Saturday, July 14, 2012

Gimme Five! I'm going to church because of women bishops

This is a guest post by the Rev'd Julian Mann:

How many teenagers in your local Anglican parish church?

Unless you happen to live in the parish of All Souls Langham Place or Holy Trinity Brompton in London or Jesmond Parish Church in Newcastle or Christ Church Fulwood in Sheffield, you can hug a teenage hoody at a bus stop (or exchange a high five with one) but not generally in an Anglican church.

Your local Anglican Church is not alone in experiencing a famine of teenagers. Tim Thornborough in his outstanding article last year in the evangelical magazine The Briefing - Does the future have a church? - distilled the findings of church statistician Dr Peter Brierley: 'The generation for whom church-going was part of their culture is dying off, but the church is missing an ability to replace the dying saints with new ones.' So let’s turn to look at what is going on at the other end of the age spectrum. This is where the stats for all UK churches present a truly frightening picture. Take a deep breath and read on!
39% of churches have no-one attending under 11 years of age
49% of churches have no-one attending between the ages of 11 and 14
59% of churches have no-one attending between the ages of 15 and 19
Does anyone realistically think appointing women bishops will defuse the demographic time bomb?

The arguments for women bishops are varied. They range from the purported leadership deficiencies of an all-male House of Bishops to the claim that to refuse to consecrate women as bishops amounts to denying that men and women are made equally in the image of God.

The Roman Catholic journalist Melanie McDonagh has ably exposed the theological absurdity of that latter contention in the London Evening Standard: 'I’ve got no business, myself, getting involved, given that I’m a Catholic and we don’t actually believe that any of them (male or female Anglican priests) are properly ordained. But I do get a bit restive when I hear the likes of the Rev Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, one of the many media-friendly female clerics, declaring that “the whole point of having women bishops was to say that the Church of England believes that women and men are equal and made in the image of God. I do not want it enshrined in law that we officially do not believe that.” Hang on there. Our lot don’t have women bishops either but I’ve never had any problems on being made in the image of God, thanks all the same, Miranda.'

The Threlfall-Holmes argument could be extended to saying that the refusal to appoint a person to church leadership because they do not have the necessary ability to expound the Scriptures amounts to denying that they are made in the image of God.

God does not confer the public teaching office on all Christians; only on some. In that sense, God is discriminatory. But such divine discrimination in the conferring of his gift of teaching the Faith does not mean for one moment that church administrators, sidespeople, or those on the coffee rota are any less made in the image of God or lesser members of the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Back in the 1990s, one of the arguments put forward for the ordination of women by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, was that the church would put itself out of touch with modern society if it did not have women vicars.

But despite women being ordained priests in the years following the 1992 Synod legislation, the Church of England has continued to haemorrhage young people.

The undeniable fact of Anglican church life is that the above mentioned Christ-proclaiming churches, and many other Anglican evangelical churches around the country, have managed to attract teenagers under the ministry of male incumbents and in dioceses led by male bishops.

But for the majority of Anglican churches, no young people spells no future congregations.

If the Church of England goes ahead with appointing women bishops, the ladies in question will not require the teaching gift because there will be nobody to teach. But estate agency experience would be useful because of the large number of empty properties in their dioceses for sale or let.

Julian Mann is vicar of the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire.

276 Comments:

Blogger len said...

One of the best Church youth groups I have ever seen was run by a Christian couple (man and wife)
hordes of children and young adults attended their groups which were interesting challenging and informative.

I am sure that the parents of the children attending these groups felt a lot more secure with their children in this sort of situation.

The Church in many cases has ceased to be' relevant' in the eyes of many of the youth today, if fact the church needs to move out of the Church buildings and into the community.

Women should not be sidelined and treated as' inferior beings'for we are 'all one in Christ'but women should and can contribute in the advancement of the Gospel especially where the youth are involved.

There are many 'single parent families'where women take on the role of both parents so lets not undervalue them!.

Regarding the 'dying church'. The Holy Spirit is the Power of God, the Wisdom of God, and if we are not following His programmes, His instructions then we are probably guilty of carrying out 'dead works'?

14 July 2012 at 08:51  
Blogger Gary said...

Any church that has a woman minister has sold its soul to the world and doesn't deserve to be blessed with children. God will not be mocked.

14 July 2012 at 08:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Unless there's a massive and unexpected shift in UK culture, I can't really see that CofE churches are going to ever replenish their stock in future. As a country, we need to plan for that given that it's the established church and our constitution, such as it is, is bound up with it. If we don't then there's rather less liberal and tolerant religions of Islam and Catholicism waiting in the wings. People who enjoy their freedom need to consider what life might be like if those religions have their way.

14 July 2012 at 08:59  
Blogger David B said...

"This is where the stats for all UK churches present a truly frightening picture"

I'm not frightened. More 'encouraged'.

David B

14 July 2012 at 09:01  
Blogger len said...

Our local Priest(male) has recent been arrested for crimes involving young boys (Guess the denomination)

14 July 2012 at 09:08  
Blogger Flossie said...

Well said indeed, Revd Julian! Innovations have always divided the Church, prayer book revision being one, and ordination of women another. Many left in 1993, including 600 clergy. Since then very few of the remaining opponents of WO have been appointed into senior posts, hence the situation we find ourselves in today – a weakened church less able to withstand secular pressures. This is evidenced by the disgraceful behaviour of WATCH (Women and the Church) in using secular values of equality and fairness to crush their opponents and lever them out.

The Episcopal Church in the USA should be an example to us of how to get rid of the faithful – first feminize the church (we in the UK are now ordaining more women than men), then introduce gay bishops and now transgendered, and lo! Nearly everybody else has gone and you have to sell all the properties, having sued the pants off the departing incumbents.

Back to the specific issue of young people, some time ago former Anglican priest Robbie Low wrote a very interesting article on a Swiss study to determine whether a person's religion carried through to the next generation and, if so, what, if any, were the critical factors. The main factor seems to be the religious practice of the father. He concludes by saying:
‘In short if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife's devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper. If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers. If a father goes but irregularly to church, regardless of his wife's devotion, between a half and two-thirds of their offspring will find themselves coming to church regularly or occasionally. A non-practising mother (with a regular father) will see a minimum of two thirds of her children ending up at church. A non-practising father (faithful mother) will see two-thirds of his children never darken the church door. If his wife is similarly negligent that figure will rise to 80 per cent!’
‘The Truth about Men’ can be read here: http://trushare.com/83APR02/AP02LOW.htm

Men do not like a feminized church. Men leave, children will not stay.

14 July 2012 at 09:13  
Blogger David B said...

@Flossie

The religious affiliation of one's father hardly seems to be a sufficient test of the truth or falsity of a religion, does it?

Something worth pointing out to those with Islamic fathers, Orthodox Jewish Fathers, Hindu fathers....Christian fathers of any or all denominations?

David B

14 July 2012 at 09:21  
Blogger bluedog said...

Gary @ 08.56, this communicant once went to a bar-mitzvah where the rabbi was a young woman. She ran a brilliant service that had the youth enthralled.

Was God mocked?

14 July 2012 at 09:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That's really where the CofE has gone wrong: it hasn't tried hard enough to indoctrinate children, and that failure has a generational impact. Once parents lose interest, it's fairly unlikely that children will develop an interest later in life. The push for faith schools is a last ditch attempt to regain a foothold but it's unlikely to succeed. However, the problem with that is that it enables other religions which socialise religion within the family to limit the scope for independent thought and positive freedom of choice in their children elsewhere.

14 July 2012 at 09:37  
Blogger Albert said...

That's more like it!

How many teenagers in your local Anglican parish church?

I couldn't say, but I know that our local Catholic churches have lots. We all know the gender of the clergy.

Flossie is right, the evidence is that if dads are put off going to church, the effect on their children is serious. If a dad turns up and finds the clergy are women, the congregation are mainly old women and the whole thing is "touchy feely" he won't go again. Then his kids won't go.

This doesn't make ordaining women wrong. It just means that the missiological argument for ordaining women needs to be challenged.

14 July 2012 at 09:40  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

Islamic fathers, Orthodox Jewish Fathers

Well, it's pretty obvious that Islam has a lot of men in it. Orthodox Judaism does too. Although Judaism has key roles for women, it hasn't been feminized.

The religious affiliation of one's father hardly seems to be a sufficient test of the truth or falsity of a religion, does it?

Perhaps not. It depends on the model of rationality one accepts and on the models of rationality one is able to grasp - as one is growing up. But whatever, it does not affect Flossie's point which is that the missological argument for ordaining women is weak.

14 July 2012 at 09:43  
Blogger Just Me said...

God does not get deleted just because men in silly frocs can't get their own way. As we seeing.

14 July 2012 at 09:44  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 July 2012 at 10:13  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Thanks for sharing that salacious little titbit, len. I assume the denomination you're hinting is is Roman Catholic. Here's some things from the States you might be interested in

American insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct insurance to churches since the mid 80s. They do not charge higher rates for Catholics because the bean counters say there is no evidence Catholics offend at a higher rate;

In 2002, the Christian Science Monitor reported that sexual abuse allegations across all churches in the States was running at about 70 per week. Quote, "The Catholics have gotten all the attention from the media, but this problem is even greater with the Protestant churches simply because of their far larger numbers;

In 2009 the New York Times reported that the Orthodox Jewish Community in Brooklyn had for decades been quietly handling a stream of child-abuse allegations in-house in rabbinical courts. In the preceding year (2008) 40 Jewish minors (and remember, we're talking about Brooklyn alone, not the whole of New York, far less the US) reported abuse. Just one, single borough in one single city and 40 minors within one single minority in one single year? Where's the world-wide outcry?

These are just some random figures pulled out of my library, len. I could fill a book with such numbers, but I won't because we both know the real reason the Catholic Church has been singled out on this matter; even though it's no worse and probably considerably better than others, it's the one whose Magisterium will tell you when you're doing something wrong. It won't validate everything you do, and it won't pat you on the back and make you feel good about yourself. That makes us a Church full of hypocrites - and we've always got room for one more, when you're ready

14 July 2012 at 10:14  
Blogger len said...

Thanks for the offer Corrigan but I will pass on that!.

14 July 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger Flossie said...

In 2002 Christian organisation Cost of Conscience commissioned a survey from Christian Research, which some might remember, called 'Mind of Anglicans'. Details of the whole thing can be read here:

http://trushare.com/SURVEY/New%20Survey%20Page%20241003.htm

What emerged from this survey is that the beliefs of women clergy (and their suporters)were consistently weaker – in some cases considerably so - than their male counterparts on the central tenets of the Christian faith. On moral issues too, such as divorce, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality, they (and their supporters) admitted to being much more liberal.

None of this makes for a strong church. DanJo is right. We need to look to strengthening it, not weakening it. Sadly I fear the battle is lost as I don’t think it likely that we will stop ordaining women, and anyone who thinks that women bishops will stem the tide of the push to ordain practising homosexuals is sadly misguided, as the exact opposite is true.

We only have to look to the US to see where that has led - a 35% drop in numbers since 1992.

14 July 2012 at 10:48  
Blogger Flossie said...

Len, I think we have to be careful about smearing the Catholic Church with child abuse accusations. It has been found that other public bodies such as schools and children's homes have a far higher rate of abuse. It has also been proven that most of the minors in the RC child abuse cases were post-pubescent but under the age of 18 - the age of consent as far as the RC Church is concerned - which puts rather a different slant on things, don't you think?

14 July 2012 at 10:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Corrigan and Flossie are right. Let me add a couple of things though. There is a quite proper paradox to the Catholic Church's position on this terrible crime. On the one hand there should be no child-abuse in the Catholic Church. On the other hand, the tragic truth is that child-abuse is a risk in any situation in which adults come into contact with children. It would be arrogant and complacent for us to ignore that.

In the US, where child abuse has been much higher (I believe) than in the UK, an independent report was commissioned from the criminologists John Jay. They found (and Corrigan's insurance figures support this) that Catholic priests, even in the US, abuse at a lower rate than equivalent professionals and at a much lower rate than members of the public. While abuse among Catholic clergy has fallen dramatically, in the general population it has risen.

There are a range of reasons why Catholics get the blame for having less of a problem than other groups. One of them is that as an institution it is much, much bigger than everyone else.

But it's hard to avoid the conclusion that at least some of the outrage is because society wishes to forget its Christian roots. You can't do that without knocking Catholicism - as Corrigan has already shown. So there is something a bit strange about Christians who rejoice in and propagate the sins of the Catholic Church - they are joining forces with those who wish our culture to forget Christianity (quite apart from the fact that it is a disgraceful mis-use of children who have already been abused).

A final thought: most of the abuse is historical. It took place decades ago. The cause according to the John Jay institute was the liberalising of the Catholic Church following Vatican II. That is, it occurred at the time the Church drew back from her authority and drank rather too deeply from the secular and Protestant chalices.

14 July 2012 at 11:15  
Blogger len said...

Albert the reason I commented about the priest(14 July 2012 09:08 ) is because this happened in my local community(brings it home somewhat!.)


Going back to women priests.... there are more scriptures for women to be involved in the Church than against.

God could not have intended to exclude women from spiritual and political leadership. Paul's proclamation of equality (Galatians 3:26-29) and Jesus' willingness to defy convention and accept women into his larger circle of disciples (Luke 8:1-3, 10:38-39) should be the guiding principles rather than the customs of the Roman Empire in the first century. Women took as large a role in the early Church leadership as was allowed by the conventions of that society (Acts 1:12-14, 18:24-26, 21:7-9, Romans 16:1-16), so women today should be able to serve the Church in whatever positions they are qualified for.

(www.twopaths.com/faq_women.htm)

14 July 2012 at 11:23  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

I was recently at a Christian Youth conference where the following statistics were shown

80% of Christians made the decision for Christ before the age of 25. The Modal Group being the range 16 to 20.

A few thoughts

It seems to me that most effort is directed at the 20% not the 80%.

Young people (teenagers) need 20 something role models who are strong Christians in the Church. When you lose these you lose the Church.

Young people are well tuned to pick up on hypocrisy. (We cannot say we believe some bits of the Bible but not others.) Women Bishops are just one aspect.

