for sexual barriers to apply to other people despite those people not holding those religious beliefs.

I imagine the University professor and his daughter don't hold to your beliefs either, and don't appreciate having their legitimate desires oppressed by your notions of right and wrong. But since your barriers aren't 'religious' then those barriers are OK.

carl

20 May 2012 at 17:11  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Mr Integrity @ 14:37 said
Flossie was unsure how to change the mind-set of the people and the understanding of 'Homophobia'.
This is a word invented by the LBGT lobby to discredit any discussion against their lifestyle. It should not be recognised by any right thinking individual. To bring about a change to the so called popular mind-set is to promote the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By increasing through God’s Grace the believing population the pressure will then be on them to go with the flow of a more Christian society. I do believe however that we need a Parliament with more Integrity towards Godly pursuits.

I agree there is no such word as homophobia, it's a nonsensical term, and that society needs to turn to God and Christianity more in order to prevent us from going rotten. Religion is like a thick skin that people don't value because it's not particularly nice in that it prevents them doing what they want. But Christianity is for our own protection. Ramzpaul in the clip states religion didn't come out of nowhere it evolved too and that there is a Darwinistic reason for religion to protect our sexuality to continue our species. If we continue to disregard Christianity, Islam will take over because people need religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9SF_AXPPYo
Banana Oranges and Atheists.

20 May 2012 at 17:16  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

"Turn the other cheek"? From a Jewish organisation? That'll be the day!

20 May 2012 at 17:52  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl

Well said; and don't forget the sheep shaggers!

20 May 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Yes, you do. You have a complete coherent set of metaphysical assumptions that form the foundation of your arguments."

You're equivocating between religion with its irrational certainty, and working assumptions in order for people to carry on. A fallacious thing, really.

"You would oppress the desire of the University professor who was (consensually) banging his 24-year-old daughter. Who will of course use your arguments against you."

I very much doubt that as I have arguments against parent-offspring incest and the social recognition of it through marriage which obviously don't apply to same-sex marriage. Moreover, those arguments are based on things which almost everyone recognises, somthing you're going to struggle with with your wooooo thingy.

"But since your barriers aren't 'religious' then those barriers are OK."

They're certainly arguable in the real world across boundaries and with shared things, which is a huge improvement on your sectarian make-believe thingy. They may even work on people whose State hangs gay people, and perhaps had some bearing on people in the past when their Christian State was inclined to burn people alive.

20 May 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Ummm ... Sheep Shaggers?

carl

20 May 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "And about ssm. If one upholds basic Christian beliefs then one can never support ssm. Anyone attending a Christian Church or calling themselves Christian supporting ssm should call themselves something else because they are not Christians."

*shrug*

I've seen the religious arguments about the various passages and themes relevent to homosexuality in the bible many times over the years, argues between Christians of various stances. You've taken one view there, ignoring the rest. But no matter as arguments in support within the churches are for member of those churches to resolve. The important bit for me is the reach of those beliefs. If a Jehovah Witness argued for banning blood transfusions for everyone then I would argue vehemently against him. He is welcome to sacrifice his own life and wellbeing for his beliefs but very unwelcome to sacrifice mine. I take a similar position with same-sex marriage and opposing religious arguments there.

20 May 2012 at 18:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Ummm ... Sheep Shaggers?"

He's hoping you'll bring up people pushing their nobs into cattle and horses for sexual gratification now you've raised the issue of incest yet again. It's a peculiarity of his, I'm afraid. I won't entertain him on it but I think he's hoping you'll do it vicariously so he can wank himself off as we talk about it.

20 May 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJo

The point I've been making it that morally there is no real distinction between homosexuality, incest (which you have supported in the past) and zoophilia.

You've never discussed it because you have no argument against it - subject to the liberal "no harm" condition.

From you ethical perspective what can possibly be 'wrong' about incest? Or shagging sheep?

20 May 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, all three have different and distinct arguments. Also, you're misrepresenting me as I have never supported incest. What I have done is said that it's hard to argue that sibling incest is immoral if one takes out the possibility of having offspring. Any non-religious argument would probably centre on any related duties and wouldn't apply if (say) the siblings were raised separately. That's hardly supporting it, is it?

20 May 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

The latter part of my post was not meant for you Danjo as I know you are a committed atheist. I t was meant for anyone calling themselves a Christian and for ssm. Every Christian knows that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It is irrefutable.

To advocate for ssm is to renounce the Christian faith,the Hindu faith,the Jewish faith and the Islamic faith.SSM is a cause for atheists or those who do not belong to the four main organised religions.

If the Protestant Churches do not denounce ssm they should no longer be regarded as Christian Churches.

20 May 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This is why I was rather specific further up by talking about parent-offspring incest. Now that's much easier to argue against.

20 May 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I see. I was wondering what cutting wool off of sheep had to do with anything. That being my best guess. This seems to be one of those moments where we are separated by a common language.

carl

20 May 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

It might be an idea to learn English before commenting on an English blog site, Carl.

20 May 2012 at 19:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

You're equivocating between religion with its irrational certainty, and working assumptions in order for people to carry on.

No, I am refusing to allow you to privilege your metaphysical assumptions as somehow ontologically different from mine. "Working assumptions" is a deft slight-of-hand. It presumes you will change them from experience. Except you have hidden the standard by which you judge them as good or bad, right or wrong. That's where the immovable presuppositions come into play. You have them. Every man has them. They constitute your religion. It's just not a theistic religion.

As for the rest, I can't find any disagreement in our respective positions. You have confirmed what I said. You are quite content to impose barriers founded in your world view. You are not content to allow me to impose barriers founded in my world view. That is the only real difference.

carl

20 May 2012 at 19:26  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

DoDo,
The Shag is a dance in the USA

20 May 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Cressida

It might be an idea to learn English before commenting on an English blog site, Carl.

