Tuesday, July 10, 2012

This ‘puny’ Bill


‘Puny’ is the word used yesterday by Sir Malcolm Rifkind of Nick Clegg’s proposals to reform the House of Lords. Nicholas Soames said the Bill was a ‘constitutional catastrophe’ that ‘must be defeated at all costs’. As each political big-beast stood like a sturdy oak to crush Clegg’s constitutional dog’s breakfast, up popped the DPM like an Andrex puppy to cock his leg at the centuries of wisdom they represented.

The case for reform is unarguable. It is absurd to have an Upper Chamber heading for 900 members, swelled by a further 100-or-so by each new incoming PM in order to restore the balance of power.

But a Chamber which is 80 per cent elected by PR and 20 per cent appointed by an ‘independent commission’, bequeathing to the LibDems the permanent balance of power, giving ‘Lords’ a single term of 15 years during which period they will be unaccountable and (because they cannot stand again) at liberty to behave as they wish, is such a squalid constitutional affront that one can scarcely believe that it is coming before Parliament under a Conservative Prime Minister.

It may be true that House of Lords reform is the only thing Nick Clegg requested in the Queen’s Speech, but you can’t honourably barter with the Constitution for short-term political expediency. The Coalition may be tested if Cameron were to tell Clegg where to go, but the LibDems are hardly in a position to walk away and demand a general election when their numbers are likely to be halved.

And this profound change to OUR Parliament is being proposed without a referendum. Moreover, the Government is attempting to ram it through on a 10-day guillotine. Where is the scrutiny, the integrity, the moral justification for replacing (in the words of Conor Burns MP) the distinguished captains of industry, retired senior civil servants and military figures, people from the arts and voluntary sectors, diplomats and bishops with a new phalanx of politicians chosen from lists selected by the political parties and their ever-diminishing memberships?

Why should Margaret Thatcher seek to demean herself by taking part in a petty popularity contest in order to retain her peerage? Why would anyone of stature choose to do so? What discernment have the people to determine wisdom and experience, or discern philosophy from celebrity?

This Bill will simply usher in another 400 party placemen, selected by the political elite for preferment on their party lists. Being democratically elected they will, as sure as night follows day, challenge the supremacy of the Commons, and will do so legitimately.

No true Conservative can support this Bill: it is constitutional vandalism. Rumours are that should the Bill fall, the LibDems will wreck the planned boundary changes. Let them. There is no justification for sacrificing the enduring Constitution of the United Kingdom for a Liberal Democrat coalition obsession. Let them dishonour themselves. Let the political pygmy Nick Clegg throw his toys out of his pram, and the baby with the bathwater. But Conservatives must be true to their foundational philosophy to conserve, and mindful of the Burkean principle that reform must be incremental, not revolutionary, in accordance with the customs and mores of the people.

His Grace agrees with the Baroness Boothroyd: “This Bill has not been thought through. I say to the people defying the whip, ‘Good luck to you, you are doing the right thing by your constituents, by your country and by Parliament’.”

Amen.

174 Comments:

Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Your Grace,

Outstanding analysis, Nick Clegg and the Lib Dims are playing with fire- if this goes through there should be a referendum (this proposal would see election via PR- we had a vote on that last time and it got thrown out- no surprise Clegg won't put it to the vote!).

10 July 2012 at 10:21  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
A timely comment on this petty attempt by the DPM. To remove from this country, centuries of tradition and a most noble way of performing Government would be tragic to say the least. It is surely not becoming for a legislative house to behave in such a brawly way as has been the recent case and they want elected representative In both houses.
The number of life peers since Tony Blair took office is incredible. There has to be a better way of selecting Life Peers. Remembering that it is not just an honour, it is meant to provide the maturity of opinion required to create a check and balance to the sometimes hasty House of Commons.
To reduce the present number I would suggest that the Life peers vote for each other, just as the hereditary Peers did, and select no more than four hundred. They, along with the two hundred Hereditary Peers would form an appropriate number to manage the business of the house.

10 July 2012 at 10:34  
Blogger anna anglican said...

I would add that the real reform of the House of Lords should be to abolish the lifer Peers- the political cronies- and restore the hereditary Peers to their proper place in government of this Kingdom.

The Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons of the Lords Temporal have had centuries of experience in helping to defend and rule the UK.

They are not political place men or has been politicians or former EU cronies, the Hereditary Peers would do the job of restraining and advising against ill thought out and rushed legislation, from the House of Commons and screaming Daily Mail headlines, as centuries of past down experience has given them the ability to think in the long term the implications of laws and government of this country.