Young people love a cause to fight for. So give them one. Abortion, homosexuality, whatever, (there is plenty to chose from) get them active give them something to be passionate about (Best still make them angry about evil)

Debate (I did not say lecture) with them and so equip them for the challenges and confrontations of the world

Finally value young people with 80% of the resources --Time and Money --(not 0.8%) then you will get a growing Church.

There are many more but these will do for a start

Phil

14 July 2012 at 11:30  
Blogger Preacher said...

In my experience many Churches have gone for the easy option. Namely Mums & toddlers groups throughout the week. The problem is that there is little or generally no Christian input, so every Sunday the same Church families attend, but only very occasionally do we see new faces from the Mums & toddlers groups.
The services are all very jolly, as we wouldn't want people, especially new visitors to feel challenged as it might scare them off.
The Dads & Lads meanwhile view the Church as somewhere between the W.I & the WRVS (No reflection on these two erstwhile bodies) but the Male of our species sees nothing there to inspire or challenge him to attend. & the Church does little or nothing to reach him or change his views.
Instead it just re-arranges the furniture. sings choruses instead of Hymns & attempts to make itself more user friendly.

The Church needs to reach ALL the people & preach the gospel. We are called to a War against the enemy of Mankind's souls, an enemy that has no rules or scruples, an enemy that makes Pol Pot, Stalin & Hitler look like Boy scouts.
We need to Attack his fortified places, tear down his strongholds & declare that Our God rules.
Only in times of Revival do we see what men led by God's will & His Holy Spirit can accomplish.
History bears mute testimony to the changes wrought in the worst of men.
Men who go on to win & set others free by there faith & fearless witness for Christ.
Will we rise to the challenge? God knows, I don't. The hour is late, I trust God to succeed & bring His Kingdom in. I pray that we will not be ashamed in the day of His judgement.

14 July 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

All you said was that you know a priest who has been arrested. Don't get ahead of yourself: natural justice says he is innocent until proven guilty. All such accusations must be taken with real seriousness, but many are false. He may be innocent. He deserves you to allow that possibility - even if he is a Catholic.

I know a couple of people who were convicted of child-abuse however. Neither was ordained, but both were members of the Anglican laity. Both were involved in their local parish. What conclusion will I draw about the CofE from this? None.

there are more scriptures for women to be involved in the Church than against

No one is denying that women should be involved in the Church. The question is whether women should have what scripture calls "headship" roles. Do you have a view on that?

14 July 2012 at 11:40  
Blogger Philip said...

Excellent!

The ordination of women and women bishops are examples of misguided attempts to make the church seem more in touch with "modern society" (i.e. in touch with metropolitan liberal views more than common culture), rather than seeking to be faithful to God. Of course the stats that Julian Mann quotes show it doesn't work. Rather than obsessing with trying to get women bishops, perhaps the church as a whole should concentrate on preaching the Gospel and being faithful to Biblical truth, as do the churches he mentions which have large numbers of young people.

That the ordination of women has occurred at the same period of time as the influence of feminism (which denies much of the complementarity of men and women) in society must indicate the true reasons for these measures.

Those who attempt to use the Bible to justify the ordination of women often use Galatians 3:28, which says all Christians equally included "in Christ", while the passage that verse in is not about leadership or roles. The passages on gifts such as 1 Corinthians 12 say all Christians are equally important and in the Body of Christ, whatever their roles. This must mean people who are not in leadership and teaching ministries are not lesser members of the Body of Christ... what the Revd Mann says refers.

14 July 2012 at 12:03  
Blogger Flossie said...

Len, I don't think women's ministry should be confused with priesthood. Women have a huge role in the church, which the Sisterhood of WATCH seems to be deeming unworthy. I was privileged to be present at GAFCON in Jerusalmen in 2008, and was tremendously impressed by the Nigerian Mothers' Union contingent - a huge and powerful body of women doing the things women should be doing.

The idea that women should be ordained leaves a number of questions unanswered. For instance, why did God choose to send his son into the world in 1st century Palestine, as it is now? Why not in the current age, when He could have chosen Christina Rees and some of the other ladies of WATCH to be his disciples? Could it be because He knew their lives would be full of privation and hardship, with terrible endings, and He didn't want to put women through that?

It is easy in these relatively comfortable times, in the West anyway, to ignore these matters, but in some parts of the world bishops face enormous challenges and are constantly in fear for their lives. Women are chief nurturers and carers for the family. Could this be at all relevant?

Personally I think wannabe women bishops are letting the side down. Why are they wanting to take men's roles? Do they think men are superior to women?

14 July 2012 at 12:28  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"The religious affiliation of one's father hardly seems to be a sufficient test of the truth or falsity of a religion, does it?"
Truth was not the issue here.
"...no young people spells no future congregations."
Many church attenders start later in life, so the statement is not entirely true.

14 July 2012 at 12:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Sad to say, it’s going to happen. If not this year, then next. They’ll keep chipping away and there it will be. Motion passed. Of course, in the future, there will be ample opportunity to reverse the decision, in the same way a motion questioning WO is regularly debated at synod level…

Women are great compromisers. Out the window go ‘divisive’ issues like sin, opposition to SSM, opposition to sexually active gay clergy, belief in a creator, that kind of thing. All in the name of peace, love and understanding.

And the day will come when Archbishop Cheryl, Sharon, Jade, Kylie, Kelly, Vicky or whomever is lead into Lambeth palace. Her first decrees as ++Canterbury – “Those curtains will have to go. None too keen on seeing that man hanging on a cross on a daily basis either. Ideas please, people…”

14 July 2012 at 12:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Women bishops (and more generally women's ordination) serves as an early marker of a church conforming itself to the world. The external standard of radical egalitarianism is used to norm the Scripture. BUt once you establish that principle, it becomes difficult to stop. The norms of the surrounding world seep in left and right and each demand conformance.

But there is nothing more meaningless and irrelevant than a church conformed to the modern world. That is why they are dying. They become anthropocentirc churches whose true message is "It's the journey, and not the destination. Know that you are good, and find your truth within yourself." Modern people believe that by nature. They don't need a church to tell them that. Even less to justify it.

You can't fix the problems that stem from conformance by adding more conformance. The church by nature stands in opposition to the world around it. If the church becomes the world around it, then it becomes invisible to the world. Who needs it? Who can see it? The message it would present becomes just one more voice in the background saying "Me, too!"

carl

14 July 2012 at 12:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Women bishops (and more generally women's ordination) serves as an early marker of a church conforming itself to the world. The external standard of radical egalitarianism is used to norm the Scripture.

Absolutely excellent comment. It all begins with women's ordination and then moves on to homosexuality (the issues are strangely similar). Where next?

14 July 2012 at 13:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Modern people believe that by nature. They don't need a church to tell them that. Even less to justify it."

Which is why the CofE, sans childhood indoctrination, is dying. Most of us have moved on from being a 'client state' to the various churches.

14 July 2012 at 13:17  
Blogger Henry Hobart said...

You do not have to use the drawing of a clown looking bishop; here is an actual photograph: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2EzEBbtDGmI/SITxaBkCt3I/AAAAAAAABtQ/QfDH7Icc9X8/s400/schori9.jpg

14 July 2012 at 13:39  
Blogger graham wood said...

Perhaps we ought to get back to basics on this issue - i.e. not how any church or denomination views the "ordination" of women, but rather how the New Testament regards the status, gifts, and place of women in ministry.

It is a fact that neither the Gospel narratives nor the recorded words of Jesus ever put restrictions on the ministry of women.

Jesus fully and completely accepted women as his disciples and they accompanied him in his travels with the male disciples (Luke 8:1-3.) These women also supported the mission of Jesus with their own resources.
Moreover, they were also prominent in the mission of the church as recorded in Acts and epistles.

There is AMPLE NT evidence for the ministry of women, and therefore logically if they are spiritually gifted by God as their male counterparts in the body of Christ, then they are entitled to contribute those gifts to the wider church.
For that to occur does not necessarily mean that they should undergo "ordination" as practiced by Anglicans or others, but merely that their rightful place should be recognised.
The criteria then is NT practice and the principle, (already quoted) of that in Galatians 3:28.

14 July 2012 at 14:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

graham wood

That's all nice and everything, but the pastoral epistles lay out the requirements for being an elder and they have every bit as much authority as the Gospels. The Scripture all proceeds from the same source. The words of Jesus are not 'super-Scripture' that take precedence over the words of Paul. The authority of the Gospel of John is neither more nor less than the authority of 1 Timothy.

A woman can't be an elder because the Pastoral epistles specifically prohibit it. Now, eventually, all proponents of WO must get around to explaining why Paul was wrong, or why Paul's instruction doesn't matter today. In so doing they apply an external norm to Scripture. They have decided that their own notion of egalitarianism is the greater imperatives. They presume that women should be leaders on the church, and then import that presumption into Scripture. It's an old story. God must be silenced before man may be heard.

carl

14 July 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

eventually, all proponents of WO must get around to explaining why Paul was wrong, or why Paul's instruction doesn't matter today

Don't leave out the example of Jesus. If we reduce him to a man of his times whose actions can be explained away by his culture, there's not much point in following him at all.

14 July 2012 at 14:12  
Blogger Albert said...

BTW Carl, are you going to continue the discussion on predestination (I wouldn't blame you if you aren't, after you lost your post)? It's just that if you aren't I can stop checking the page.

14 July 2012 at 14:17  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It's got nothing to do with having or not having women clergy.
It all rests on successful Sunday schools and as these are diminishing, is it any wonder that the congregations are dwindling as a consequence too.

When I was little we were sent to Sunday school for 9.30 whether we liked it or not because our parents needed some time alone. But we loved it as it was taken by the same lady that took us for Brownies. She had us doing all sorts of activities related to the Bible then about halfway through we went into the Church service for an hour and a half then back into Sunday school until lunchtime.

Into adulthood most people then carried on going to Church as a way of life is established. That is until Sunday shopping took over, and people started worshipping at the alter of T. K. Max instead.

I don't think women bishops or appeasing youth culture to try and attract them does any good. What we need is a wake up call to find God and Jesus again and a revival of our Christian values that are slipping away.

14 July 2012 at 14:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

True enough, but the Lord Jesus doesn't directly address the issue of women in leadership. And I have never considered "He only called men to be Apostles" to be a particularly strong argument. Nor (obviously) do I accept the whole "Alter Christus" idea. If it were not for Paul's instruction I would not oppose WO.

Paul roots his command in a creation imperative. I believe male headship is founded upon the created differences between men and women. To place women into spiritual leadership thus can only produce dysfunction - which is what we see in churches that practice it.

carl

14 July 2012 at 14:20  
Blogger graham wood said...

Carl. This is too big a subject to enter into detail on this blog, but there has been an intensive reappraisal of the pastoral letters which appear to inhibit female ministry (1 Timothy 2 and 1 Cor 14:34-36. These reveal that the traditional interpretation of these verses is deeply steeped in both prejudice aginst women and entrenched in church tradition - but not supported by the contexts, and open to an entirely different interpretation.
I am not speaking of liberal theologians etc here, but rather a number of theologically conservative writers - not least Jon Zens's : "What's With Paul & Women?", amongst many others in the UK and USA.
Whilst I normally agree with most of your posted comments - not in this case!
Further discuss on this hugely important topic?
grahamwood32@yahoo.co.uk

14 July 2012 at 14:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "It all rests on successful Sunday schools and as these are diminishing [...]"

I went to Sunday School too, you know. :)

14 July 2012 at 14:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

Let's hold that discussion in abeyance. I worked hard on that post, and was very pleased with it when I pressed 'submit.' (That's why I lost it. I was thinking about the post and not about pressing Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C.) The energy it would take for me to re-create it is enormous. And I would still have the image of the lost post causing dissatisfaction. IanCad is right. The second attempt is never as good as the first.

That subject will come up again.

carl

14 July 2012 at 14:32  
Blogger graham wood said...

Carl. I know the feeling well, and the pain of a "lost" post into which a lot of thought and key tapping has gone.
As a matter of course I automatically copy and paste all posts I send on this and other blogs, on the assumption that the gremlins grab them and they disappear. When they do then the precaution is justified.

14 July 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

graham wood

Yes, so do I. But yesterday I was so pleased with myself for the way I had folded, spindled and mutilated my opponent's argument, that I forgot. Until that sickening instant right after you hear the 'click' as the weblog starts trying to post. And then all you can see is "Null Pointer error." You clutch the screen and in futility shout "No! Give it back!" All to no avail.

There is a sermon in there somewhere.

carl

14 July 2012 at 14:47  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

but the Lord Jesus doesn't directly address the issue of women in leadership. And I have never considered "He only called men to be Apostles" to be a particularly strong argument.

I think it rather depends on how it is used. If someone attempts to infer a universal rule from his example, clearly there are problems. However, if someone wishes to say it is God's will for women to be ordained and the only reason they weren't ordained in the past was because of cultural mores, then I think it is very significant. The incarnation does not mean God conspires with what is wrong with his contemporary culture to get some kind of advantage to his message. Believe that (and most supporters of women's ordination do seem to believe something like it) and everything falls.

Don't worry about the predestination thing. Presumably you were predestined to lose it, and nothing you could do could stop that.

14 July 2012 at 14:51  
Blogger Albert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 July 2012 at 14:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I was so pleased with myself for the way I had folded, spindled and mutilated my opponent's argument

Prov 16.18. In any case, I don't think I'd really put an argument, merely a series of contentions.

14 July 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

The incarnation does not mean God conspires with what is wrong with his contemporary culture to get some kind of advantage to his message

Interesting point. It's obvious when you think about it, but it's also something I haven't considered. God requires no advantage because "My sheep hear my voice." And you are right about this characterization:

... most supporters of women's ordination do seem to believe something like it

You are correct to interpret my reaction as relating to the establishment of a universal principle. I had never considered this twist before - mostly because my arguments about WO center on the pastoral epistles. It just never came up.

carl

14 July 2012 at 15:00  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Particularly in the church like the Church of England which claims some sort of apostolic succession, ordination of women moves from being a "second order" issue to a front rank "first order" issue. It comes down to who we say Jesus is. Word of God made flesh full of grace and truth, or not?

Women bishops in the CofE adds the extra spice that, insofar as bishops have to be universal and therefore universally received, the move will undermine any claim the CofE has to rest on the principle of sufficiency of scripture. The ordination of women becomes the only dogma that is actually required of all Anglicans.