Well, 'shag' isn't so much a part of the English Language as it is a part of British slang. I don't know much British slang, and sometimes I don't recognize it as slang. As in this case.

In fact, I think my command of the English language is quite good, and, no, I don't care what my snooty "Dad, the English language called. It wants its commas back" English major of a daughter has to say about it.

carl

20 May 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo already knows about shaggin' n dancin'

20 May 2012 at 19:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

In fact, the only American use of the word 'shag' as a verb that comes to my mind is "shagging fly balls." Which probably means nothing to a British citizen reading this weblog.

carl

20 May 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

It is not possible to shag fly balls Carl. Don't be so ridiculous!

20 May 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 May 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "No, I am refusing to allow you to privilege your metaphysical assumptions as somehow ontologically different from mine. "Working assumptions" is a deft slight-of-hand. It presumes you will change them from experience."

Of course it's different to yours. You have religious certainty and it's necessarily not open for debate. It's an essentially irrational or subjective certainty as you have no objective basis for it to share. My belief in (say) the theory of evolution by natural selection is not the same sort of belief as yours in the existence of a Christian (Calvinist variant) god. I have said time and again that I don't know if there is a human-centric god or not. I have no certainty there. I know I don't know and I'm almost certain you don't know either.

I have no idea how our universe came about. I don't know how life on our planet began. In order to go on, I assume we're just another species in a large number of species on a small planet in one of a vast number of solar systems which fall in a galaxy which is one a vast number of them in an unimaginably large universe. In the absence of any definite knowledge to the contrary, I'm proceeding on the basis on what we can glean from our reality. Moreover, I'm willing to adjust my perception as new knowledge comes in.

You're reduced to hoping that (say) light does not necessarily proceed from its source or that it might have just appeared out of nowhere giving the illusion of proceeding from a source in order to undermine the model we're building simply so that your religion looks more credible. You're reduced to (say) imagining against firsthand accounts and common sense that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation in order to fit our shared reality to your religious beliefs.

That is why you're equivocating on this, trying to reduce working assumptions down to the status of a mere religion. You need to pull everything down to that because your beliefs are absurd without doing so. Moreover, it's worse than that because you want to privilege your religious beliefs over those of other religions too which are also held by people with irrational or subjective certainty. Others try the same here too, and what do they do to justify it? Ironically, they use the same sort of criteria as people without religious certainty use. Well, I have an idea. Why not cut out all the unnecessary stuff and jump straight to that bit?

20 May 2012 at 20:08  
Blogger Preacher said...

For what it's worth, my belief is, as I've said many times, I don't judge others. I warn them of what, IMO lies ahead of them.
If someone wishes to become a believer, they have to renounce the things in their lives that God says are wrong & worthy of His judgement. So it's up to the individual how he/she chooses.

I believe it's wrong for any group who wish to live a lifestyle that the scripture says is sinful to lobby for it to be incorporated into a law that overrides the wishes & beliefs of the followers of that faith & attempts to deny those followers the right to freedom of choice.

It's sad to see men executed for their transgressions. As Jesus said "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". At least the crowd were honest & dispersed to a man.

20 May 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger Owl said...

DanJ0,

The expression "a man never loses his religion, he just changes it" is from Carl Jung.

A man's religion is his outlook on life not his "creed".

Basically, all the "ISMs" are just replacment religions, including Atheism, Humanism etc.

You will find that the idea of marriage between a man and a woman is the "religion" of almost all people regardless of their "creed".

It seems to have something to do with human nature.

Homosexual or Lesbian couple may call their binding by any name they wish to choose it, but not mariage. There would then be no problem.

The determination to call this binding "marriage" is what will severely damage the cause of homosexuals.

It is simply not accepted by Joe Public. Start crying......

20 May 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace

You have done a wonderful job at exposing the lies of the enemy over this last week on this subject. Well done.


TIT 3:10 A man that is heretical after a first and second admonition, refuse;

TIT 3:11 Knowing that such a one is perverted, and sinneth, being self condemned.

20 May 2012 at 20:32  
Blogger William said...

Carl v DanJ0

What's the point chaps? You are both wedded to your world view and never the twain shall meet. It's not as if you can even agree on mutual rules of engagement. There is no compromise position and it ends up just being a p***ing competition.

20 May 2012 at 20:35  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hanging people for being Homosexual. Appalling isn't it?

What would Jesus do? Condemn the homosexuals, the hangmen or neither/both?

In the West it feels completely counter to our "feeling" of what is right and wrong.

Which society will God bless?

Ours of course.

"Tolerance" and "Cheap Grace" // "Bread and Circuses". Must be right?

Phil

20 May 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

On the above, I am not trying to make a point either way.

Hanging feels wrong to me, but are "feelings" really a reliable guide?

Phil

20 May 2012 at 20:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "There is no compromise position and it ends up just being a p***ing competition."

By observation, I think Carl quite likes standing next to me with his nob out. ;)

20 May 2012 at 20:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "It is simply not accepted by Joe Public. Start crying......"

Unfortunately for you, the opinion polls seem to say otherwise and the overall trend regarding perceptions of homosexuality is good. Continue inventing your reality .....

20 May 2012 at 20:56  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

"By observation, I think Carl quite likes standing next to me with his nob out. ;)

By observation, I'm sure you do ;)

20 May 2012 at 21:04  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Their complaint is that the blog owner doesn't recognise the position himself through his words and actions despite the demands of his religious beliefs." How would they know, if that image has been warped by sin..Surely He who created Man knows what this 'image' means and can assess if it has been perverted. It is not that all mankind has NOT been created in His Image but rather, what has happened to that specific image or must we imagine rather than hear the Creator's assessment of it's current status. We need the manufacturer to assess the condition of the moral engine not the driver with his limited knowledge of how it should function.

God save us from our vain Imagination

The argument is that what ever we IMAGINE to do we should be able to do or at least drag others into it by getting slice by slice agreement..bit like the rational was for allowing abortion to be legalised in the first place.