10 July 2012 at 10:35  
Blogger Albert said...

What? Nothing no attack this morning on General Synod's heroic defence of secular equality as gender interchangeability against that evil minority who seek to maintain biblical polity on the apostolic ministry in the Church of England? Nothing at all condemning the couple of interventions by Parliamentarians seeking to use the power of the state to prohibit adequate provision for those who wish to do what Jesus did?

Is it perhaps that on the issue of women's ordination, Dr Cranmer stands with the secular zeitgeist and the Erastian power of the state against biblical tradition?

10 July 2012 at 10:36  
Blogger graham wood said...

Agree with you Anna. A superb analysis. This exercise is an example of Mr Clegg's overwhelming desire to test his political virility while he has the opportunity!
As all agree, reform there must be, but not by means of filling the sick patient (H of L) with yet more of the same pain killing drugs.

10 July 2012 at 10:39  
Blogger Albert said...

such a squalid constitutional affront that one can scarcely believe that it is coming before Parliament under a Conservative Prime Minister.

Really? Nothing surprises me about this Conservative PM beyond the fact that he still appears taking the place of Jesus Christ in your blasphemous parody of the Creed. Do you still believe all that?

10 July 2012 at 10:43  
Blogger Willie said...

Your Grace
A more reasonable way to reform the Lords might be to form a second electoral college. The hereditaries elect their sitting Peers already so why could not the lifers do the same? The overall numbers could be reduced and thus money would be saved in allowances.
We would be saved from the sight of some of the most useless and overpromoted placemen and women having a say over our governance as a side benefit too.
The Lords Spiritual would maintain their influence too.

10 July 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Clegg is a bully, he threatens that MP's who do not support his bill will not see ministerial positions in the next cabinet reshuffle.

What political vanity !

10 July 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger Berserker said...

I know that I have posted on this before but it does irritate me that in all the media huffing and puffing about how to reform the Upper Chamber no one mentions the Unicameral system. Certainly the Upper House needs reform and I certainly don't understand the 15 year term and of course the LibDems (opportunists all) have the 7 may 21015 etched on their tiny brains. What I am saying is there should be a discussion bringing in the possibility of a single Chamber parliament.

Surely a unicameral legislature would concentrate the minds of voters? After all, Denmark (changed from a bicameral system to unicameral and their Queen still has formal and ceremonial powers) Sweden (merged the two chambers) Luxembourg, Finland, Israel - are not these countries are all doing very nicely?

Denmark rewards some study. The PM can dissolve the Danish Parliament at any time!

10 July 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Dear Anna Anglican,

Quite right. Why does none of them propose reversing the destructive and vindictive Blairite banishment of the hereditary peers and make the life 'peers' elect a couple of hundred of their number to be allowed to sit in the Lords with them.
Clegg is so wrong on all levels, about everything, and venal with it, it is breathtaking.

Let him break up the Coalition - his pointless party will be the loser and so what if we get another Labour government, they should, like looters and vandals, be made to take responsibility for their own mess and clean it up. That would put a stop in Balls's gob.

Then, come 2020, we would be ready for a proper conservative government.

10 July 2012 at 12:45  
Blogger Jon said...

It doesn't look very well thought through, does it?

Anna - I don't share your views on the indefatigable Lords though. Certainly, history shows that they have on several occasions mistaken their own interests for those of the country at large. I don't see what qualifies them to occupy their place in the reviewing chamber other than that one of their ancient relatives provided services to an old monarch, and they've managed to marry their cousins for many generations to keep their ill-gotten fiefdoms together. Hardly fitting for greatness!

There are Hereditary Lords of merit, of course, just as there are appointed Lords of merit, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater!

10 July 2012 at 12:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I must admit, I don't understand why the accident of a man's birth should make him inherently fit to govern. A man should be judged on his character and not on his lineage. There seems to be an assumption that the son of a noble Duke will himself reflect the nobility of his father. And yet he might just as easily consume himself in dissipation. Why then should he take part in governance as if by right? Better to expose your leadership to examination and trial by the citizenry.

Besides. Admit it. Don't you relish the moment when DS Jones finally gets to arrest the scion of some Lord who thinks his title allows him to despise the law? You know you do.

carl
uppity classless colonialist

10 July 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

anna anglican said...
I would add that the real reform of the House of Lords should be to abolish the lifer Peers- the political cronies- and restore the hereditary Peers to their proper place in government of this Kingdom.