It says everything that Anglican clergy in this country are going on record saying they need to make women full and equal bishops or Parliament will over-rule them. Tragic really.

14 July 2012 at 15:36  
Blogger John Magee said...

The only people who believe Anglicanism can survive the current crisus in one piece are those holed up in Lambeth Palace in London. A typical example of the trouble worldwide Anglicanism faces is the inevitable demise Church of England's "child" in North America, the Episcopal Church USA. This arm of Anglicanism has committed it's final act of "churchocide" (my word) at it's annual convention last week at Indianapolis, Indiana. At this meeting of American Epicopal bishops the main topics of debate were endorsing cross dressing clergy, blessing same sex marriage, and acceptance of a transgensered clergy. To recognize "global warming" and to please the green's they took up the church's need to support recycling. The national presiding bishopette, Katherine Jefferts Schori proclaimed at one of the sessions that we all need the "act of crossing boundaries's to become God after which our hands become a sacrament of Mission"... After seeing the disintegrating of their church over the past 40 years one Episcopal diocese in the USA, Pittsburgh, has already left the national church and joined the Anglican Church of South America. Several others are considering doing the same. The New Pittsburgh Anglican diocese has even been rumored to be in the process petitioning Rome to be allowed to return to the Roman Catholic Church if they are permitted to become a member of the Papal approved "Anglican Rite" in the USA which already has several dozen churches in the southern states where there is tradition of Anglicanism going back to the early 1600's . This would mean that for the first time in the history of the Church of England an Anglican diocese would return to Rome with most of it's churches and it's beautiful neo-gothic cathedral as well as 80% of it's members. At least one other Episcopal diocese in the USA, San Joaquin Diocese in California, is considering the same possibility. As a Roman Catholic I can not gloat over the terrible problems that face Anglicanism because my Church faces similar assaults from within by the left and from those who hate it's traditions. Maybe a continued influx of Anglican clergy into the Catholic Church can help solve it's priest abuse problems. Better yet, maybe a maried Anglican clergy in the Anglican Rite can show Rome that we can and must have a married clergy once again.

14 July 2012 at 16:12  
Blogger Preacher said...

Sadly, much of the Church is being infected with New Age teaching & philosophies. The gospel is no longer preached & social concerns replace it.

Jesus is viewed as just a good example, rather than the risen Lord.

The dumbing down of Paul's message, "Jesus Christ & Him Crucified" is seldom heard & a look of fear comes into the eyes of many ministers if the topic of outreach is broached.

In short, in the comfort of many of
our Western congregations we have lost the need for men who are prepared to live & die for Christ. There is no longer any reason to weigh up the possible consequences of becoming a leader, so there is no problem employing women.

The Old Testament showed that women like Deborah were more able than some of the men, so let us not be too quick to decry & denigrate them.
We have simply become wrapped up in straining gnats & swallowing camels. Our rites & customs have begun to smother us & the trees are fast obscuring the woods.

If ordination had never been invented, would we still have the problem? don't forget, We've had to accept some awful men to the offices of the Church.

If we don't get back to the basics, the Christian Church will still survive & overcome. But it will not be in the West, but abroad. Where the saints are still being martyred today & still count it an honour to shed their Blood for the cause of Christ.

14 July 2012 at 17:30  
Blogger Roy said...

I cannot think of the exact references off-hand but in some of his epistles Paul mentions various women who seem to have had a leadership role. One is referred to as an apostle.

A woman who has faith would make a far better minister or bishop than a man who does not. There seem to be quite a few examples of C of E clerics in the latter category. Unfortunately if they were replaced by women it would probably be by women who were similarly lacking in faith.

14 July 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger Flossie said...

OIG, "Of course, in the future, there will be ample opportunity to reverse the decision".

Sadly it will be too late, if it happens (which I don't think it will). If you don't believe in the validity of women bishops then you cannot believe in the validity of any clergy ordained by them, and in just a few generations no-one will know who is validly ordained or not.

John Magee, you missed cat and dog funerals from your list of Episcopal horrors.

14 July 2012 at 17:57  
Blogger Justin Hinchcliffe said...

It's interesting, isn't it, to note the number of female priests/vicars who opposed women becoming Bishops (I am opposed to both)? However, we are were we are - female clergy are here to stay. The Synod WILL, in its wisdom, allow women to become Bishops. The sensible thing now, surely, is to provide provision to those parishes who cannot accept a female Bishop? This way, everyone wins (sort of).

14 July 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
"I went to Sunday School too, you know. :)"

Ooooh! You're a real charachter aren't you just.

Closet Christina more like!

14 July 2012 at 18:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Justin Hinchcliffe

The problem is that one side is proposing accommodation for individuals while the other side is asking for accommodation of theology. Proponents of women bishops are willing to let opponents hang around until retirement since they entered the ministry under the old terms. Proponents are manifestly not willing to see that theology propagated into the next generation. Opponents want assurance that sympathetic leadership will still exist for them into the indefinite future. That is the fundamental disconnect that drives the conflict, and also the reason why a CoP isn't worth the paper on which it is printed.

The ultimate goal of proponents is the extermination of the theology that sustains opposition to WO. That's why I believe this must end in a conservative exodus from the CoE. There is nowhere else for them to go but 'out.'

carl

14 July 2012 at 18:39  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

The sensible thing now, surely, is to provide provision to those parishes who cannot accept a female Bishop?

No, Justin, the sensible thing now is to come home. You know where.

14 July 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Flossie. The Inspector has his good moan about the RCC along with the rest of them. But when it comes to the basics being under threat, we RCs all pull together as one. Very sad to see what is happening to God’s Anglican church in England, but this is what happens when you bare your throat to the so called with-it modernisors. Dreadful display of self accelerated disintegration…

By the way, have you seen link at 13:39 ? Wouldn’t you just kill for an outfit like that. Sod salvation of the soul, it’s going to be a damn fashion war hence forth…

14 July 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

That should have been "Henry Hobart’s link at 13:39 ?"

Most unforgiving this site if you don't close the brackets, don't you find...

14 July 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger John Magee said...

FLOSSIE, Thank you for that interesting reminder.The Episcopal Church USA does have a funeral liturgy for pets: http://www.kingofpeace.org/resources/petfuneralliturgy.htm.
Today I am Roman Catholic, although my paternal spiritual roots are Church of Ireland. Your post reminded that it's too bad our beloved cat Pumpkin died many years ago after I had became Catholic. I now feel guilty she was denied a church funeral and full burial rites in the Anglican Communion. The concept of animal funerals is rediculous. Even so, I think all animals lovers want to believe that cats and all animals are in some special corner of heaven with St Francis of Assisi looking after their welfare. Does that in any way stain me as some sortof a pagan? I hope not.

14 July 2012 at 19:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Roy,

I cannot think of the exact references off-hand but in some of his epistles Paul mentions various women who seem to have had a leadership role. One is referred to as an apostle.

None of the passages concerned is convincing. Remember, no one is saying women can't be ministers (or leaders), it is certain roles that must be fulfilled by men.

The reference to a woman "apostle" is Romans 16.7. The word "apostle" is used in various in the NT - sometimes the meaning is so weak that it isn't even translated as "apostle". There are good reasons internal to the passage to think that Romans 16.7 does not speak of a woman as an apostle in the relevant strong sense. There are also reasons external to the passage to think this too: like the fact that Paul (and therefore scripture) would be blatantly contradictory if it meant apostle in the relevant sense.

I'd be surprised if anyone in the CofE actually based their position on biblical references to women. The ordination of women is a secular moral a priori. The evidence of scripture is utterly irrelevant.

14 July 2012 at 19:24  
Blogger David B said...

@ Albert who said

"There are also reasons external to the passage to think this too: like the fact that Paul (and therefore scripture) would be blatantly contradictory if it meant apostle in the relevant sense."

So how do the various accounts of the claimed events after the crucifixion match up on the blatantly contradictory front?

The accounts of the death of Judas?

Whether the 12 should or should not be barefoot and carry a staff?

I could go on.

And on.

Have Biblical contradictions in the scriptures ever been anything of an obstacle to faith?

Should they be?

David B

14 July 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

Perhaps a year ago, I watched a Polish movie called 'Katyn' about the Katyn Massacre in 1940. I highly recommend that movie btw but be forewarned that it isn't have what you would call happy.

In any case, there is a memorable scene in the movie that occurs just after the Nazi invasion. The Germans demand that all University staff from a university in Krakow must assemble to hear a lecture on German plans for education. The Polish professors prepare to reason with their new masters. They prepare their arguments and plan to present a united front. For surely reason and argument and unity will carry the day. Of course, the Germans simply announce that they are all to be arrested and sent to concentration camps.

If you reject the authority of Scripture, then you are free to provide an alternative. But please, don't suggest something as nebulous and vacuous as human reason. For your reason cannot so much as authoritatively differentiate between the professors in the trains and the Gestapo agents who put them there. At least not without the barrel of a gun to carry the weight of the argument. But then how is your position any different from those whom you would oppose?

carl

14 July 2012 at 22:35  
Blogger David B said...

Carl, human reason has it's limitations, and can sometimes seem deceptively attractive, as I see some people are convinced by Craig and his KCA.

But the argument that the Gestapo used power therefore one should accept scripture does not seem compelling to me.

The existence of of other scriptures that people are clearly prepared to kill and die for leads me somewhat inexorably to the conclusion that not all scriptures can be right, but all if them can be wrong.

The contradictions within scripture give me another reason to reject it as authoritative.

The existence of assorted creation myths in assorted cultures lead me to consider that none of them are authoritative, unless they are consilient with what we could be reasonably said to know, like the age of the universe, the age of the earth, the real reason why there are earthquakes and volcanoes, that life started billions of years ago but humanity, depending how defined, of the order of a million years ago.

Stuff like that, which an allegedly inspired scripture just says nothing about.

And then the whole idea of blood sacrifice for redemption.

Bizarre!

David

14 July 2012 at 22:58  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

But the argument that the Gestapo used power therefore one should accept scripture does not seem compelling to me.

That argument is not compelling. It's not even valid. That's why I didn't make that argument. I simply asked for an alternative authority. Human reason isn't an alternative authority.

You act as if we haven't heard this 'contradiction argument' before, and frankly I have no interest in pursuing it. I simply want to know the alternative you would put in its place. If all you have is yourself, then you really have no alternative at all. That's a viable philosophical position and many people hold to it. They typically just refuse to face the necessary implications.

Like an inability to differentiate between the people in a concentration camp and the guards on the fence line.

carl

14 July 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len said...

"Our local Priest(male) has recent been arrested for crimes involving young boys (Guess the denomination)"

A comment simply beneath contempt!

The glee that must have filled your heart as you made this weasel assault on all Christianity not just Catholicism. No expression of concern for the alleged victims or regard for the possible innocence of the accussed.

You often appear to me to hate what you think is Catholicism more than your professed love of Christ.

Shame on you.

14 July 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacobs... Don't forget that during the occupation of Poland by the Nazi's during WW II all Polish schools and universiities were closed. The Nazi's considered the Poles "subhuman Slavs" who had no need any longer of being educated. That is why the young student Carol Wojtyla, later Pope John Paul II, had to study for the priesthood in Krakow in secret basements and rooms upon pain of death if caught. The Nazi's created Auschwitz in 1940 to carry out their mass slaughter of Polish intellectuals, the professional classes, Catholic Church leadership,and anyone else they imagined would provide possible leadership for their slave state that was Poland. Over 3.5 million Polish Roman Catholics were killed by the Nazi's during their brutal occupation of Poland during WW II. Auschwitz and the other death camps like Treblinka became centers for the mass extermination of as many as 4 million Jews after the Wannsse Conference in Berlin in 1942... As far as Katyn goes. Isn't it a sad coincidence that the Polish President and dozens of high Polish government officials were killed in a plane crash on April 10, 2010 flying to Katyn to a memorial service to commerate the 70th anniversary of the Soviet massacre of over 20,000 Polish Catholic Army officers by Stalin's KGB thugs?

15 July 2012 at 00:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John Magee. Doesn’t it send a shiver down the spine when you consider what godless regimes are capable of. And tonight, we have a man posting, who though himself unable to grasp the idea of creation by design, would risk this same barbarism again by reducing organised Christian religious influence in the UK to that of non existence…

Until later on today chaps. Sweet dreams to all in the meantime...

15 July 2012 at 00:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector and John Magee

God's Law, given at Sina1, and so profoundly summed up by Jesus:

"The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.

And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these."


What other way is there for man to live?

Other religions before and after are shadows and hints of this revelation given by God to the Jews and then perfectly expressed by Our Lord. He commissioned the Church to teach just what it means to love God; to know Him with one's heart, soul and mind; and what loving oneself and one's neighbour entails.

All perfectly reasonable and rational if one is but willing to accept the gift of faith and be joined to Christ.

15 July 2012 at 01:02  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Liberal church or synagogue congregations have run out of ideas to attract kids and teens with gimmicks and "relevant" nonsense. Yet to be tried are dancing girls in the social hall and go-cart racing in the aisles.

Our Orthodox congregations are crawling with kids and teens. The secret to our success is that they have no choice, having accepted the reality just as they have accepted going to school or brushing their teeth. Not being at the Sabbath dinner and getting up early next morning, dressing properly and attending cheerfully with their parents would simply be unthinkable.

15 July 2012 at 05:52  
Blogger David B said...

@ Avi who said

"Our Orthodox congregations are crawling with kids and teens. The secret to our success is that they have no choice, having accepted the reality just as they have accepted going to school or brushing their teeth. Not being at the Sabbath dinner and getting up early next morning, dressing properly and attending cheerfully with their parents would simply be unthinkable."

Could not much the same be said of the Amish, Mormons, Shiites and Sunnis, and many other religious groups all of which cannot be right but all of which might be wrong?

David B

15 July 2012 at 08:17  
Blogger David B said...

Carl, have you considered the possibility that we are on our own, without any ultimate authority?

In which case we have to do the best we can.

@ Inspector and John Magee

Do theocracies have a better record regarding atrocities than other totalitarian regimes?

I think not - look back to the Iran Iraq war, to the Crusades, to the suppression of various suppressions of heretical movements.

David B

15 July 2012 at 08:27  
Blogger sidefall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 July 2012 at 08:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "If you reject the authority of Scripture, then you are free to provide an alternative."