The oldest idea in the world and our plain reason for suffering due to our obvious moral deficiencies is and had its moment in Eden (5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.), the origin of the Human Potential Movement... and the origin of the Feminist Movement... and the origin of the Patriarchal-dominate-women-mentality...The Gay Movement.. the origin of everything in which humans exalt themselves as moral arbiters.

I believe those who adhere to this belief call it 'working assumptions' , like a 'gimme' putt in golf, or a lifelong 'work in process' and usually base it from their own moral-ism and by evolutionary belief, whereas they are condemned by the very things they hold dear.

Or put another way, It has a superficial truth to it, does it not. After all, why would Natural Selection make distinct races if It didn't want them to remain separate? Why would N S put the seed in men and women to lust after each other if it serves no useful purpose other than for them to plead for other humans to see this 'weakness' in them and so ignore the Evolutionary imperative to ruthlessly remove such failings in the genetic pool through 'survival of the fittest' and can you even blame them therefore if they even hang them as a means of removal from the gene pool?? You deny the mechanism that brought you now and what stop what it has been doing for billions of years by claiming exemption (Tooth and Claw) or does evolution do compassion now because the last time I saw Nature working within the animal kingdom it was as ruthless as ever. Where exactly is moral choice revealed in the animal kingdom as the norm, to ensure the survival of the insignificant few with the very significant majority. Imagination or misapplication of what you perceive can be fatal to the evolutionary process, can it not. Should we not just 'stick to it's rules' or are we superior to Nature now?

So what exactly do we share with each other, if the subset is a bit wooly? What exactly has Ernst in common with an habitual thief or serial adulterer or mass murderer or people who trade on sex..What is the lowest common denominator and why should an agreeal on this common denominator mean we therefore allow children in school to be taught homosexuality which is against the highest aspiration that the next generation be better than we and not just 'superficially' as a word..because everything has become 'acceptable' to them, they therefore are 'better'?. You only have to look at Abortion, Drugs etc, NOT the case!!

"It's where the problem comes, exactly as I have said." You are wrong, it is based on 'Society' and it's rules that we are obliged to live by and uphold as a community and the argument will always be what is Good, not how it makes you feel.

There is a reason why we ALL suffer. It's called Pride!

Ernst

20 May 2012 at 21:23  
Blogger Owl said...

Dan,
Thanks you for once again missing and/or ignoring my point.

The definition of marriage is "between a man and a woman". Any other definition requires another name.

This has nothing to do with any opinion polls or the acceptance of homosexuality in general.

The definition of marriage is part and parcel of Joe Public's religion (not neccessarily his creed) and trying to challenge this perception may be very damaging to the homosexual cause.

Rather than look at polls, I would suggest that you actually talk to Joe.

I hope I have made my point a bit clearer now.

20 May 2012 at 21:33  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl
I see there are whole articles dedicated to 'shagging flyballs'. It's been studied by scienbtists too. What a strange nation you are!

DanJ0
So you see nothing wrong with consensual sibling sex per se? I do hope you have shared this with your own siblings! And how can you argue it is 'wrong' to have sex with an animal? And what about dead people? Apparently Islam permits this!

cressida de nova
Good to see back you in such fine form.

I agree with you there is an inconsistency between those in the Church promoting active homosexuality as acceptable and the Gospel.

20 May 2012 at 21:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "Rather than look at polls, I would suggest that you actually talk to Joe."

That's what the opinion polls I talk about are doing, talking to your Joe. They usually show a majority of people these days in favour of legalising same sex marriage. Marriage is marriage to most people, i.e. the legal joining of a romantic couple, they don't seem to care if gay people do it too. Why should they? It doesn't really affect them at all.

20 May 2012 at 21:43  
Blogger William said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 May 2012 at 21:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "So you see nothing wrong with consensual sibling sex per se? I do hope you have shared this with your own siblings!"

Dodo, I see you're reduced to simply being aghast now. Oh well. I have absolutely no interest in sex with my siblings. The idea is repulsive. In fact, we seem to be inclined to find it so for people we grow up with in a family unit.

However, whilst it is a taboo, there are a number of European countries who choose not criminalise it. Seeming to encourage it by recognising a marriage of siblings is a different matter.

But what about cousins, Dodo? How do you stand there? Is that incest? If not then what if they live in an extended household? What's the actual problem if so? Is it immoral?

20 May 2012 at 21:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld: "After all, why would Natural Selection make distinct races if It didn't want them to remain separate? "

Evolution by that means doesn't 'want' anything. In that theory, a combination of separation and time and environment created the races like it did with species.

"Why would N S put the seed in men and women to lust after each other if it serves no useful purpose other than for them to plead for other humans to see this 'weakness' in them and so ignore the Evolutionary imperative to ruthlessly remove such failings in the genetic pool through 'survival of the fittest' and can you even blame them therefore if they even hang them as a means of removal from the gene pool??"

It's the survival of the fittest to reproduce and it's a natural process according to the theory. I'd wade through the rest but I think I've seen enough. Did they not teach you any of this in school back in your day?

20 May 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

By observation, I think Carl quite likes standing next to me with his nob out.

So I've figured out enough British slang to know what that means. Pointless vulgarity, don't you think? I don't think in those terms.

carl

20 May 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Wry humour. You seem to have latched onto me recently, that's all. I was simply taking the piss, using the provided image of a pissing contest.

20 May 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger Naomi King said...

ACTS 13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

20 May 2012 at 22:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh lordy.

20 May 2012 at 22:08  
Blogger Owl said...

Dan,

He who pays the piper....

Try talking to people.

However, this is irrelevant to the point I was making.

20 May 2012 at 22:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl, allow the devil boy his smutty humour and don’t bite otherwise there won’t be an end to it, see how he revels to justify it. If he can justify SSM, then he can put a spin on anything...