If this were ever to happen again the argument would have to be made and won for hereditary over meritocracy, which dominates our individualistic society.

So much would have to change in the hearts and minds of the people and the Lords themselves that I cannot see it as remotely realistic.

However in many ways hereditary does operate in our society, and there's nothing wrong with that. We learn at the feet of our parents in many ways, and often follow in their profession, having a head start over others. So it is for Prince William - he has been in training for kingship since the day he was born, and only because of this will he have the possibility of fulfilling the role.

But these days everyone is expected to start life from scratch, to reinvent the wheel for themselves, without any acknowledgement of advantage from their family, even if in reality there has been considerable advantage. Society needs this advantage, but it is despised and has been steadily eroded until we get people like the advantaged Cleggie rising to power making these ghastly proposals (... even though the house of Lords needs reform.) And his contemporary Cameron is ill-equipped to stand against the tide.

10 July 2012 at 13:51  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Carl,

The simplest reasoning is that those who benefit most from the success of a society have the most interest in its success. Given their hereditary nature, they also need to ensure future success as well as contemporary success. Also, as they are unelected, they need not conform to the political vogue which can include stupid knee-jerk responses to perceived problems. They must justify their position not by appeals like 'I am elected therefore I have a mandate to do what I want'

At the moment we have a political class who are interested only in their career, thus they have to pander to uninformed popular opinion or their masters on the continent (who will gladly employ them once they retire). We have three political parties that are essentially the same and differ only for show, yet still claim democratic mandate to rule. Recently it was claimed that because all parties were committed to Lord's reform that they didn't need a referendum. Surely if all three choices offer the same thing, then that is the time when a referendum is the most necessary.

Constitutional Monarchy is superior to Republicanism and we should keep it.

10 July 2012 at 14:14  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Carl,

I guess you won't be going to the Hamptons then? (:

I would suggest with longevity a Peer would only enter the House of Lords at a more mature age. And I do think that there is a principal for having a chamber which consists of those who sit above the political fray and can legislate without the need to constantly look at elections (isn't that what your Senate is supposed to be like in theory?).

Also the USA that has produced more political dynasties than the British (e.g. Roosevelt,Adams,Kennedy, Bush, Clinton).

10 July 2012 at 14:22  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Carl, Jon and Nicodemus,

I'm also a bit of a romantic. I think it is quite fitting that a nation who has legends such as King Arthur,the round table and heroic knights,such have a house of lords.

It's part of our tradition and heritage- electing a second chamber would just give more jobs to political hacks, who haven't done a real job outside of communications or their degree.

A crony appointed House of Lords is just as bad.

So why not keep our traditions? If the house of lords is so bad, why have a hereditary Monarch and have an appointed Monarchy or an elected President every 15 years.

President Vince Cable any one?

10 July 2012 at 14:34  
Blogger IanCad said...

Carl

Your great republic was, by and large, the result of a meritocratic aristocracy that was endorsed by the voters of the day. The extent of the suffrage was restricted to the male head of household and was thus analagous to our forty shilling freeholder. These electors could be assumed to have the intersts of themsleves and the nation at heart. Likely they were also the best informed of the citizenry.
There was a class that was expected to rule. The notions of honor and integrity were of great importance to their families and thus a curb was put upon any member who was likely to stray.
The Jeffersons, Madisons, and Pinckneys served nobly in the cause of liberty and prosperity. Neither was there much difficulty for a man of humble lineage rising to the top. John Calhoun and Alexander Hamilton are two of such backgrounds.
Your wonderful constitution originally mandated an unelected senate. Wretched populism soon put paid to that.
It is too late to go back to a more rational age. We are saddled with elected pimps and whores and such it will be until it all collapses.

10 July 2012 at 15:39  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hear, hear, Your Grace, a voice in the wilderness, a mich-needed defense of a system that has brought liberty to the world and is now under assault by petty gnats and half-arsed Continentalist revolutionaries in an attempt to drag the world towards a tyranny of little keeners, bureaucrats and their financier cronies

Carl, democracy and populism also need checks and balances and brakes. Hereditary positions and landed gentry represent a continuity, a connection between the past and present. They have self-interests which benefit those beyond their class, beyond fashionable obsessions with temporary or cockamanie issues, beyond welfare subsidies, benefits and entitlements which "someone else" is expected to pay for. Didn't your Andrew Jackson warn against the dangers of pure democracy from a short-sighted, avaricious mob and isn't the Constitution intended to provide similar checks and balances?