How does that actually help? The authority there is just an assertion and it applies to any claim of a god-given set of rules. Moreover, the set of rules are about as efficious as the UNDHR. We can glorify and rationalise them as we wish but it requires power to enforce them if some people choose to ignore them. Unlike with the UNDHR, the power backing scripture appears to be smoke and mirrors operated by priests. At least, UN power appears now and again rather than relying on distant myth.

15 July 2012 at 08:35  
Blogger Ian S said...

Julian Mann is well-known for his opposition to women in leadership, something I've clashed with him about elsewhere.

My own evangelical anglican church is not one of the "big names" given in this article, yet we have a larger and thriving youth group that does everything from fun and games through to a weekly youth service.

And we have had a number of female curates, and at least two ladies from our church have been ordained. Several of these are now leading their own parishes.

I'm not going to suggest that the two are related, as I don't think teenagers pay much attention to the arguments over women's ordination.

However, once you get to the 20s and 30s, young couples, and families, our experience is that having both male and female clergy is a very positive and healthy aspect of a church.

Some people seem to be suggesting that an egalitarian approach produces decline in a church. There's no evidence whatsoever to support that.

15 July 2012 at 08:59  
Blogger Ian S said...

To people like Carl and Albert who believe that male-only leadership is what the Bible teaches, I'd respectfully suggest you read a few of the following books:

Women in the Church's Ministry: A Test-Case for Biblical Interpretation by RT France

Women and Authority: The Key Biblical Texts by Ian Paul

What's with Paul and Women? Unlocking the Cultural Background to 1 Tim 2 by Jon Zens

How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership (various authors)

Why Not Women? A Fresh Look at Scripture on Women in Missions, Ministry and Leadership by Loren Cunningham

15 July 2012 at 09:12  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"power appears now and again"

That would be why the evangelical wing still manages to actually... evangelise.

15 July 2012 at 10:25  
Blogger Flossie said...

We might think the US Episcopal Church is bad, but just take a look at this:

http://www.herchurch.org/

15 July 2012 at 10:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B.have you considered the possibility that we are on our own, without any ultimate authority?
Well yes. Doesn’t everybody with a mind to think with ? But here’s something. Does it really matter. Our Christian religion has given us so much. Most of all stable government (cf Islamic countries). And coming in a close second is human rights (Cf Communist countries). (…Incidentally, the EU is such a poor show, that it’s even managed to taint the concept of human rights with it’s loose cannon of a court…).
I put it to you Sir, if you are personally unable to believe in a creator, you should assign to this missing deity the mathematical value of little ‘i’, the square root of minus one. Which of course cannot physically be. But we find that little i is essential in the higher realms of mathematics where so much is possible by its theoretical existence….

Do theocracies have a better record regarding atrocities than other totalitarian regimes?
You’ll find that we Christians’ attitude towards non-Christian religions is that of being barely tolerant of them. Or at least that is how they should be seen. That’s how it was in the 19th century. In our eyes, they are false creeds. With that in mind, and the situation today that there are no Christian theocracies, then yes agreed, the answer to your question is ‘No’ and a resounding one at that.

15 July 2012 at 10:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Thank you for that link Flossie. Absolutely off the scale, what !

15 July 2012 at 11:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Women and Leadership. An appreciation…

Women are not capable of real leadership, for to do that effectively, one has to concentrate very deeply on specific issues. Take chess. Did you know there are women grand masters. Yes, it came as surprise to the Inspector too. But, here’s something that did NOT come as a surprise to him – they are only grand masters in the women’s section of the game. They cannot compete on an equal playing field with men. And this despite the fact there are no physical advantages to being a man in the game.
You see, there are far too many things going on in a woman’s mind at any one time to allow her to cast all but one issue aside…
Chin up girls. You can spring forth new life, and nurture it during the essential early years and without peer *. Though of course some effeminate men on this blog might say so can they, on the nurturing side, but we all know the truth of the matter, what ! {KNOWING WINK}

(*. Naturally, when it comes to young boys, the father takes over the child’s development from the age of thirteen, for the classic tutoring to adulthood)

15 July 2012 at 11:28  
Blogger Flossie said...

What cheek! Of course women are capable of leadership. Actually the two ordained women I know personally do a fine job, from all accounts. Among my personal female friends and acquaintances I number a barrister, two head teachers and numerous teachers and solicitors.

The ability, though, for women to be priests, is not the issue. It is not CAN they, but SHOULD they, or - having been 'ordained' ARE they?

I believe they are not, this belief being supported by scripture, tradition and reason. It really bugs me to listen to people discussing the women bishops issue as some sort of career ladder.

Having said that, I do agree OIG that women's brains are wired differently to men's. Our priorities are different too; we operate much more on a personal level. Of course this is a sweeping generalisation - there are many women (like me!) who can see the bigger picture.

15 July 2012 at 12:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Flossie. The finest of women are superb administrators. A chap answers to one in his day job. Excellent gal, can’t fault her. She is also her own secretary. Interestingly her sisters in the flesh are wary of her. You see, she expects of them the same standards she herself works to.

But we are not discussing administration. We are interest in policy making at the highest level…

15 July 2012 at 12:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "That would be why the evangelical wing still manages to actually... evangelise."

Like the Toronto Blessing? Ah, I was hugely interested in that when it was publicised. The internet was in its infancy at that time but I had so many chats on usenet about it. I even went to my local evangelical church to talk to the vicar about it and to ask if I could observe local phenomenon.

15 July 2012 at 12:46  
Blogger IanCad said...

Flossie,

Having lived for several years near Sodom By The Sea I would like to think that nothing could surprise me. This is over the top!
Judging from the pictures of the coven I do wonder if, perhaps, this outfit is the spiritual arm of Dykes On Bikes?

FWIW I've changed my mind on the ordination of women.
Having a niece who is now a vicar of the CofE. I can only say that she and her husband are leading souls to Christ in this dark land of ours. They are spreading the message of the Gospel, offering hope and joy for all who receive it. Their church is growing.
Who are we to question this?

15 July 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

This blog seems to be under the misaprehension that everything was rosy when it was only male priests.
I have made own views elsewhere (http://youthpastablog.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/women-in-church-leadership/) but I do wish that both sides of the argument would be both gracious AND truthful when they reflect and discuss this issue. Just as the argument for "keeping up with society" holds no water, neither does the argument that all was fine when only men led churches. The Church has been having problems in the West for many years, to suggest that women priests are responsible either for the situation as it stands or for not improving it since they became priests is ridiculous.

15 July 2012 at 16:10  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 July 2012 at 16:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Youthpasta. The Church has been having problems in the West for many years,
Could it be the Christian-lite protestant churches just aren’t delivering a spiritual experience ?

That’s what people want you know, to get away from the worries of this world for a bit and contemplate on a higher level. A bit of tradition too, one that stretches back to the time of Christ. You are not going to get that with a lady priest or bishop presiding…

One feels sure you have attended at least one RC service in your life. And your opinion on it was ?

15 July 2012 at 16:54  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Bless you, Inspector, but you're a bit of a div sometimes! Possibly some of the best non-biblical evangelists we're the Wesleys, both very definitely Protestants!
And, just to take full advantage of this glaring open goal you have left me, I should like to point out that the only reason the Catholic Church can claim any numerical progress is due to the influx of Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, and also remind you that the Catholic priests that have committed child abuse did so under a male-led hierarchy from Rome. Your denomination is as messed up as the rest, so stow your pomposity and try to live in the real world!

15 July 2012 at 19:39  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Oh, and last time I checked the Roman church was classified as part of the Church in the West, so you might want to fix either your reading or comprehension.

15 July 2012 at 19:42  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Mr Youth Pasta,

I have read your blog post, which unlike your posts here is quite interesting. I would like to know more about the translation of the texts of Paul's clear (as far as guys like Carl are concerned) injunction against woman Bishops as Pastors, as I didn't feel this was particularly clear or punchy. If you like I can quote the bit I wasn't sure about?

15 July 2012 at 19:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Youthpasta. There was a time when a fellow felt ill, he would seek the services of a physician. What he would NOT do was to look it up in a medical book. After all, these books are written for use by the professional.

Now, in England, there was a time when you did consult the priest. Do you follow so far ? What this man is saying is under Roman Catholicism, you place your trust in the local priest. You see, he’s TRAINED to assist you in your spiritual needs.

Under Anglicanism, not so much. Don’t be surprised if the minister says ,”here’s your bible, read it.” Rather stupid, what ! The Inspector has put in a few mains spurs in his time. He was able to do it. Not everybody can, so they get in an electrician.

So, here we are with you happy to help the flock. What would be your advice be. Consult the bible ? That is why church going is in decline. You prods have denied the priests professional status. Think about it…

Anna. Hi Mr Youth Pasta, I have read your blog post, which unlike your posts here is quite interesting..
We’ll done that girl, you are a scream !

15 July 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger John Magee said...

@David B. Theocracies don't have the monopoly on the mass murder of innocents if they ever had one. Their faults are usually being intolerant and brutal or waging wars int he name of their god. Athiestic Marxism (Communism)set the record record for mass killings in the last century that tops the combined mass murders of recorded history. Coming in second after Mao's China, where at least 100 million were killed or starved to death after the Communists took over that country in 1949, is the former USSR where another 21st century redord for mass murder was set. A conservative estimate is at least 60 million were killed by that evil regime from 1917 until Stalin's death in 1953. The vast majority of those killed in the USSR were Orthodox Christians (along with most of their bishops, priests, monks, and nuns). Why don't we ever hear about the forced famine in the Ukriane that raged from 1931 to 1934 when at least 7 million farmers were forcibly starved to death by the Soviet government because they refused to give up their privately owned farms and forcibly join Soviet collectives?. Then there are the nasty Nazi's (allies of the USSR from 1939 until June 1941)who hated God and worshipped their rediculous pagan Norse deities. We all know their record on mass murder.. 6 million Jews,3 million Polish Roman Catholics, over 22 million Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians, almost 1 million Serbian Orthodox Christians...

15 July 2012 at 20:27  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Hang on, so you don't trust yourself to understand the Bible now, Inspector? You feel that only a priest can truly explain it to you? Ever heard of an angry guy who liked to do a bit of fishing called Peter? He had something to say about priests. Speaking to ALL Christians, I believe his words went something like "you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood", which would suggest that your much vaunted claims to being the One True Church fall flat seeing as how they ignore the teachings of your claimed first pontiff.
If we don't go to the Bible ourselves, how do we know whether the priest is actually speaking the truth?
Mind you, now that I think about it why are you even here? Surely, rather than telling people how things should be (at least in the religiously themed parts), you should be asking your priest to post for you! After all, he's the only one in your church that has any validity to speak on such matters, according to your
argument!

@Anna - Ignoring your rather impertinent start, if you were to include both the parts that you seek clarity on and also which side of the fence you sit on such matters I might be able to better answer your queries. Feel free to comment in my blog, my replies tend to be fairly prompt.

15 July 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger Albert said...

IanS

Some people seem to be suggesting that an egalitarian approach produces decline in a church. There's no evidence whatsoever to support that.

Except for the evidence already given, presumably.

To people like Carl and Albert who believe that male-only leadership is what the Bible teaches

I won't speak for Carl, but I don't think I've expressed a view on male-only leadership. Although Evangelicals typically speak of this question in terms of leadership, the word "leader" is pretty unusual as a name for an office holder in the NT. It doesn't occur at all in the KJV and the RSV gives it only three times - all in the same chapter of Hebrews. Lumping all kinds of ministry together as "leadership" is therefore confusing. No one doubts that women have some kind of ministry. The question is what kind?

Thanks for the reading list. To be honest, I have read far too much pro-women's ordination literature already. Only one book made me change my mind. When I started reading a defence of the idea of women deacons in the early church, I assumed there were women deacons in the early church - in exactly the same ministry as male deacons. By the end of the book, I was convinced I was wrong in that.

Unfortunately, literature trying to defend women in apostolic ministry in the NT and early church is riddled with special pleading. The early writers on this subject said Paul was sexist and therefore had no authority. Then a series of moves were made that made it possible to say the "sexist" Paul wasn't really Paul but someone else. Suddenly Paul became the great authority. This kind of inconsistency abounds in pro-women's ordination literature, because, as I have said, it is an a priori based on secular mores.

15 July 2012 at 20:41  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

@John Magee - Don't forget to add that under Stalin the death toll averaged out at 5 deaths ever 4 minutes. And I don't think that that statistic includes all those who died fighting for the Soviet army during WW2 (or any other fight Stalin might have sent them in to afterwards).

15 July 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger John Magee said...

INSPECTOR Protestantism's fatal disease is division. Since the time of Luther they've divided like a spiritual amoeba into at least 25,000 denominations, sects, and cults that all claim to have the "truth" from the bible. The Catholic Church, Latin and Orthodox, does not have this fatal flaw. Unfortunately the Eastern Orthodox are plagued by nationalism and petty theological disagreements. The tragedy of trendy modern liberal Protestanism is what could have been had they not become obsessed with pleasing everyone and latching onto every passing theological and social fad. Imagine if the Church of England had remained conservative and traditional during and after the crazy era that started in the late 60's. We might have lived to see the eventual unity of the Roman, Orthodox Churches, and the Anglican Church. That can never happen. Another victory for the coming Islamic Caliphate.

15 July 2012 at 20:44  
Blogger Albert said...

Youthpasta

If we don't go to the Bible ourselves, how do we know whether the priest is actually speaking the truth?

If we go to the Bible by ourselves, how do we know our reading is the truth?

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God...So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

So for example, you say:

Ever heard of an angry guy who liked to do a bit of fishing called Peter? He had something to say about priests. Speaking to ALL Christians, I believe his words went something like "you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood"

As far as I can see, your point is that this passage says we are all priests and therefore the Catholic Church is wrong to restrict the priesthood to a few. But the entire people of Israel is called a priesthood, and the OT still restricts the priesthood to a few.

You are confusing the idea that the Church is a priestly people (how can it be anything else when it is the body of Christ?) with the idea of a priestly ministry. You can conflate them, but the Bible does not require us to do so. Your argument therefore fails.

Your argument against the Inspector falls on other grounds - to pick up a reference I made a moment ago, Hebrews tells us:

Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Now how can they do this work joyfully and not sadly if they are always finding the Youth Pasta is spreading disobedience to them?