20 May 2012 at 22:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "Try talking to people."

Try talking to non-religious people. You might be quite surprised how far behind you are.

20 May 2012 at 22:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I quite like the sobriquet of devil boy. It has a certain rakish charm to it.

20 May 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mrs King, he is clearly possessed of the devil, as indeed both worship anal sex. What would you have us do with him ?

Dodo, prepare the rack, and expose his testes. The Inspector will heat the iron. Today we expel the malevolence that so corrupts his soul...

20 May 2012 at 22:29  
Blogger Thomas Gibbon said...

Archbishop, I salute your dignity and forbearance in the face of this invective.

Regarding polls on the SSM matter, they are misleading. In some (but by no means all) US polls, small majorities support SSM. But in the privacy of the poll booth, people reject it - 31 states so far. Wiki has a listing - Google 'SSM by US state' and go to State Law.

I suspect that the polls just show that people don't want to be unkind to homosexuals, and indeed believe they are owed some slack for past mistreatment. But, on the other hand, they consider the institution of marriage to be the unique center of the heterosexual family unit.

There was an opinion piece that touches on this in the Wall Street Journal last week, Google 'Bias a Drink', paras 2 to 5.

20 May 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger Owl said...

Dan,

Why do you consistantly try to change the subject?

Actually I have more friends who would likely be considered non-religious than I have religious friends and even they tend to be of the quiet variety.

I also have homosexual friends who do not support your view of SSM.

I agree that many don't care one way or the other....

....until they realise that a traditional institution is going to be seriously affected.

20 May 2012 at 22:36  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

How can one possibly have an image of that which does not exist?

20 May 2012 at 22:59  
Blogger William said...

G Tingey

You mean like a unicorn?

20 May 2012 at 23:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Thomas Gibbon, I suspect that the polls just show that people don't want to be unkind to homosexuals, and indeed believe they are owed some slack for past mistreatment. But, on the other hand, they consider the institution of marriage to be the unique centre of the heterosexual family unit.

Well done Sir. If there was any justice, your words would be tomorrows front page news...

20 May 2012 at 23:22  
Blogger len said...

Well the battle goes on.....Gays versus Christians still 'slogging it out'.(endlessly so it seems!)

The point many if not all seem to have missed(excepting HG)is that we are all sinners.If we claim to be without sin we make God a liar!.

The point being it is not the individual sins which make us sinners but the fact that we have inherited a sin nature which drives us towards sin!.Man sins because he can do nothing else!.

That is why Jesus did not condemn sinners(except the self righteous Pharisees)
However God has provided a solution to this dilemma through Jesus Christ His Son.God destroys the old nature and gives man a new nature which is the ONLY remedy for a sinner(which is all of us)
This is the salvation which God offers to all who repent and place their faith in Jesus Christ.

The reason that Jesus condemned the 'highly religious' Pharisees is because they rejected God`s remedy for their sinful natures and chose to rely on their own 'goodness'(religious works, self righteousness) instead of the righteousness imputed by Christ.“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5).

The real hatred for people will be seen within the' religious cults' who only remedy for others sins is intimidation, repression,persecution and public executions as a' warning to others' a rule by fear.

Jesus Christ offers salvation through His own sacrifice on the Cross which was the ultimate act of love for Humanity.

20 May 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger David B said...

Real life has intruded into my posting for the last 48 hours or so, so coming to this topic afresh, just having skimmed through the blog post and the comments, I disagree that gay people of either gender are made in the image of God, on the excellent grounds that it is clear that gay people exist, while the existence of any sort of God is more problematic.

@ Owl 21.33

Definitions are not eternal, you know.

Which is why I hesitate to call your post awful. You might think it a compliment, on the basis of some archaic meaning of 'awful'.

However, while I disagree with HG's view on homosexual marriage, at the same time acknowledging the liberality of his position in allowing his blog to be used for views that differ from his own, I do think that today's post of his puts things into a bit of perspective.

Causing offence is one thing, actual persecution, like hanging or jailing for a long time, because of religious differences or differences between religion and no religion is something else again.

Which I think was the point of today's post, and a point well made.

David B

20 May 2012 at 23:28  
Blogger bluedog said...

G Tingey @ 23.17 asks, 'How can one possibly have an image of that which does not exist?'

Imagination?

20 May 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 May 2012 at 00:09  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...
"I have absolutely no interest in sex with my siblings. The idea is repulsive. In fact, we seem to be inclined to find it so for people we grow up with in a family unit."

If you believe this, you have led a very sheltered life. You'd be surprised at just how prevelant incest is, even in the modern nuclear family. And as the traditional taboos are broken down more and more people will say "why not?"

little pope len
What is missing in you 'analysis' is that modern society produces the conditions for sin. It weakens the moral compass of individuals and makes them more susceptible to immorality. This is why your politico-religious comments are so sterile. They amount to patronising, self-rightous lectures from the modern day Pharisees - the "born again" brigade.

And, just to remind you, some grevious sin breaks our unity with Christ by removing sanctifying grace from our souls.

What you have earlier mistakenly referred to as the 'soul' (i.e the mind and will) is in fact the conscience and character formed as we grow into adults. This influences our receptivity to the Holy Spirit. That's where your 'theology' and a lot of protestant theology falls down.

The new nature through Jesus Christ requires our active cooperation - we are not passive in the process of salvation. To think so means accepting predestination or an absence of free will. You've 'painted yourself into a corner' over this on earlier threads and you need to work out the contradictions in your position.

Inspector
What are you saying, man? I have no desire to expose DanJ0 testes. The very thought!

21 May 2012 at 00:16  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Tingey said...
"How can one possibly have an image of that which does not exist?"

How do Iknow you exist? Yei I have an image of you. I won't share it
for fear of breaking anti-discriminatory legislation about the mentally infirm.

Speaking of which, where's Atlas hiding?