10 July 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 July 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger Berserker said...

A bit off topic but -

A plague on both your houses!

Will there be a raging conflagration as in 1834?

The great W M Turner painted the Burning of Parliament from memory in 1835 as he had witnessed it the previous year. (The Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons)

Charles Dickens worked as a teenage reporter for 'The Mirror of Parliament' - verbatim reports on parliament were extremely popular and had huge readerships. By the way, CD got the job through an uncle.

He writes sourly in David Copperfield:

"Night after night, I record predictions that never come to pass, professions that are never fulfilled, explanations that are only meant to mystify,"
"I am sufficiently behind the scenes to know the worth of political life. I am quite an Infidel about it - and shall never be converted."

So there were cast iron Johnnies about even then!

10 July 2012 at 16:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Albert

The silence following your posts is deafening.

I bet if I'd posted same the 'Bish would be there to admonish me along the lines that he writes what he chooses, when he chooses. Plus, one hopes, as a conservative and Anglo-Catholic (I think), he is opposed to women Bishops as being unbiblical.

10 July 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

Yes, the American Constitution provides checks and balances. However it does not use hereditary privilege as a means. There is no necessary conection between the two concepts.

IanCad

I would rather that state legislators still elected senators as well. It was a wise check on the passion of the public. What I struggle with is this. Why should a descendent of James Madison receive privilege in the political system merely because his ancestor was James Madison? This is the essence of hereditary rule. It makes no sense to me at all. The general idea that he would possess "self-interests which benefit those beyond [his] class" seems a convenient fiction.

carl

10 July 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, there may be many connections between the two systems, perhaps even going back to the anti-monarchial (is this a word?) revolution in England, when the Roundheads turned things on their head. To be honest, I'm not well-versed in the history of your nation. Nevertheless, political systems are based on "convenient fictions," myths...in the classical sense of he word...and are all therefore somehat arbitrary. The myth of meritocracy hides the reality of the emergence of new dynasties, and the myth of divinely-inspired and orderly descent obscures the rise of brilliant men and women on their own merit. In the end, it's whatever works.

10 July 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

I don't think Cranmer's an Anglo-catholic. But we shouldn't read too much into Cranmer's silence. He hasn't replied to anything I've written since he misread me as accusing him of being a bigot. In any case, whatever Cranmer's views, the ordination of women bishops thing is such a dog's dinner now that there's nothing he can really say. All are losers (but the Anglo-catholics who convert to Catholicism are also winners).

10 July 2012 at 19:11  
Blogger len said...

Anglo Catholics who convert are not so much' jumping ship'but jumping from the' frying pan into the fire'(to quote a phrase.)
If women Bishops are a 'problem'to some Anglicans then Catholicism has some much weightier( and far more serious) problems to load upon the backs of those' jumping'.

10 July 2012 at 19:51  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 July 2012 at 20:05  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 July 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

I have no intellectual or ideological attachment to the current House of Lords. If anything, I have an emotional attachment to the all-hereditary system, but I acknowledge this in myself as little more than sentiment. However, I am disappointed and saddened by the apparent inability of Mr Clegg to see his own petulant ridiculousness for what it is

10 July 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger len said...

If Anglicans are disillusioned with what is happening within the Anglican Church then there are far better options than 'going Catholic'.

Anglicans have a far better foundation than some of the other denominations and if they returned to their roots(39 articles) and got a proper governing body who stuck with Biblical truth and principles then perhaps they might survive the predatory attacks from within and without.
If the Anglicans are not 'salt and light to an ever darkening World then they surely will be' trampled underfoot'.

10 July 2012 at 20:08  
Blogger len said...

This bill put forward by the Liberals could actually drive a wedge right through the centre of the coalition.

Are there not more pressing matters to be dealing with at this present time?.

10 July 2012 at 20:13  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 July 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

What Anna Anglican said at 10.35

Hereditary peers are the ones who ensure stability & longevity. They are the only ones who have a vested interest in ensuring that the country is left in a better state when they leave this world.

10 July 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

What Anna Anglican said at 10.35

Hereditary peers are the ones who ensure stability & longevity. They are the only ones who have a vested interest in ensuring that the country is left in a better state when they leave this world.