15 July 2012 at 20:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Youthpasta. The Inspector merely suggests to you that the priest is of equal value to us all as is the physician. Let’s forget for a minute your protestant leanings, and concentrate on empty churches. Or are you that pig headed that empty churches is a small price to pay for you to be proved ‘in the know’.

Now, you say “If we don't go to the Bible ourselves, how do we know whether the priest is actually speaking the truth?”. Well, the same could be same about a physician. If we are not happy with what we hear, we get a second opinion. It happens every day.
We are able to discuss this together because we have high IQs. In the Inspectors case, he believes his to be greater than 125. That puts him in the top 15%, easy. How do you tell someone who can barely read or write, thanks to the UK’s ‘comprehensive’ schooling, that the answers to his problems lie in Luke whatever. The easy answer is you don’t. You help him out personally.

Protestantism has successfully removed the priest from the scene. The physician is still there and so is the dentist. Excellent, our physical ailments are well provided for. Right then, what about our spiritual…

15 July 2012 at 21:00  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

Have Biblical contradictions in the scriptures ever been anything of an obstacle to faith?

Unless one is a fundamentalist, one will not be worried about minor contradictions between different witnesses to the same events. It's quite another matter to imagine one and the same person (Paul) is in self-contradiction over women's ministry. The suggestion is that he said women couldn't hold such ministries while clearly recognising them as hold such ministries. It's humanly possible I suppose, but as it is not required by the texts, it strikes me as being something of an own-goal to assume the contradition.

15 July 2012 at 21:02  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

Do theocracies have a better record regarding atrocities than other totalitarian regimes?

Strangely precise. I would have thought the question is "Have atheists, as a proportion of their numbers killed more people than religious people have killed." I wonder why you didn't ask that question.

But as you've asked the question is the rather precise form you have, I would have thought the answer is obvious: of course theocracies have a better record. Did the 20th Century pass you by or something?

15 July 2012 at 21:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Youthpasta,

Your denomination is as messed up as the rest, so stow your pomposity and try to live in the real world!

That simply isn't true. Yes, there has been the shameful scourge of child-abuse in the Catholic Church, but as has been pointed out already in this very thread, the Catholic Church is no worse than anyone else, no matter how much the sick in mind and spirit have tried to rejoice in it.

The Bible never promises the Church will be free of sin, on the contrary, as St Paul says we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us. But there are certain things the Bible promises, divine things. These the Catholic Church keeps in the unity and truth of his prayer. All other traditions are messed up on things promised by Christ, they therefore point beyond themselves to the true faith.

15 July 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

To have a priesthood, one must have a sacrifice.

As Christ sacrificed Himself once and for all time for all sin, what can be a sacrifice for the removal of sin that requires priests...It is finished!

THE RC Dilemma.

E S Blofeld

15 July 2012 at 21:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John Magee. As a convert to the RC, your opinion is highly valued. Do you not find that the Protestant churches are still protesting ? Now, 450 years after the ‘struggle to be free’ this strikes this Catholic as somewhat odd. Incredibly in the UK, where the process of suppression was so complete at the time, it’s as strong today as it ever was, in the manner of the best advertised toilet tissue.

One would like to give the Protestants the benefit of the doubt. But of course, there is no doubt. They KNOW they are on uncertain ground. Their church attendance proves it. Like the best fancy woman clad in the finest of stockings and the best of amateur application of slap, they NEED the constant reassurance that they are justified in what they are. They don’t anyone following that true hearted Roman woman…

15 July 2012 at 21:31  
Blogger Albert said...

Blofeld

To have a priesthood, one must have a sacrifice. As Christ sacrificed Himself once and for all time for all sin, what can be a sacrifice for the removal of sin that requires priests...It is finished!

THE RC Dilemma.


To mount an argument against Catholic teaching one must first understand Catholic teaching.

THE Blofeld Dilemma.

15 July 2012 at 21:33  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Anna to Youthpasta "unlike your posts here"... could apply to you as well?

15 July 2012 at 21:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld. To have a priesthood, one must have a sacrifice.

Not one of your cat’s finest. How about seeing the priest instead as a shepherd of souls, tending to their spiritual needs, in lieu of Jesus ?

15 July 2012 at 21:49  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

I have to admit this is a stimulating debate. I used to think there was nothing really wrong with women Vicars, till you read the Bible. I have to say it strange that evangelicals like Youth Pasta have to wage war against the gays, using the Bible, yet are silent when it comes to that very same book also saying you shouldn't have women vicars/bishops.


I also think Flossie has a good point- it is not the capability or otherwise of women in general, but whether or not they SHOULD be Priests and CAN be Priests according to the duel tests of scripture and tradition.

Finally I would mention the fact that many women do an excellent role at all levels of the Church- but I am not sure about the career Bishop/Vicar agenda is the right path for the C of E to go down?

15 July 2012 at 21:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Paul Twigg . I have to say it strange that evangelicals like Youth Pasta have to wage war against the gays,
If the Inspector remembers correctly, our man is gay collaborative, as in the best of the Vichy French. Stand by for a collection of stale pastries heading your way…

15 July 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 July 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Paul,

I used to think there was nothing really wrong with women Vicars

Ditto.

I have to say it strange that evangelicals like Youth Pasta have to wage war against the gays, using the Bible, yet are silent when it comes to that very same book also saying you shouldn't have women vicars/bishops

Excellent comment! Speaking as someone who is opposed to both, I find it easier to defend traditional teaching on women's ordination than on homosexuality. I am endlessly surprised by those who are prepared to concede exegetically dodges to permit women's ordination, but then deny those same dodges to homosexuals.

15 July 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

our man is gay collaborative

Really? You mean he doesn't think gay sex is sinful?

15 July 2012 at 22:17  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 July 2012 at 22:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

Not one of your cat’s finest.

Is it me or is Youthpasta saying everyone is a priest, while Blofeld, arguing from exactly the same scripture is saying no one is a priest?

15 July 2012 at 22:20  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@Inspector,
(third time lucky in getting the post correct) :

I stand corrected and apologise to Youth Pasta. I haven't been here for a long while (long story). Of course Youth Pasta can clarify this with a quick post. I took him to be a trendy evangelical, who can twist the Bible to support women priests, but who then who goes into 'literal' mode when disagreeing with gay sexuality- it is the hypocritical nature of the stance between these two tensions which I loath.

15 July 2012 at 22:24  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Or to put in a different way, wot Albert just said.

15 July 2012 at 22:25  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Mr Youth Pasta,

I am sorry for not replying sooner, but I have what is called my 'open sunday evening' which is when any of my friends can come and chat and I cook for them (providing they bring their own booze) but they have to be out by 10.30pm, so I can clean up the flat.

Your blog is wordpress, so in order to make sure you know it is me posting I shall reply to you on this thread. Should be today hopefully.

15 July 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Mr Paul Twigg, can I call you Twiggy?! Such a cool surname. I think Mr Youth Pasta is a bit of an Evangelical, but he is not pro-gay, whatever Mr Inspector tells you.

15 July 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

The Eucharistic Sacrifice and Sacrament

" ... the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said:

'Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.'

In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying:

'This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.'"

(1 Corinthians, 11:23-26)

15 July 2012 at 22:49  
Blogger Flossie said...

In the same way that Mr Youthpasta is accused of tweaking scripture to justify the ordination of women, I think that Mr IanCad is using personal experience (his ordained neice and her husband) to justify it. (It would be just as good, Mr IanCad, if it were the husband ordained). These are tactics used by gay activists - let everybody know what nice guys (and gals) we are, then they will approve of homosexuality. Well, I know lots of gays, coming as I do from a long line of artists and musicians, and they are generally sweeties, but I still know that homosexuality is wrong.

However many ordained women are nice, we cannot buck the facts I produced in my early posts in this thread, that a feminized church is doomed.

If anyone has the stamina to scrutinize the website of WATCH, they will find lots of support for practising homosexual ordinations - unless of course they have deleted these reference for the sake of expediency. I did have a quick butcher's but very soon lost the will to live. They threw in their lot with the Inclusive Church movement some years ago.

15 July 2012 at 23:12  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 July 2012 at 23:15  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@Anna,

I guess I have little choice in the matter? Could you answer my question about nuclear power in the thread below?

Oy,I've been away for a year, and expecting to clash swords or have the wit and wisdom of D Singh, Carl Jacobs, English Viking, Dreadnought, Lord Lavendon, Johnny Rottenborough and that old bird Dodo the Catholic Dude.

What's happened to them?

15 July 2012 at 23:18  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Ah,

At least one familiar face- Dodo, is still posting here I see.

15 July 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Welcome back Paul.

15 July 2012 at 23:34  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Mr Youth Pasta ,

I have an open mind on this issue, but I find it a difficult line to swallow (as Twiggy does) with the ‘Biblical’ evidence being twisted in favour of an argument but the gay rights issue is apparently set in Biblical stone truth.

This is the main bit I want to discuss :

“Well, certainly in letter to Timothy Paul only uses the male pronoun. However given that the Bible tends to use male pronouns widely in areas where it can also be taken to include women I do not find this to be a convincing argument. And given that we, as non-Catholics, do not hold anyone to be infallible I have to take the view that a woman can do the job just as well as a man because she is just as likely to fail as a man.
There are claims also that Paul writes about women by saying that they should not be in leadership. Whilst this is true, Paul is also very clearly not one for hypocrisy. Thus the writings must be seen as writing to a specific time and place. If they were not to speak, teach or lead at all then the above mentioned examples would not have been praised by Paul, which they clearly are. To deny this fact is to deny the Bible’s authenticity, which is something that those arguing from a biblical perspective cannot do as it would remove their argument.”

My questions are :

1.What are these male pronouns and can you please discuss them in further detail- what impact do they have upon the translation and why would they include women? The passages in Timothy (in English) seem quite clear about women being pastors and bishops.

2. Why is St Paul’s writing meant for a specific time and place ? Does this not leave other areas of his writings open to similar charges (re homosexuality and other issues such as his belief in the final salvation of Israel, the nature of the second coming etc). Where are you drawing the line? Should a line be drawn in fact?

You give us names of female apostles , but you don’t explain your argument that because Paul’s is praising them for their deeds, why he has a different view in different letters of the Bible- can you offer an explanation of this apparent contradiction?

3. Biblical Authority- are you not undermining this yourself with the issues raised in point2?

4. You dismiss tradition and culture as being a reason to not let women be Bishops or Pastors and appear to argue for a ‘moving with the times’ argument. Can you not apply this to others, such as gays?

15 July 2012 at 23:43  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Who is this English Viking gentleman? I keep seeing his name being mentioned. Was he a Catholic friend of Dodo's?

15 July 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Twiggy,

Will do. So you are Mr Dodo know each other from the misty past of this blog?

15 July 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

@Anna - Umm, you can post with your name within the comment, surely?

@Inspector - I am sure you will be pleased to know I can't be bothered to reply to your silliness anymore. Suffice it to say I now fully expect you and maybe a few other of the more puerile here to cast aspersions on me based on misquotes and half truths. Not that I care, just saying what I expect of you and your ilk.

@Albert - Regarding the Catholic church being messed up, you quoted me and then proceeded to say exactly the same thing.
And you might want to re-read my posts on subjects before making assumptions based on the Inspector's drivel.

16 July 2012 at 00:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert. These protesting types; anything can come out of their mouths. After all, they study the bible and it seems that they can come to their own conclusion of what it is to be a Christian :- >

Damn glad us RCs are spared that, what !

Paul Twigg. One does not wish to misrepresent Mr Pastry but he does show dissatisfaction with the gay critical drift some threads head off on. Of course, it could be that scripture is not definite on this life threatening practice, or maybe he was ‘preparing’ the way for the equally controversial issue of woman priests and, God help us all, woman bishops…

16 July 2012 at 00:03  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

@Anna - I will reply tomorrow. Sleep time now and busy day tomorrow, so probably late tomorrow evening.

16 July 2012 at 00:09  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Mr Inspector and Twiggy,

You are both referring to Nuclear Fission, which is what all present day nuclear power stations are built for.

In nuclear fission reactions the atoms of uranium 235 or plutonium 239 are split apart to release energy which in turn heatrs water into high pressured steam, which moved a turbine around to create electricity (this is the 'clean' part of nuclear power).

It is the by-product of this reaction that causes the nuclear waste as it is highly radioactive and has to be stored for a very long time (thousands of years).

I was posting in favour of nuclear Fusion- an extremely efficient and clean energy source-in which two fuels are put together to produce energy,which is happening today, 93,000,000 miles away on a thing called The Sun. I will admit that this type of nuclear power has a long way to go, but if successful will provide the UK and the world with a cheap fuel source for a long time to come.

There are of course problems here, but the theory is quite simple- although in practice very difficult to achieve for a long period of time here on earth. I could explain further, but we'd be going into the structure of the atom and Protons, Neutrons and electrons. Plus the fact, I wouldn't want to bore you all senseless!

16 July 2012 at 00:32  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Youth Pasta,

It's because on those Wordpress accounts you just post your comment and paste in your website- you could have anyone claiming to be me (as I don't have a word press account).

16 July 2012 at 00:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anna. It's called 'cold' fusion on planet Earth. At the moment it's only laboratory feasable, if that (?)...

16 July 2012 at 00:47  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Paul Twigg

My day started at 3:45 am this morning and has mostly involved airports. Otherwise it has involved sleeping on the couch in my hotel. I did however manage one short post from my phone while I was in an airport. I guess that makes me officially tech-savvy. Now I must search out and kill some dinner for myself. Probably that Chinese restaurant across the street ...

carl

16 July 2012 at 01:13  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Mr Inspector,

Most forms of fusion are in the lab stage. Cold Fusion is an unconventional form of research, but I am sure you will have know that having read about the Pons and Fleischmann controversy.

16 July 2012 at 01:20  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Carl,

Your posting late or is that early? Are you abroad or just in Kansas? If it's Chinese I would go for hong kong chicken sweet n' sour!