21 May 2012 at 00:59  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Those who are looking for the eternal bliss know nothing about marriage.

21 May 2012 at 01:33  
Blogger Owl said...

David B 23:28,

What a strange comment!

Oh, I geddit. "archaic meaning of 'awful'." is sort of like word association linking up with "old fashioned", "dinosaur" etc.

How very shallow. I am somewhat dissappointed in you David.

You didn't even address the point I was making (which Dan didn't either) but tried to reduce it to a "definition". Word association again, i.e. an out of date definition which goes quite nicely with "archaic".

"Religion" or "Outlook" in the sense that I explained is something very different.

As I'm sure you are perfectly aware.

You really are clutching at straws

21 May 2012 at 04:06  
Blogger Col. Cardboard said...

G Tingey @ 23.17 asks, 'How can one possibly have an image of that which does not exist?'

Of course, you cannot: that doesn't stop millions of people talking about it, though. God does not exist, but Christians certainly do. I rather wish it were the other way 'round.

21 May 2012 at 04:21  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Fine words to find after a lengthy and busy journey, Your Grace, one that added a few more grey hairs on my beard and will necessite an avatar update. Anyhow, as I've always thought, any one of us can strings similar observations and arguments together, but Your Grace does so with an inimitable humanity and with language that is always a pleasure to read regardless of the topic.

I've only had a chance for a quick peek, Your Grace, but I note the appearance of some fresh flesh for the meat grinder here. Fleisch for the fleischwolf. I see also familiar names and avatars, noting that Your Grace has been unable to rid himself of that troublesome old rabble. A sentimental old archbishop His Grace is.

21 May 2012 at 06:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 May 2012 at 06:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "Why do you consistantly try to change the subject?"

I'm just focusing on the bit that is most wrong in your comments, and demonstrably wrong despite your wishful thinking. The rest of your comments are not worth commenting on as far as I can see, merely providing the backdrop to your wishful and incorrect thinking.

"....until they realise that a traditional institution is going to be seriously affected."

It'll make no difference whatsoever. I've tried a number of times to get people to tell me exactly what this effect will be but it's like trying to cup water in one's hands.

21 May 2012 at 06:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "If you believe this, you have led a very sheltered life. You'd be surprised at just how prevelant incest is, even in the modern nuclear family. And as the traditional taboos are broken down more and more people will say "why not?""

You really believe that more and more people will say "why not?" and that legalising same sex marriage will lead to that? Has the availability of civil partnerships led to a significant rise in adult brothers and sisters, and parents and adult offspring, rutting around the family home then?

21 May 2012 at 06:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Thomas: "But, on the other hand, they consider the institution of marriage to be the unique center of the heterosexual family unit."

That's interesting given the number of heterosexual couples with children who aren't married and the number of heterosexual couples who marry and subsequently divorce.

21 May 2012 at 06:46  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace

It is such a shame about DanJ0 and his type because they are missing out on all the goodness and mercy that the LORD is offering them (and indeed to all sinners).

Well said Inspector, the "devil child" will get much Fatherly Chastening in this life because of his sin of unbelief.

Len I whole heartedly agree that the love of the Lord Jesus Christ is THE only solution to the sins of the world and for personal salvation. I am daily on my knees thanking him for what he has done for me in my life.

PROV 3:1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:

PROV 3:2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.

PROV 3:3 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:

PROV 3:4 So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.

PROV 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

PROV 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

PROV 3:7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

PROV 3:8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.

PROV 3:9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:

PROV 3:10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.

PROV 3:11 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:

PROV 3:12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

PROV 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.

PROV 3:35 The wise shall inherit glory: but shame shall be the promotion of fools.

PROV 8:32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.

PROV 8:33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

PROV 8:34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.

PROV 8:35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.

PROV 8:36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

PROV 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

PROV 9:7 He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

PROV 9:8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

PROV 9:9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

PROV 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

PROV 10:22 The blessing of the LORD, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it.

21 May 2012 at 07:05  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace

I would want to thank you for the dignified and honourable, dare I say wise manner in which you have handled yourself over this ASA business. It is a model of good sense and yet ferocious loyalty to the truth. Remember

PROV 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

21 May 2012 at 07:12  
Blogger non mouse said...

Welcome back, Mr. Barzel!

21 May 2012 at 07:42  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Peggy Sherwood, President of the Jewish Gay and Lesbian Group guilty of Hate Crime ?

Cranny,

"Insulting words or behaviour” are outlawed by Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Maybe you could make a complaint to the police and ask them to investigate Peggy Sherwood as President of the Jewish Gay and Lesbian Group of a Hate Crime against your Grace's person.

Warmest regards
Naomi

21 May 2012 at 07:46  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Why do jews need thier own buggery organisation,do they shag differently to the goyim queers?or do jewish excretions have a unique aroma superiour to goyim crap.We probably need more rope.

21 May 2012 at 07:56  
Blogger len said...

Dodo...

Faith is not passive.


Sin is not a 'modern invention'it has existed since the fall of man.Also whatever is not of faith(in Christ) is sin,perhaps those who rely solely on 'the Church'for their' salvation' are on a par with the worst of sinners?.

21 May 2012 at 08:24  
Blogger bluedog said...

Welcome back indeed, Mr Avi Barzel, you have been missed. This communicant had nightmare visions of a jack-knifed eighteen wheeler somewhere on the Trans-Canada Highway. Good to know it isn't so.

21 May 2012 at 08:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Len

"Gays versus Christians still 'slogging it out'.(endlessly so it seems!)" Sinner vs sinner would be appropriate, not what you state?

Dear boy, you are mistaken in your reasoning. Gay is NOT what the Lord wants but Christian 'Christ Ones' as an outcome IS.