10 July 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Anabaptist has it down. The "emotional attachment" is a key component to the institution, not just a frill, and once the hereditary tradition was altered, it began to lose its relevance. This is what a slow, incremental march towards republicanism looks like.

Methinks I better hurry up and visit Britain before I'm taken on a tour of London in an oxcart to gawk at the House of the Britannic Soviet and the Buckingham Djamiya of the Western Caliphate.

10 July 2012 at 20:53  
Blogger non mouse said...

There is discord here that softer falls that petals from Fleurs du Mal upon the mire.

[With all gratitude and admiration for Milton.]

10 July 2012 at 20:57  
Blogger IanCad said...

Carl

"Why should a descendent of James Madison receive privilege in the political system merely because his ancestor was James Madison?"

Certainly if we could dredge up a descendent of James Madison today he would doubtless be no more or less venal and indolent than any of us. In order for an aristocracy to be of utility it has to be continuous. I'm afraid there is no chance of regaining that happy state at present.
There is no class fit to rule except perhaps the military. They have the discipline, the tradition and a code of honour. They have stepped in many times when civilians are unable to govern themselves. Perhaps they will in the future. And not necessarily in some poor third world land.

Ian

10 July 2012 at 20:58  
Blogger non mouse said...

PS: the foreign (fill in the blank) that wants to wreak this havoc is descended from displaced, malevolent, incompetent eurocrats; he behaves just like them. He wants to remove a system that we have worked out for ourselves and impose the bureacratic system that deposed his own kind kind of aristocrat.

It really is time we told these foreigners where to go. We never should have let them in at all, let alone given the right to rule over us.

10 July 2012 at 21:04  
Blogger non mouse said...

perhaps that should have been 'unkind kind' ...

I really must remember to use the new 'edit' function.

10 July 2012 at 21:06  
Blogger non mouse said...

The House of Lords does not rule. It may, however, serve to limit or delay the effects of ignorance, and/or rampant abuse of power by the kinds of "people" who are ruling us now.

One understands that it is very inconvenient to them, and to their foreign masters. That is exactly why we should retain it.

10 July 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ok, I understand now; this is a conspiracy by the Illuminati or the resurrected Albigensians. I read about a "new edit function" now and then, yet I don't see it and a few timid souls have asked about it only to disappear and return strangely altered. What I would like to ....aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!

10 July 2012 at 21:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Albert said ...

"He (the Bish) hasn't replied to anything I've written since he misread me as accusing him of being a bigot."

Funny that, he responds to my comments precisely because I called him anticatholic and a bigot some while ago. He's kept a close watch on me ever since.

10 July 2012 at 21:46  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, there you are, Dodo. His Grace indeed ignores his little charges until one of us steps out of line and thwack goes the switch on our chubby bottoms or off to a corner with a dunce cap on our duncey heads. How about stamped stars, stickers, notes to the parents saying "Dodo applied himself today"? I like those MSWord diploma print-outs with stuff like certificates for "empathy" or the weekly recycling award. Perhaps His Grace knows about Pavlov's rarely-mentioned experiment that showed how a cattle prod focusses the mind better than a bone and the conditioned response extinction rates are much lower?

Anyway, do you know anything about the edit functions on this blog? I'm sure you were to contact the Vatican...

10 July 2012 at 21:58  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Dodo,

Glad to see your posting. I was worried you'd got lost in the search for Inspector's pussy (cat), who I understand has been sent to Mars.

Thankfully, there will be a NASA probe and scientific lab landing on mars some time in August (hopefully on my birthday!). This will be another small step in exploring the beautiful universe that God has created around us.

(Note to Corrigan 1; the galaxy- one of trillions- is made up of 200 billion Suns and many times that planets - some much bigger than our planet- and El Shaddai gave his Chosen People a strip of land the size of Wales- Message is get over it, you Fascist fecker.)

10 July 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger non mouse said...

Avi --

Click the "preview" function instead of Publish.
Scroll up to look at your draft; click "edit" if you wish to make any corrections on that page. When pleased with your effort, click "publish."


As to "illuminati" etc ... not my type of thing. However, the evil-doers are in plain sight as the enemy manipulators in euroland (esp. sproutland), and as their aristo puppets who pretend to represent us --- in the presently mis-named House of Commons.

10 July 2012 at 22:13  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

A touching note to our lost brother Corrigan, Miss Anglican. A whiff of motherly concern, a tale of the wonders of our vast cosmos with a reminder of our Maker, and all tempered with a touch of tough love to stiffen up the spine of our snivelling little wimp from Éire.