16 July 2012 at 01:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Anna

I ended up in the same time zone. It just took about ten hours to get here, and I don't travel particularly well.

carl

16 July 2012 at 01:56  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

David B said, [Re attendance of kids and teens at services]Could not much the same be said of the Amish, Mormons, Shiites and Sunnis, and many other religious groups all of which cannot be right but all of which might be wrong? (15 July 2012 08:17)

If they are righteous people who do good and honour G-d in their own way, I'm bound to respect their worship, although it would be wrong for me to adopt or participate in it. The righteous of the Nations also have a portion in the World to Come, is the motto. Judaism doesn't seek to convert the world. We're funny that way. And, o, yeah, we are right, of course! :)

16 July 2012 at 02:24  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Anna and Inspector,

Seeing that you are both into alternative energy sources, what are you thoughts on thorium reactors? India and China are pushing ahead with experimental models and our Canadian Candu reactors are apparently easily convertible. Much more promising than fusion, with a realistic estimate of two decades at most, presumably to solve a few mayerials issues, as corrosion of components with molten salt reactors is a bit of a problem as one may well imagine. The upside is that they can cleanly burn and make harmless existing radioactive waste, a good argument for cranking up our nuclear industry with Candu or Candu-like convertible reactors which can feed on the waste for decades.

Personally, I think that all's fine (thorium's available, cleaner and cheaper than uranium) but I'm still a coal, oil and gas kind of a guy. All three have been cleaned up incredibly of chemical and particulate matter pollutants...except for CO2 emissions, whose threat is utter hooey anyway; plants love it. Our world-wide reserves of carbon fuels are stupendous, Africa hasn't started yet (boy do they need it), and the "peak" this-and-that "shortages" are purely regulatory and political for the next millenium at least. My two cents on the subject.

16 July 2012 at 02:50  
Blogger Albert said...

Youthpasta,

Regarding the Catholic church being messed up, you quoted me and then proceeded to say exactly the same thing. And you might want to re-read my posts on subjects before making assumptions based on the Inspector's drivel.

I admitted that humanly speaking the Catholic Church is messed up. But I said that there is a divine aspect to the Church which is not messed up. So I'm only saying the same as you if you deny the divine aspects of the Church - which I don't.

As for believing what the Inspector says, notice I questioned what he said. But it seems reasonable enough to believe the Inspector. Once someone denies biblical teaching on the non-interchangeability of the sexes in ministry, one is likely to deny biblical teaching on the non-interchangeability of the sexes in relationships.

Before you ask: yes I have read your blog-post on the subject. You are making the usual mistake of lumping all ministry together, saying women have some ministerial roles, therefore women can do all ministries. This is wrong as 1 Cor.12 makes clear.

The move that enables you to make this error is that you label all ministry as leadership. As I have pointed out already, this is a mistake in the NT, but it is a particular mistake in your argument because the word does not appear at all in Paul to denote a ministerial meaning.

16 July 2012 at 09:19  
Blogger Albert said...

Flossie & IanCad,

Having a niece who is now a vicar of the CofE. I can only say that she and her husband are leading souls to Christ in this dark land of ours. They are spreading the message of the Gospel, offering hope and joy for all who receive it. Their church is growing. Who are we to question this?

Well, how about the authority of the Anglican divine John Jewel who said:

there was the greatest consent that might be amongst them that
worshipped the golden calf, and among them which with one voice
jointly cried against our Saviour Jesu Christ, ‘Crucify him.’

16 July 2012 at 09:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"To mount an argument against Catholic teaching one must first understand Catholic teaching."

As once said regarding something else scarlet and elusive;

We seek it here,we seek it there,
Those damn tiberian cat-olics seek it everywhere!
Is it knowable? or is not?
WE others don't really give a snot!
It gives the Born Again Christians nothing but frustration
Popping in and out of blogging every day and week!
Spoiling every lovely thread communication
Lol! What derriere cheek!

Blofeld

16 July 2012 at 10:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Blofeld,

Most of the time I don't know what you are talking about (except that you hate Catholicism). Am I right in understanding you here as admitting that when it comes to Catholicism, you don't know what you are talking about (except that you hate Catholicism)?

16 July 2012 at 10:54  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert,

How about the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

Matthew 28:19-20. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world. Amen."

But women may not follow this commission!!

Further, you have the gall to equate the preaching of the Gospel with the worship of the golden calf.
That's a bit rich coming from a Roman Catholic whose symbolism, rites and calendar are all largely inherited from a pagan past.

16 July 2012 at 11:18  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert,

I should have written:

Further, you have the gall to equate the preaching of the Gospel by women with the worship of the golden calf.

Sorry about that.

16 July 2012 at 11:45  
Blogger Albert said...

IanCad,

But women may not follow this commission!!

Of course women can evangelise. The question is, whether that means they can be ordained - or is it your view that only ordained people can preach the gospel?

you have the gall to equate the preaching of the Gospel by women with the worship of the golden calf.

I most certainly did not. I merely point out that Anglican tradition challenges your argumentum ad populum:

Their church is growing. Who are we to question this?

The Bible is supposed to be the touchstone for Anglicans, not popular appeal - as my quotation of John Jewel indicated.

That's a bit rich coming from a Roman Catholic whose symbolism, rites and calendar are all largely inherited from a pagan past.

Rather difficult to answer that, given that it lack specifics. But here's a specific from pagan culture, never found in scripture: women priests.

16 July 2012 at 13:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Blofeld,

Most of the time I don't know what you are talking about (except that you hate Catholicism). (Yawn..Is that really the best you can come up with as a retort? Poor wit and a lack of comprehension it seems!)

Am I right in understanding you here as admitting that when it comes to Catholicism, you don't know what you are talking about (except that you hate Catholicism)?

""To mount an argument against Catholic teaching one must first understand Catholic teaching."" Is it even knowable what this is,as it changes as pressure is played upon it whether it is infallible or not as it suits it and it can only be found within the nonsense spouted by your corrupt popes and papal elected representatives. It is very easy to argue against as it is not found within the Holy Bible and you can see their false precepts being established by historical records over the past 1700+ years bit by bit, error upon error.

The difference between what is happening within the false steps taken by the anglican church is obvious. The analogy being a £6 pound note with mickey mouse's face where Her Majesty's should be whereas the Roman doctrine is so much more subtle and needs examination as it appears acceptable at first glance until you see the head of a woman with 12 stars around it and the signature at the bottom..signed by it's governor...'Lucifer.'

Hate..that's a strong word rather than 'reject' which is Ernst's stance on RC nonsense presented as being Biblical and Spirit inspired.

E S Blofeld

16 July 2012 at 13:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Blofeld,

Is it even knowable what this is

The suggestion that there is a lack of clarity in Catholic teaching is a new one on me. Our teaching is clearly laid out in the Catechism. (Where's yours clearly laid out?) Despite this public clarity, your arguments consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching, and simply spew out centuries old, anti-Catholic prejudicial misunderstandings.

(Yawn..Is that really the best you can come up with as a retort? Poor wit and a lack of comprehension it seems!)

Well it was honest not witty. Most of the time, I genuinely don't know what you mean. The fact that you do not write in normal English and that you misrepresent what you attack does make it rather hard.

whereas the Roman doctrine is so much more subtle and needs examination as it appears acceptable at first glance until you see the head of a woman with 12 stars around it and the signature at the bottom..signed by it's governor...'Lucifer.'

Sorry, are you saying you reject the book of Revelation on the grounds that it was written by Lucifer?

16 July 2012 at 13:23  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Bertie

"The suggestion that there is a lack of clarity in Catholic teaching is a new one on me. Our teaching is clearly laid out in the Catechism"
It claims to have roots within the Old and New Testaments but craftily the Roman Catholic Church does not deny that the Bible is the Word of God, authoritative and reliable. Instead they also assert the authority of Tradition, by which they mean a body of teaching handed down in the Church and particularly safeguarded by the Roman See. Furthermore they assert that only the Papacy has the authority on earth to make statements which have full and binding authority on the faithful Catholics( Catholics used as universal not roman specific).

Thus the Roman Church has created for itself an authority structure which in and by its own terms is unassailable – after all, if you, the Papacy, can make full and biding statements, who within can deny this power without being cast out.

Let us not even go into the error of transubstantiation that led to the faithful being burnt/murdered for this stand against error as kindly listed for us above by Dodo....was Jesus mysteriously transubstantiating whilst breaking bread with the disciples that night? Why would he say it was memorial/commemorative whilst he obviously knew that what you claim is vastly different???

"Despite this public clarity, your arguments consistently misrepresent Catholic teaching, and simply spew out centuries old, anti-Catholic prejudicial misunderstandings." RC's really have issues with being analyzed, do they not.

"The fact that you do not write in normal English and that you misrepresent what you attack does make it rather hard." What's up..no speakie the Queens English? Ernst misrepresents nothing but uses your own sources, not anti- catholic websites. At least wallow in your nonsensical heresies rather than be obtuse old boy.

"Sorry, are you saying you reject the book of Revelation on the grounds that it was written by Lucifer?" ahh bless, you struggle with analogies and their key relevance.

Rev.1
[1] '''The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him''', to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
[2] Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
[3] Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

;o))))))))

E S Blofeld

ps

The Lord is now enshrined in flesh as our kinsman redeemer and He has changed from prior to when He came to earth to redeem us. How can He be in every piece of wafer that your priest lift aloft around the world simultaneously.
This is why the Holy Spirit is here amongst us and He is seated on His Fathers throne in heaven.

16 July 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger John Magee said...

Youth Pasta... I am not good at math. You are probably right. In my post I said it's estimated around 22 million Russian and Ukrainian civilians were slaughtered by the Nazi's. The dates of that Russian/Ukrainian holocaust are from June 21st 1941 when Hitler invaded his former ally the USSR until the last Wehrmacht and SS troops fled west from the USSR in late 1944. Why this Nazi mass murder of the Russians and Ukrainians? In Hitler and Himmler's evil minds They were "subhuman "Slavs and had to "go" to make room for eventual German colonization of Slavic lands in the east for the Greater German Reich.. I guess if you divide 22,000,000 dead by about 1,450 of Nazi occupation of the USSR your 5 deaths every 4 minutes must be accurate and a sobering concept. Add to those figures the 60+ million who were killed under Lenin and Stalin and remember that the vast majority during that era and later during WW II were Orthodox Christians. What you have is the greatest martyrdom of Christians in history which took place in the last century and the history books and cable history documentaries are almost completely silent. They would rather repeat endless programs about UFO's.

16 July 2012 at 14:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst misrepresents nothing but uses your own sources

Except that you are wrong here:

they assert that only the Papacy has the authority on earth to make statements which have full and binding authority on the faithful Catholics

You then say:

Let us not even go into the error of transubstantiation

Saying "the error of transubstantiation" is not an argument, nor is evidence of those who were executed as heretics for not believing it. If it were, then the doctrine of the Trinity would be wrong on the grounds that Calvin was responsible for execution of the anti-Trinitarian, Michael Servetus.

Why would he say it was memorial/commemorative whilst he obviously knew that what you claim is vastly different???

You do not know the ancient meaning of these words, clearly.

you struggle with analogies and their key relevance.

You said this:

the head of a woman with 12 stars around itand the signature at the bottom..signed by it's governor...'Lucifer.'

and the Bible says this:

And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;

16 July 2012 at 14:32  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Anna,

Just read your profile, sorry didn't realise you were an astrophysicist (wtf are langarange points?!),so I guess you know a lot more about the subject than me. What do you think about Avi's suggestion of thorium reactors?

Also Avi does have a point here as crude is also refined into other products such as plastics and polymers? I am not so such about the peak oil, I did read somewhere that there could be water shortage issues in the future, so it could be peak water we're all be talking about soon?

16 July 2012 at 14:34  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Carl Jacobs,

Howdy! Good to see that you are still on the range & your good old gun toot'n Bible belt self.

16 July 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger John Chater said...

Your Grace,

Why on earth should any sensible young person old enough to not be dragged to church by its parents take the dear old CofE serious enough to give up a Sunday morning in bed to attend? I mean really, what does the church have in its corner to compare to a fully charged DS, PlayStation, multi-channel HD TV, movies to order, Internet, texting…


It's not as if it is reliable on all of the God stuff either, what with its revolving door for gays and women. It's odd to tell a five hundred year old organisation to grow up, but the CofE has floundered in the sea of modernism for at least a century, with no real idea what to do with itself. Its Achilles heel is really its complacency – the residual belief that it still remains at the heart of the nation because of its connection to the monarchy and legislature via the Lords. The present Queen holds it all together through sheer force of personality, but can we really imagine King Charles the Vague doing the same? Dwindling congregations are, therefore, perhaps the least of its self-inflicted problems.


Personally, I'm a left-footer (that is, a Catholic) so the woes of the CofE are at least one stage removed. In my church we have a huge number of young people and every year confirm dozens of them in a glorious Mass in the summer. We have a few things going for us of course.


First of all we don't change what we believe according to the mores of fashion – young people like and respect that, even if they pretend not to – the CofE, with its attempts to remain 'relevant' and its propitiation of various liberal pressure groups ends up looking like Churchill's cushion.


Secondly, we have benefited from immigration from Eastern Europe and the Philippines. Thousands of Catholics have come to this country in recent years, to do the jobs the English are too lazy to do. They bring their faith with them, and their higher than average rates of childbirth, so that for the first time in centuries there are more Catholics at church on a Sunday than Anglicans (and many of them children). It is a situation we are keen to develop further.


Lastly, and perhaps most controversially for the liberals hiding in the corner, many young people are conservative by nature. They are not 'right on' about gay rights or inverting the roles of the sexes – again, it comes back to stability. The idea that anyone between the ages of fifteen and nineteen is obsessed with 'equality', sex, protesting and social upheaval is more a fantasy of certain middle-aged liberals than reality. An oft-cited example of the disparity between what young people think and what certain pressure groups and 'spokespeople' say they think can be found in the creepy debate about legalising 'consensual' sexual relationships for children over the age of fourteen. How many fourteen year olds are out marching for the right to have their 'sexuality legitimised' compared to the number of men in too-tight T-shirts doing the same?


So, long may the Anglican march to dissolution continue. In a few years there will be no bishops in the Lords, when Queen Elizabeth is called to her final reward the monarch as the head of the church will be brought to an end (at which point we look forward to Your Grace's defection) and the CofE, marginalised by its own complacency and lack of fight, will be dissolved in the waters of 'equality' (about the same time St Peter of Tatchell is made Archbishop of Canterbury).