Consider the difference between an alcoholic and as reformed alcoholic..One is in a continuance of denial to so something about it, they may even see the shame and upset their behaviour causes them and others but ignore and do nothing, whereas the other has recognised the need to see him/themselves as his/their predicament really is and seek a remedy. Some drunks refuse to even believe they are drunks, just enjoy a tipple and it's none of anyone elses business..see a comparison here on the blogsite amongst us?!

You must first let the person see their sin for what it is and the need to change, not sugar coating despite their protestations that you are being harsh etc...unless you know a better way?

Ernst, my boy.

21 May 2012 at 09:50  
Blogger William said...

Avi

Nice to see you again - all chrome a-gleaming!

Some of us have been admiring your fellow countryman (and coreligionist), Ezra Levant's principled and eloquent stand against the Alberta Human Rights thought police. As you can see we've been having similar problems with our own self-authorised, speech-control "authority".

21 May 2012 at 09:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

DanJo

"Evolution by that means doesn't 'want' anything. In that theory, a combination of separation and time and environment created the races like it did with species." If it doesn't want anything how can the blindness choose, how far were we (10 evolving monkeys, hoping that the mix was 50/50 male female)separated from each other , what conditions made the colour (did the black one therefore lighten whilst in northern hemisphere or did white darken in equatorial regions)and how long did the process take (1000, 5,00, 10,000, 1,00,00 or are more naughts required that you can prove to be true. Can you empirically show these things you 'believe'?

So which evolved first..The white or the black man? Or did Adam just have a diversity of seed within him, bit like animals and their specific kind.

"It's the survival of the fittest to reproduce and it's a natural process according to the theory. I'd wade through the rest but I think I've seen enough. Did they not teach you any of this in school back in your day?"
The survival of the fittest is in the line above. it is to SURVIVE by whatever means necessary, irrespective of this human constraint to apply weak morals to it, that is alien to the process which has produced the majestic world we see around us. Could not yours and others claims be seen as 'Devolution' and contrary to nature and what it requires, that would destroy what it has produced..You destroy 14 billion years of work based on the working assumptions that are not present within Natural Selection?

Does the new Lion taking over a pride hear the plea of the cubs of the one vanquished, prior to them being slaughtered, that it is unfair to them.. what have they done.. live and let live...they had no choice in who they were born to..can we not agree on some basic working assumptions?

"Did they not teach you any of this in school back in your day?" I was brain washed on the nonsense so know exactly what was taught but you appear to go contrary to the theory as defined by evolutionists..Morals therefore is a 'modern' construct that appears to have no basis in what you belief, you arrived here by accident through a violent but necessary process. As the song says,' What's love got to do with it?'

It appears you are empirical when it suits your arguments and use emotive arguments that are contrary to empiricism when the natural conclusion goes against your position.

Ernst Blofeld

21 May 2012 at 10:13  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

What a bunch of hateful bigots.

I do not see much christianity on here.

21 May 2012 at 11:31  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Seeing those men hanging by their necks is such a tragedy when if only they had known that another was hung for them - to give them freedom from enslaving sin. This is of course the central message of the gospel and the one which we need to communicate under the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I think that the fundamental difference between the Lord’s ‘solution’ to enslaving sin and every other is that He offers a way of escape through simple faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The mandate which the Church is given to ‘preach the gospel'. It’s time for the power of God to be unleashed, let’s pray and press in that this may happen and we may be caught up in it.

21 May 2012 at 11:37  
Blogger William said...

Derek T Northcote

Just been reading your one and only blog entry dated 23 Nov 2008, which goes as follows:

"Skint. Bored and Cold.

Cupboard is bare and the Fags are running out."


Kind or reads like the last entry of a slightly camp Scott of the Antarctic. Desperate times I'm sure. Perhaps His Grace might be able to help you out with a few fags?

Cheer up old chap!

21 May 2012 at 11:45  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Avi Barzel,
Welcome back to our intrepid traveller. I have missed your sharp thinking and witty humour.
You have missed some excitement whilst away. His Graces ashes have been subjected to a subpoena by our advertising authority (that has no authority) for showing an advert that a few gays, including the Jewish UK gays and lebos group, claimed was offensive and homophobic. His Grace in his own inimitable style demolished them into a quivering mess of obtuse apologies. Carl from States side and Len seem joined at the hip. They go on so much that I'm quite sure they don't understand themselves let alone each other.
You may not follow this drift but Dodo has got confused about who are the religious people (Pharisees) of today are and what the purpose of a ‘Born Again’ is. (Ye must be born again).
Anyway, great to have you back but please advise if you are going away again for such a long time, we are probably not on your next of kin list. Oh dear, (Maybe not, all the criminal types in the world might converge on your home).
Best regars, Integrity.
Apologies to His Grace for using the Blog as letter medium.

21 May 2012 at 11:58  
Blogger Thomas Gibbon said...

DanJ: 'That's interesting given the number of heterosexual couples with children who aren't married and the number of heterosexual couples who marry and subsequently divorce.'

The phenomena of unmarried couples with kids and high levels of divorce are quite recent. Every study that's been conducted shows that kids of divorced couples suffer, and so, to a lesser extent do kids of unmarried couples (but that may be because they're more likely to split up).

The reality is that having and raising kids is hard, and that people change, and that without some sort of contractual sanction some people will put their selfish desires above their responsibility to raise those they've brought into the world.

If you weaken the marriage contract by making divorce easier, as successive governments have, you get more divorce and more damaged kids, and that contributes to the damaged society that now afflicts us.

21 May 2012 at 12:06  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Mr Integrity

Carl from States side and Len seem joined at the hip. They go on so much that I'm quite sure they don't understand themselves let alone each other.

What have len and I to do with each other? I don't engage with len.

carl

21 May 2012 at 12:18  
Blogger Kinderling said...

@Englishman: Why do jews need thier own buggery organisation,do they shag differently to the goyim queers?