My lot, though, should be in clover, especially if current patterns of immigration continue, as well as the exodus of people from Anglicanism who still believe that Christianity has got something to do with God (I know many ex-Anglicans who have seen the light, as happy and charming a new part of the congregation as any). We especially look forward to the time when you give up back our ancient churches (which you are clearly unfit to care for).

16 July 2012 at 14:41  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world ... Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day."

Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ is a divine precept.

"For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever."
(John 6:50)

16 July 2012 at 14:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said,

“Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,

“Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.""

(Matthew 26)

"While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said,

“Take it; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them,

“This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.""

(Mark 14)

"Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying,

“This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying,

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.""

(Luke 22)

16 July 2012 at 14:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Bertie

"'they' assert that only the Papacy has the authority on earth to make statements which have full and binding authority on the faithful Catholics " 'Roman Catholics'. Worried?

"Saying "the error of transubstantiation" is not an argument, nor is evidence of those who were executed as heretics for not believing it. If it were, then the doctrine of the Trinity would be wrong on the grounds that Calvin was responsible for execution of the anti-Trinitarian, Michael Servetus." Desperate??

"Why would he say it was memorial/commemorative whilst he obviously knew that what you claim is vastly different???

You do not know the ancient meaning of these words, clearly." Desperation???

"you struggle with analogies and their key relevance.

You said this:

the head of a woman with 12 stars around itand the signature at the bottom..signed by it's governor...'Lucifer.'"

Also here in Genesis 37..it's real description of who is referred to in Revelation

9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me. 10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth? 11 And his brethren envied him; but his father observed the saying. Utterly desperate beyond measure!!!!

What Ernst was analogizing between the Anglican church and Rome was ..The difference between what is happening within the false steps taken by the Anglican church is obvious.(Whereas understanding guile is needed in viewing Rome's position)...The analogy being a £6 pound note with mickey mouse's face where Her Majesty's should be (glaringly, obviously false!) whereas the Roman doctrine is so much more subtle and needs examination as it appears acceptable at first glance (It is declared a £5 note and seems to have the silver thread running through it) until you see the head of a woman with 12 stars around it and the signature at the bottom..signed by it's governor...'Lucifer.'

E S Blofeld

16 July 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger len said...

Is Jesus here literally advocating cannibalism?.(Dodo`s comment on Communion)

Obviously not!.

So how can we' consume' Jesus?.

Can a wafer and wine literally become the body of Christ?..this would mean that Jesus was sacrificed continually again and again at the whim of a priest?.
Reason(and scripture) states this obviously cannot be true!.

Scripture states;
'But when Christ had offered for all time a SINGLE sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God',(Hebrews 10:12)

So what Jesus was actually saying (in a way even his disciples could not understand because Jesus was explaining spiritual truths (to those who could not grasp spiritual truths) that Jesus would (by the power of the Holy Spirit) indwell those who believed in Him!.

The' Roman version 'of the Communion owes more to Roman paganism (Mithras)than Christianity.

16 July 2012 at 15:06  
Blogger len said...

What 'authority' has the Catholic religious system got?.

None apparently.......... because it follows un- biblical teachings.

Originally the Catholic Church based its authority on the'Donation of Constantine'.When this was found to be a clumsily concocted forgery they(The Catholics) hurriedly scrambled round looking for another source of 'their authority'and grasped the [apparent ] ambiguity of the authority given to Peter.This was the same authority given to ALL believers.

So the Catholic religious system has no authority over anyone!.

16 July 2012 at 15:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

Clear as mud as per usual. No discussion, no evidence, just assertion, ramblings and random biblical passages. So, we're back to the Catholic Church as the antichrist are we?

And, like others, you do not understand Papal infallibility as it relates to the Bishops worldwide, Ecumenical Councils, the Magisterium and rare ex cathedra statements by the Bishop of Rome.

By the way, have you made your mind up yet about predestination? I was so looking forward to learning how both Calvin and Arminius were correct on this and your view it is all tautology.

Then there was the other matter of the souls of aborted children and thooe dying before before being "born again". You never did answer if your understanding of scripture was that they were damned as they had not been baptised into Christ.

You post obscure comments and then disappear ..... So long ..... Until next time .....

16 July 2012 at 15:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

'Roman Catholics'. Worried?

No, that wasn't the error.

Desperate??

Yes, it was your comment!

Regarding the woman with twelve stars. That is how the Bible describes the Church - you say it shows the Church is authored by Lucifer.

16 July 2012 at 15:33  
Blogger CSPB said...

@Paul Twigg
"I did read somewhere that there could be water shortage issues in the future."

Paul: I smell a rat. The same people who complain about water shortages also complain about rising sea levels!
With the death of the global warming/climate change narrative, proponents of world government are finding
the notion “sustainability” an easier sell.

16 July 2012 at 15:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

Your ignorance of Catholicism is astonishing!

Catholics, when they participate in offering the Sacrifice of the Mass believe they are 'outside of time' and actually with Jesus at Calvery. We believe we are rejoining Christ, at the foot of the Cross - not resacrificing Him.

This is pretty basic Catholicism. The celebrant becomes one with Christ in changing the bread and wine into His Body and Blood and this is then both victim and priest as He is offered to His Father. This is one of the many reasons Catholic's object to women priests.

All a bit too 'mystical' for you?

And what utter nonsense the 'Donation of Constantine'! The authority of the Bishop of Rome was recognised long before this forgery which pointed more to secular rather than spiritual authority. Do some proper historical research, please!

The authority of the Church and the Pope is based upon Christ's words:

"That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Conclusive biblical evidence to me and billions of others for millenia until the protestants had to reinterpret it to justify their rebellion against Christ's Church. Even Luther accepted its clear and intended meaning.

16 July 2012 at 15:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Len

Can a wafer and wine literally become the body of Christ?..this would mean that Jesus was sacrificed continually again and again at the whim of a priest?

You also do not understand what you deny.

Originally the Catholic Church based its authority on the'Donation of Constantine'.When this was found to be a clumsily concocted forgery they(The Catholics) hurriedly scrambled round looking for another source of 'their authority'and grasped the [apparent ] ambiguity of the authority given to Peter.This was the same authority given to ALL believers

You are joking! You mean that there is no appeal to Peter before the 4th Century?

16 July 2012 at 15:40  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dodo @ 15:37,


You are like the Energizer Bunny; You just won't quit.
As you have no compunction in repeating the fallacy of Peter being the Rock; then I shall exercise no restaint in the refutation of such nonsense.

Peter is not The Rock. Jesus Christ is. In the Old Testament Christ is identified as The Rock many times. Deut. 32:3-4, 1 Sam. 2:2, 2 Sam. 22:23-32, Isaiah 44:8 are just a few. Peter refers to Christ as The Rock three times; Acts 4:11-12, 1 Peter 2:3-6, 1 Peter 2:7-8. Paul states the same four times; 1 Cor. 10:4, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:19-20, Romans 9-33. Three times Our Lord declares the same; Luke 20:17-18, Matt. 21:42-44, Mark 12:10-11. Peter's tomb is, allegedly, in St. Peter's. Indeed it is the centre of worship. Peter is dead. He did not rise. As the gates of Hell (the grave) shall not prevail against Christ's Church this presents a problem for Rome. Christ has risen from the grave. His Church prevails.
If Jesus had given Peter Apostolic succession the shameful scene at the Last Supper of the disciples bickering over who should be the greatest would have been moot.
It was not until the year 445 that the then pope Leo 1st. promulgated the fallacy of Petrine Inheritance. This was a time of schism and rivalry among the bishops. Thus, Leo claimed for himself lineage from the Apostle.
We must be wary of the stinking puddles of men's traditions

16 July 2012 at 15:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Albert

How is that so many protestants appear so ignorant about the basic teachings of the Church they attack and label 'satanic'? I mean, they throw out false and misleading accusations.

You were once a protestant, is this common or is it just the more extreme fringe?

16 July 2012 at 16:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Iancad

Argue with the Holy Spirit as the author of scripture - not me. And with Jesus Christ too who, whatever term used, and I know you chaps like to squabble over "rock" and "pebble" etc., He clearly commissioned Peter to lead the Church and gave him and the Church authority on earth.

It's all so very clear in the bible.

16 July 2012 at 16:04  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Guys,

I never really knew anyone was that interested in these things! Next we’ll be discussing Trojans!

I hope Mr Inspector enjoy his trip to the nuclear power station.

I think Avi’s suggestion is interesting, but he is concerned with the current practicalities and yes it is true crude oil is required for things other than energy.

I can’t see us having nuclear powered cars in the near future (as fun as that would be - I could just imagine Avi driving at the speed of sound after having a PWR fitted onto his truck rather than a petrol engine!  ).

I am, however, interested in the future energy potential of nuclear fusion, not just for earthly needs, but also for alternative fuels for space exploration. Also, nuclear fusion can in theory generate three to four times the power of a conventional fission reaction and it would only take 25 tonnes of helium 3 (found in moon dust) to power energy hungry America for a year.

The problem with Fusion (be it Deuterium/Helium 3, Deuterium/Deuterium or Deuterium/Tritium) is that in all of these cases the fuels have to heated to a high temperature (causing itself an energy requirement), although it can be done, there hasn’t been a breakthrough enough to make fusion commercially viable. And of course just because there is a challenge in something, does not mean it is not worth doing- otherwise we’d all be stuck in caves still ! Laser Fusion might be an interesting alternative too!

Lagrange points, a mathematical solution (by a Monsieur Lagrange) to the three body problem (how a third small body would orbit around two orbiting larger ones). Monsieur Lagrange discovered five special points that mark positions where the gravitational pull of the two large masses precisely equals the centripetal force required to rotate with them. Or in simpler form Lagrange points are locations in space where gravitational forces and the orbital motion of a body balance each other.

16 July 2012 at 16:16  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

@Ian Cad ,

Dodo's gone nuclear powered now- he'll go on and on...! Till he need re-coring!

16 July 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector General... Liberalism denies reality. Liberalism can't face the truth or the facts. Just like a mentally ill person who denies these things I believe liberalism should today be considered a form of mental illness. If any left wing bleeding heart do-gooder, welfare state, pro abortion, pro gay marriage, religion hating, Islamic Jihadist, anti Western Civilization supporters don't like what I posted. SUE ME!

16 July 2012 at 16:33  
Blogger Albert said...

IanCad,

Peter is not The Rock. Jesus Christ is.

This reading is simply bizarre. Jesus explicitly calls Simon "Rock" and the name sticks - even appearing in Aramaic in Paul. No one who did not already decide they did not what Simon to be Rock would read scripture the way you do. Or is the idea that every time the word "Rock" appears in the NT it refers to Christ? How then will you understand the following:

And some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture.

and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb, and departed.

Is Jesus the cause of the Word of God not flourishing in some because is unfruitful ground? Is the dead Christ buried in Christ?

Peter is dead.

Jesus said: have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, `I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?
He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong."


You go on:

He did not rise. As the gates of Hell (the grave) shall not prevail against Christ's Church this presents a problem for Rome. Christ has risen from the grave. His Church prevails.

This is even more bizarre. Jesus is saying that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church founded on Peter. There's no connection to be made with a claim about Peter not rising.

If Jesus had given Peter Apostolic succession the shameful scene at the Last Supper of the disciples bickering over who should be the greatest would have been moot.

Obviously it wouldn't. The issue is over the nature of greatness in the Church. Is it self-aggrandisement, or the ministry of service:

Jesus said: "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.

Jesus is saying "None of you is great in the sense you mean, but you will be great in the sense I mean." Hence he still speaks of "the leader".

It was not until the year 445 that the then pope Leo 1st. promulgated the fallacy of Petrine Inheritance.

Where do you get all this? Rome made the claim earlier than that. But rather more importantly, other Christians made the claim for Rome from very ancient times. Surely their witness is of more value on your terms.

16 July 2012 at 16:39  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

You were once a protestant, is this common or is it just the more extreme fringe?

It's pretty ubiquitous, I'm afraid, though not actually universal.

16 July 2012 at 16:41  
Blogger Albert said...

IanCad,

What's the use of you complaining about the papacy being as late as 445 (which it wasn't) while believing in women's ordination which stems from...1992, and which you have defended by using arguments your own communion rejects?

16 July 2012 at 16:43  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Dodo,

Just read your post at 15.37 and the mass. I always thought that Catholics believed that the bread and wine did literally become body and blood. But your talking about an out of body experience or 'out of time' ?

Does this mean then, that the Catholic Church and their Priests can time travel to 2,000 years ago? What language do you guys speak when your in that out of time state/trance- English, Latin, Hebrew? Is that correct or have I misunderstood?

Also, if your Pope's are directly descended from Peter, how come they are elected?

16 July 2012 at 16:57  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Also noticed, no word back from Mr Youth Pasta. Better check his blog!

16 July 2012 at 16:58  
Blogger Albert said...

Anna,

I think what Dodo means is that the sacrifice of the Mass just is the sacrifice of Christ made present (not made again).

Popes are not descended from Peter in the sense that the Queen is descended from George VI, but in the sense that the office comes from Peter.

16 July 2012 at 17:01  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

That is how the Bible describes the Church - you say it shows the Church is authored by Lucifer.

12 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: (The sign of Israel as declared by Joseph!)

2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.(The Bride gave birth to her Bridegroom?? Velly intellesting as the chinese say?)

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.(Who or which child is the church/woman trying to stop Satan devouring??)

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.(Ahh. So the virgin bride gave birth to her own Bridegroom..strange??)

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.(Goodness..when did this occur? Please allegorise this for me, my fine bird.))

12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. Did Ernst miss something here??

E S Blofeld

16 July 2012 at 17:28  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Bertie

"I think what Dodo means is that the sacrifice of the Mass just is the sacrifice of Christ made present (not made again)."

Oh, the Thinks You Can Think!
Nonsensical nonsense. Dr Seuss would be so proud and envious of the catechism of Rome.

E S Blofeld

16 July 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert,

To give your last response its due credit will take longer than the time I have available at present.
I do not mean to be discourteous as all the counter arguments that you made are deserving of a full response.
A couple of brief points:
1 Cor. 3:11. "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."
A few verses after Christ speaks of the rock He chastises Peter:
Matt. 16:23. "But He turned and said to Peter, Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."

Anna That explains it.Dodo is nuclear powered. Pehaps Albert runs on Einsteinium. You have a point about Papal elections.

16 July 2012 at 17:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

you say it shows the Church is authored by Lucifer.