The organization is a protest movement; that as G_d's Chosen People they have been denied their rights to marry and be celebrated as equals. Protesting things like Moses going down the mountain and killing around 3000 Golden Calf worshipers among their kinship. (Exodus 32:28). It wasn't fair then and it isn't fair now.

However, if they really want to be God's People and 'wave a wand' to let all that go, then they only need to take St Paul's conversion to be spirited away into the loving fold of The Gay Christian Community. The road of submission to the greatest force is the path to salvation.

The True Christian therefore inverts to intimidation on Earth as well as they did for their piece of Heaven. Someone else will take care of it for them.

So it's their time. A person that stopped running and embraced their fears became overwhelmed and consumed so that black became white and white became black. The Intimidator became master, and now as servants of the flesh they intimidate the children and every bastion of decency.

For it's only by holding on to a belief that you shall be saved. And many people can be tricked into becoming subservient believing-petitioners. Thru prayer and the ballot box the State had become God.

21 May 2012 at 12:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

Where have you been? I feared you had accidentally killed yourself by actually eating one of those sardines on a cracker. So am I going to see you on the new season of Ice Road Truckers?

Anyway, it's good to see you back.

carl

21 May 2012 at 12:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

WILLIAM@21 May 2012 11:45

Very well put, that man.

"Cheer up old chap!" The poor fella would need to believe something like ..

Acts 27:25

25 Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me.

or

John 16:33

33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

All a complete mystery to the chAap.

Ernst

21 May 2012 at 12:55  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Carl,
Did did I offend you? Just as well your not in the UK. I did of course meen DanJo. My appolgies proffered. I kept on getting interupted and it was only a littlt light hearted banter.

21 May 2012 at 13:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Mr Integrity

No, I wasn't offended. More confused really. I thought one the names might be wrong. I just wasn't sure which one.

No worries. :)

carl

21 May 2012 at 13:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Thomas: "If you weaken the marriage contract by making divorce easier, as successive governments have, you get more divorce and more damaged kids, and that contributes to the damaged society that now afflicts us."

Given the relative numbers involved, you'd think the religious would be going like the clappers trying to overturn the divorce changes to our marriage law instead of bothering with a bunch of same-sex people seeking to strength marriage. Of course, if they did that then they'd be targetting the majority and attacking mainstream thought so I suppose it's no wonder they go for the low hanging fruits, so to speak. Afterall, churches are pretty unpopular these days as it is.

21 May 2012 at 18:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "Kind or reads like the last entry of a slightly camp Scott of the Antarctic."

Lol.

21 May 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Happy Victoria Day, everyone!

Thank you for your welcoming words, non mouse, William, Mr Integrity and Carl. My apologies for “disappearing” without a word and I will definitely announce any future disappearances.

I see that my dear brothers and sisters in the Jewish Gay & Lesbian Group have been making a spectacle of themselves. They do so here too, but no longer get exercised by their antics. With all that's going on in Europe, the precarious state of the dwindling Jewish communities they might worry about and the real persecution of Gays in the Muslim world, these pathetic muppets have fixated on His Grace as the grand enemy in their new pantheon and presume to lecture him about such matters like "divine imprint" or "the image of G-d." Disgusting.

Now onto the absence excuse. Right after I last posted, the old laptop finally expired on route on the West Coast, in concert with the remainder of my joie de vivre, which had been flagging for a while due to my work schedule and lengthy separation from family. A nasty bout of pneumonia, most of it spent in my sleeper, without the Internet, and at an actually quite picturesque truck stop near a logging camp with a clinic, served as the last straw. With the fever came a depression I never imagined anyone could be subjected to and still continue breathing and growing hair, and suddenly disengaging from the world and reconnecting to family and life’s objectives became an acutely emergency. And so, we found ourselves in the shade of some ancient olive trees on a lengthy Internet and devices-free “sabbatical” in the old Promised Land, among a group of other “Anglos,” not far from a gloriously loud air force base. We all took the opportunty to take on some intense volunteer duties and had a blast, free from school, driving and teaching, and fleshing out our largely cerebral Zionism with a bit of sweat and even moments of genuine risk. Then the money for the venture ran out sometime after Passover and now we’re back in sleepy Ontario, minus the eldest, who wants a few months at a yeshiva, then on to serving in the IDF with a bunch of his buddies. Life does move rather quickly in its bitter-sweet way. Our gawky young punk is becoming a better, ore dedicated man than I am and that is as it should be. Still, I suddenly feel older...and I am older. So, back to work for me(closer and with fewer long distance hauls) and back to the familiar world and people I know, including those in this crazy blog.

21 May 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Naomi: "Well said Inspector, the "devil child" will get much Fatherly Chastening in this life because of his sin of unbelief."

Well, if it turns out to be Allah instead they you're well and truly fecked too when you die. If we end up in the same queue then please tell me you won't be churning out those crappy quotes while we wait. It's tedious enough as it is on here. Thanks.

21 May 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Avi good to see you back. Been through the mill eh. Still, the Inspector had thought the Huron had finally got you (...they’ve sided with the French, you know !)

21 May 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, chin up old fruit. Can’t have you turning out like that miserable blighter Northcote, now can we....

21 May 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

'Tis indeed good to be back among the sinners and the scoundrels, Inspector. An odd comfort in that. I should be concerned. Ah, "through the mill," what an apt expression that. I hope to have come out as stronger cloth, but time will only tell.

I see you looked after the place here quite well, as I knew you'd do. Eh-hem, in (sotto voce); but there seems to be a bit of, er, intense missionary work about...no, no, I don't blame your personnel management, some things can't be helped... but will that affect serious discussions here about splendid foods, fancy beers and heavenly scotches? My time away wasn't wasted on the usual Mid-Eastern vegetable-dominant stuff; the best in Israel I think is to be found in the incredible fusion cuisine meat dishes, which involve some long and deep marinating, titillating spices and loud and violent roasting and sizzling over wood charcoal, with juices running....