That is outrageous. I said no such thing - I said that was entailed by your logic.

The idea that the woman clothed with the sun is the Church is hardly unusual or particularly Catholic. As usual though, I'm not completely clear what your interpretation is. However the passage is read, the sign of the woman clothed with the sun and with twelve stars is clearly a positive image - except in your interpretation.

16 July 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Oh, the Thinks You Can Think!

The limits you put on God Ernst!

16 July 2012 at 18:04  
Blogger Albert said...

Don't worry Ian - there's a lot going on down here!

I think though that your interpretations are too rigid. Obviously, in one sense no one can lay another foundation than Christ. But that does not mean to say that the imagery of foundation must always refer to Christ, even if it makes a passage nonsensical. This is evident from the following:

built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone

Here's Paul again:

I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man's foundation

Speaking of the City of God, St John writes:

the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Will you nullify all these passages just so you can nullify Mat.16? Seems like rather a price to me.

But He turned and said to Peter, Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.

I'm afraid I don't follow. The promise made to Peter was not that he would be sinless. In any case, Jesus says "I will build my Church". The Greek is clear, this is something in the future, it makes no claim for will happen in the next five minutes.

16 July 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Inspector hasn't posted today- I hope he hasn't come down with radiation sickness...

16 July 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger John Magee said...

Anna Albion... You need to look up the Doctrine of Apostolic Succession and Papal Primacy. The concept is easy to understand if you care to take a little time and do some research. The Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy (the Bisop of Rome)is the world's oldest CONTINIOUSLY operating entity with an identifiable structure. I think the Japanese Monarchy is 2nd...

16 July 2012 at 20:21  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi John,

Putting aside the fact that Albert answered my queries, I could trawl the internet.. but who knows what I will find about the Papacy?

Or you could actually take the intellectual leap of using your own view and argument rather than telling me to look up this that and the other and arguments about how the papacy is so old etc ? (Jewish culture, despite people like you and their best efforts is at least 5,000 years old).

16 July 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger John Magee said...

Anna Albion... I mean you no disrespect. But where was Judaism before that magic 5,000 year date you posted? What is the exact date when suddenly God decided a certain tribe were worthy of being recognized as worthy of his guidance and admonitions? What was Judaism like before Moses received the Ten Commandments? Are all humans born before Judaism cursed to eternal darkness because they never knew the one true God? I'd don't know. Does anyone? The oldest religious structure discovered to date is the Gobekli Tepe temple structures in Turkey going back to 12,000 years. Look it up and see how beautiful these simple structures are and what fine carvings of animals it's creators made for their houses of worship. This temple complex predates Stonehenge by 6,000 years and predates primitive Judaism by about 5,000 years. The human beings who built Gobekli Tepe looked exactly like us and had the same intelligence level we have without the advantage of several thousand years of accumulated knowledge. I don't claim to know anything other than Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I leave the details to qualified theologians and professional religious types who's books and writings I can read. I'm just a simple minded Roman Catholic and very contented to be one. But I have gut feeling our religious roots are much more complex and from more diverse roots than we are led to believe. PAX VOBISCUM.

16 July 2012 at 23:02  
Blogger John Chater said...

A few of you rambling here could benefit from a copy of the redoubtable Penny Catechism of the Catholic Church, available from Amazon for the princely sum of 1p, though you may need to dig deep to cover the cost of postage.

16 July 2012 at 23:32  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

@Anna - I did say I'd be delayed due to work. Work went later than expected, so will have to wait some more I'm afraid.

17 July 2012 at 01:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna said ...

"Jewish culture, despite people like you and their best efforts is at least 5,000 years old."

See, you drop these little asides in every now and again. Are you accusing Mr Magee of antisemitism? On what basis?

17 July 2012 at 01:54  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo to Miss Anna: "Are you accusing Mr Magee of antisemitism? On what basis?"

Let me beat Miss Anna to that one, Dodo, I'll try to do it in her pithy style: On the basis that he is an antisemite?

17 July 2012 at 02:53  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector hasn't posted today- I hope he hasn't come down with radiation sickness... (Anna Albion)

Perish the thought! Our dear Inspector can certainly handle a shot or two of the reactor coolant.

17 July 2012 at 03:01  
Blogger John Magee said...

DODO and all Anglicans and Roman Catholics who love our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters... Wednesday July 18, 2012 marks the 94th anniversary of the brutal regicide of the last Tsar of all the Russias, his wife the Tsarina, and their children at Ekaterinburg in Siberia. They were canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1990's and are now known as St Nicholas, St. Alexandria and their children: St. Tatania, St. Olga, St Anastasia, and St Alexis. They were martyrs for their faith along with many members of their family and tens of millions of ordinary Orthodox Christian people as well as thousands of Russian bishops,priests,monks,and nuns all murdered by the Soviets during their 83 year long war on Orthodox Christianty and Eastern Christians in union with Rome in the former USSR. Let no Christian or anyone in the whole world ever forget this holocaust of these Christians in the USSR from 1917 -1991 during the last century under Marxist atheistic Communism in the USSR.

17 July 2012 at 04:06  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Also Avi does have a point here as crude is also refined into other products such as plastics and polymers? I am not so [sure] about the peak oil, I did read somewhere that there could be water shortage issues in the future, so it could be peak water we're all be talking about soon? (Paul Twigg to Anna)

Welcome back, Mr Twigg. About "peak oil," according to the predictions in the 60s, we should we bone dry by now, not to mention in a horrid Malthusian death-spiral with our cupboards all bare, as our current population should not be able to feed itself. And all the nasty chemicals, endless wars, spread of global diseases and pollution should have messed us up too, causing unbelievable extinctions, even our own. Yet here we are; living longer lives than ever, eating better then ever, with more forests than a century ago, and with improving environments. All thanks to petroleum as fuel, manufacturing material and cheap fertilizer. Good points to remember when someone tries to sell you expensive "organic" food, costly and impractical stuff made from "natural" materials or quack remedies based on "ancient wisdoms." People, especially scientists, can be such boring drama queens when they start screetching, "O no, we're all gonna die!!!

Alarmist projections are made on the basis of available technologies, inadequate data and laughably poor modelling. See the Earth-destroying global-warming scam, which was down-graded to catastrophic climate change and is now fizzling into a sustainibility challenge.

We needn't worry about peak oil" because we really haven't scratched the surface regarding discoveries, nor had we reach our peak extraction technologies. And no, in case anyone is wondering, I don't believe in the Russian quack theory of continuously generated abiotic oil somewhere deep in "Mother Earth's" anus.

The water scare is a similar panic without a cause. We are, clearly, awash in water...the issue of course is available potable water in places which cannot currently afford it. we need more of it. But that too is a technological, not a resource-based, challenge. Advanced iltration and desalination processes have been around for a while, the only thing holding us back is energy costs. Or, I should say, a situation where given the technological level we're at and the high capital requirements for increasing energy production and driving down price, monopolistic cartels... all of these have been able to control energy production to maximize profit. That is understandable, but what we have to really watch out for is out-of-controls of governments and bureaucracies which can hold back development, ostensibly for environmental reasons, but in reality, in an attempt to institute a centralised hydraulic civilization, much like ancient Egypt's, based on the anual flooding of the Nile. We are such predictable critters, but just like powerful interests have a tendency to control, limit, manage and regulate, the forces which pull against such things, such as individual liberties, free enterprise and innovation often find ways when and where we least expect it. In conclusion: Do cheer up, vote conservative (note the small "c") and we'll surely bumble through!

17 July 2012 at 04:22  
Blogger len said...

Catholics deny scripture to 'authenticate' their religious system.This is a plain fact .

Surely this is the root of their problem also the reason for the birth of Protestantism.The Reformers were former Catholic Priests who had revelation of the Truth and could no longer follow what they knew was a lie.Many gave their lives for exactly that reason.Thomas Cranmer is an example of one who could not live 'the lie' and chose instead to be martyred for his faith and loved the Truth more than his own life.The Disciples of Christ and countless others followed the same path.IF you love' the lie' more than the truth God will see that you get what you desire.
Catholicism is at best based on the misinterpretation of Scripture(the reason is obvious to all but Catholics), at worst a complete and utter denial of the Authority of Scripture.
Peter himself called' Jesus the rock'on which the Church was built and this totally negates the Catholics false(second false) claim to be the 'one true church'.


Peter himself tells us that Jesus is the "cornerstone", and we(Christians) are also stones resting on the foundation of Christ: "Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." (1 Peter 1:4-6) (Could this be made any clearer! )

Catholics stand on one scripture(which supposedly supports their claim) but negate ALL the others which oppose it......... this is pure hypocrisy!.

17 July 2012 at 08:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Catholics deny scripture to 'authenticate' their religious system.This is a plain fact .

That is not a fact, it is your opinion. It is one, you and I have discussed many times. When you and I have discussed the matter, what happens is that it is your Protestant position that ends up on the ropes. You cite Protestant webpages, which turn out to be unorthodox even by Protestant standards. You use arguments garnered from them which contradict themselves!

The Reformers were former Catholic Priests who had revelation of the Truth and could no longer follow what they knew was a lie.

That's hardly an argument. Can't I just reply that I'm a former Protestant, who gave up Protestantism because I knew it was a lie? What about all those Protestants who became Catholics and were martyred for it by the Protestants because they knew Protestantism was a lie? Does the fact that the NT contains examples of apostasy mean those who left the NT Church knew it was a lie?

We know that Reformers like Martin Luther received a skewed understanding of Catholicism. We know that even while he was breaking with the Church he did not know how to reconcile his teaching with some parts of scripture. We know that former Catholic priests apostatizing disagreed radically with each other over what the Bible said. Consequently, the best interpretation of is that it fulfilled what St Paul said when he wrote: For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings.

Catholics deny scripture to 'authenticate' their religious system.This is a plain fact .

You say this and you then go on to deny that Peter is the rock on which the Church is built, even though you are using the word Peter, which means "rock"! You are denying the scriptures. As for your other references, I have dealt with them already on this thread and received no answer.

Catholicism is at best based on the misinterpretation of Scripture(the reason is obvious to all but Catholics

Well obviously not, for a lot of Protestants become Catholics.

Catholics stand on one scripture

If you really think that, you are ignorant of both Catholicism and scripture. Why do you compromise yourself by giving away such open goals?

17 July 2012 at 09:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Avi, Dodo & Anna,

I haven't been following that discussion very well. What is the evidence that John Magee is an anti-semite? Rather a nasty charge to make if it is made without evidence.

17 July 2012 at 09:20  
Blogger len said...

Albert your defence of the indefensible is just revealing how entrenched you are in your religion.

As I said pure hypocrisy.

17 July 2012 at 09:31  
Blogger len said...

Albert .

You have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire..
I realise that you must defend' your entrenched position, your chosen religion' otherwise you will look 'foolish'.

God will give you your desire if you continue to deny the Truth.

Throughout history, many people have paid supreme prices for truth. Many Old Testament prophets were imprisoned, tortured, and even slain because they stood for the truth. All but one of Jesus' apostles were killed for preaching the true gospel. And surely the greatest example of one who paid the price for truth is Jesus Christ Himself. When asked whether He was the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus affirmed it to be true. And it cost Him His Life. Do you love the truth enough to die for it?

Your choice.

17 July 2012 at 09:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Here we have the situation which has occurred so many times:

1. You launch a gratuitous attack on Cathoicism - ignoring arguments that have already been had.
2. I - or another Catholic - defend Catholicism, usually point by point.
3. You - entirely discourteously - ignore all the arguments and just pronounce yourself the arbiter of truth.

The question is obvious: if your position really is true, why don't you defend it?

And this is the paradox: If your sola scriptura position were true you would be able to defend it. Unlike me when I get stuck, you cannot appeal scripture saying I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me...Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it and then appeal to the teaching authority of the Church. Sola scriptura means you must be able to defend for yourself each and every point.

It's pretty clear, given the subject matter of scripture and the last two quotations, that you cannot do this - nor is it reasonable to expect that you could. Apart from the various passages that explicitly contend against sola scriptura, you have passages like this:

And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ

You see what is being said there? It isn't down to an individual to work it out by himself, it is the whole Church together, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, all together, only in communion, can we come to the unity of the faith.

Therefore, your sola scriptura position is false. And you are yourself a better argument for the falsity of Protestantism than anything I could write.

So if I may make a polite suggestion: don't take us on, unless you are going to be able to defend yourself. All you will demonstrate is the need for a teaching authority if we are to be able to grasp the word of God rather than be tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

17 July 2012 at 10:10  
Blogger len said...

Albert,
You turn Truth upon its head and present it to me as a' fait accompli'
and expect me to 'swallow it' as you obviously have done?.

Catholics and Muslims use the scriptures as their 'authority' and then proceed to deny the truth as revealed in them!.
Your contempt of scripture reveals your true motives and intentions.

'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,2 Timothy 3:16)'(Its a pity you and your fellow religionists do not follow this command and I wonder if you realise it(or not?) that you are' taking on'the Truth and the integrity not of me but the Word of God.
Shame on you!.

17 July 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@Avi,

Thanks for the welcome back. I can't actually disagree with your post. I would add that your last exhortation -to vote conservative is impossible here in the UK, as we simply don't have a Conservative party anymore.

@Anna, 19.55- your intelligent and urbane, so why on earth are you concerned so much about Inspector? Looking through his posts he is basically homophobic, racist & sexist. As for our fine feathered friend, I still see he is trying to pick fights will almost everyone he can. Thought he might have calmed down by now, alas not.

17 July 2012 at 11:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi
"Dodo to Miss Anna: "Are you accusing Mr Magee of antisemitism? On what basis?"

Let me beat Miss Anna to that one, Dodo, I'll try to do it in her pithy style: On the basis that he is an antisemite?"


Yes, no doubt you think so. Actually the word 'think' is a misnomer. Your definition of the term is somewhat all encompasing.

From earlier postings, it is clear you divide the world into supporters and opponents of Israel. Anybody who voices any criticism of your country, even fellow Israelis or co-religionists, is an antisemite.

Could you define the term 'antisemite'?

Anna
An answer from you would be good as opposed to Avi.

17 July 2012 at 11:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Yet another post failing to engage in the arguments, failing to defend your position on the basis of scripture.

There is a reason for this.

17 July 2012 at 11:52  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older