21 May 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi, ‘Missionary work’ ? Steady on old chap, you’ll have a fellow blushing. Looking forward to your ‘catch up’. You really have no idea how you’ve been missed on this site, but you are a deeply loved soul on here. Don’t forget that now !

21 May 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

No, goodness, not Missionary work from you, Inspector. (Shudders)Imagine that! Well, I couldn't keep away, seeing how often I thought of the crew here...sometimes in the midst of the most unrelated or ticklish situations...like taking the wrong turn somewhere near Qualqilyah with less than a half of a tank-full in my moped and a perfectly good cell phone I had thoughtfully left to charge on the kitchen counter. Being missed and loved is truly a gift to be treasured. No forgetting that. Eye-moistening stuff too. You know how it is, I will have to undoubtedly do penance for my absence without due leave.

21 May 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger Naomi King said...

And what is wrong with missionary work when our homosexual brethren are in such mortal danger ?

21 May 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mrs King, not to be confused with the missionary position {AHEM}

21 May 2012 at 22:07  
Blogger len said...

Ernst,( 21 May 2012 09:50)

The Law was given to bring people to Christ.....agreed.

But all I ever seem to hear on this blog is condemnation of 'sinners' but no progression towards salvation.

What is the use of telling people they are a sinner and they are going to burn in Hell if no solution is given?.

The Love of God is a big factor in salvation but it is hardly ever mentioned.......... just endless' circular' arguments.

.John 3:16
16 For God so LOVED the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

There is a vast difference between CONVICTING sinners of their need of a Saviour and just CONDEMNING sinners.
(I do not include you in this last category!)

21 May 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger Thomas Gibbon said...

DanJ0: 'you'd think the religious would be going like the clappers trying to overturn the divorce changes to our marriage law instead of bothering with a bunch of same-sex people seeking to strength marriage.'

Of course the churches have opposed those changes, and even if they hadn't, that's irrelevant to their opposition to SSM.

21 May 2012 at 22:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Greetings, Ms King. I'd say the problem is now far beyond the effective reach of any missionary work. Christians, Gays, Hindus, Bahais, Buddhists, Animists and a few remnant Jews, bot to mention people who can't be bothered about any religion who are scattered throughout the Muslim world are in quite a bit of mortal danger, indeed. But unlike the case in the days gone by, the Church can no longer provide much protection ...being itself a target in many cases. Missionizing the persecuted will only add to their woes and if you have thoughts about missionizing the persecutors, I sincerely hope you don't entertain ideas about doing so on their turf. The immediate and most effective measures involve robust, costly and far-reaching international censures, some selective violence against the perps to get the point across and the usual bribes for the fence-sitters. These are best accomplished by our governments, but the trick is in getting our governments to actually do something.

21 May 2012 at 22:32  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Avi

Welcome back! Where have you been?

21 May 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thank you, Dodo, it's truly good to be back among friends. You missed my humble prodigal son return post at 21 May 2012 06:00 with the exculpatory and explanatory notes at 21 May 2012 18:12. Right under your nose, too. Thought you were snubbing me, then realized that when you and Len go at it, tunnel vision ensues. I think I would have been shocked had you and Len become buddies or worse, indifferent.

22 May 2012 at 00:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

Yeah, well, enough of the re-union chatter. Those woods over yonder are chock full of liberals, atheists, post-modernists, gnostics and lots of other Varmint Cong. Time to lock and load. Lay down some suppressing fire and get your platoon moving forward. You ain't here to bake cookies, soldier!

carl

22 May 2012 at 02:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Thomas: "Of course the churches have opposed those changes, and even if they hadn't, that's irrelevant to their opposition to SSM."

It rather shows them up though, doesn't it? Some Christians and fringe Christian organisations are obsessed, utterly obsessed, with homosexuality. If they showed the same zeal and fanaticism towards divorce then the public might take a bit more notice. Not that public notice would be a good thing for them since they would probably be spat on. Which is really the point I'm making.

22 May 2012 at 06:13  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Sorry, Cap'n Carl, but it's dark in there...and I think I sees somethin' move in the elephant grass over by the tree line. Think I'm coming down with the Mekong Fever too and Medic says I can go and see the base Doc.

And, I don't even know if I can drive my rig after all these months. How do you do a full airbrake check? Align and back the fifth wheel into the kingpin in one shot? Double-clutch, remember to switch the gear selector and o, the stress, how do you back into a bay from the blind side with a pile of good-old boys grinning and looking on from the loading docks?

B'sides, you hurt my feelings and shamed me before my peers when you thought me a sardine-eater. Sardines? Those slimy things with tomato sauce you Yanks munch on when there's nothing left in he fridge? No, Sir, this here soldier chows down on a real man's shmaltz herring, the divine dish made from Baltic or North Sea herrings, the gleaming silver of the seas which fed half of Europe through the Dark Ages. Salted and packed in barrels, all to be lovingly de-boned, cleaned, washed and chopped into strips, then marinated for a fortnight in good vegetable oil with rings of sweet white onion, awaiting only a fresh cracker and a golden-hued single malt from Alba, the lands of the Scoti.

22 May 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Amidst all the debate and discussion I forgot to comment on the picture.

What a heinous, barbaric act. Truely evil.

May God have mercy on the souls of those young men so brutally murdered.

26 May 2012 at 00:37  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Dodo

You are looking at things from your cultural background.

People in the middle East see it as madness to have our relaxed attitude to sexual sin and would see the bible as being a bit lax but basically OK. Whereas forgiveness which we see as being completely fine they see as being stupid and a very much more difficult concept.

No culture is completely right on this but we are judging them by the standards of our culture, not looking at it with their eyes.

Difficult I know, but essential if you want to influence people from other cultures.

To us it is a horrible sight.

To people brought up in the Middle East? I doubt if it bothers them overmuch

Phil

27 May 2012 at 02:18  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older