10 July 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thank you non mouse! I knew about that one, and never use it because it involves foresight, care, patience, planning and such. I thought there was an edit function one could access after a posting, such as after sobering up and return of focussed vision.

Didn't imply that you made reference to the mythical Illuminati, btw. The UN and the EU pencil-pushers are far more frightening than a legion of demons, C'thulu, the Old Ones and all such phantasmagoria rolled into one.

10 July 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger non mouse said...

ty, then Avi! You're version of the Enemy is more picturesque than mine:)

10 July 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger Albert said...

If women Bishops are a 'problem'to some Anglicans then Catholicism has some much weightier( and far more serious) problems to load upon the backs of those' jumping'.

Catholicism is certainly a more vigorous and rigorous form of Christianity than Anglicanism is. But that's not a weighty problem - unless you consider taking up your cross and following Jesus to be a weighty problem (which given your doctrine of justification, you probably do! ;-) ).

10 July 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

Funny that, he responds to my comments precisely because I called him anticatholic and a bigot some while ago. He's kept a close watch on me ever since.

May be I should turn up the volume. I know a great deal about being nasty to Protestants. I learnt it all as an Anglican.

10 July 2012 at 22:45  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

After trying to formulate an educated guess as to the meaning of "ty," non mouse, gave up and found it in the Urban Dictionary. The stuff I learn on thi blog. TY!

10 July 2012 at 22:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Ian

There is no class fit to rule except perhaps the military.

GAAGH! No! We don't want it! Apoliticism is the center of military professionalism. It's what gives the serviceman his integrity. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the military together. It's what makes us superior to those contumacious and grasping politicians.

Of course... I have always liked Heinlein's idea of citizenship being tied to military service. Just sayin.

carl

10 July 2012 at 23:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Albert

Noooo, noooo, we Catholics have to show respect to our host. You wouldn't want a 'yellow card' now, would you? You're the voice of reason; keep it that way! Leave the nastiness to others.

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

Albert said ...

" ... (which given your doctrine of justification, you probably do! ;-) )."

Have you fathomed out len's doctrine of justification? For the life of me, I can't. One week he has two souls - one eternally saved, the other wrestling the flesh. The next week being "born again" is a once and for all event assuring salvation. The next week free will and Grace comes into play.

Is there such a doctrine as: "Makest it up as thous goest along the Highway"?

The only constant seems to be his delusion that Catholics follow rules and regualtions and "religion", rather than establishing a relationship with Christ. He also thinks Catholics are chained to the Church through guilt and fear.

10 July 2012 at 23:35  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Carl,

I always knew that you were a Sci-Fi fan. Have you seem the movie Starship troopers? I hope you closed your eyes at the shower scene !

Also what is the difference between a civilian and a Citizen? I could see you now saying those lines.

11 July 2012 at 00:08  
Blogger anna anglican said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 July 2012 at 00:36  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Anna

There is no movie called "Starship Troopers." That movie does not exist. If that movie did exist (which of course it doesn't) then it would be the Worst Movie in the History of Man, an abomination of Robert Heinlein's story, and just cause for the script writer to serve a sentence of 10 years imprisonment for Crimes against Literature. But we don't have to trouble ourselves with these hypotheticals since the movie most assuredly does not exist.

The difference between a citizen and a civilian is that a citizen can vote and therefore gets a say in public policy.

carl

11 July 2012 at 02:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

So I have finished loading the dishwasher - which task my wife blackmailed me into performing since she wouldn't prepare the cherries she bought today until it was done. She's just lucky I didn't invoke the 'obey' clause. All of which is preface to ...

In the end, it's whatever works.

I think "whatever works" must be defined, and I would advance the proposition that "what works" is "that which produces wise leadership." (Understand that I would like to tie wisdom and virtue at the hip.) Solomon asked for wisdom, and was commended for his request. Wisdom is individually possessed and so individuals must be evaluated for the quality. Hereditary entitlements by contrast evaluate the son according to the wisdom of the father. How does this 'work' if the son is a first class fool? No system is perfect because all systems consist of men and men are caught up in sin. But a least a system that requires individual evaluation will 'work' in superior fashion to those systems built upon hereditary entitlement. They have greater capacity to identify and remove fools from leadership. The aristocracy on the other hand has as its first goal its own perpetuation. Yet even the 'dynasties' you mentioned in a meritocracy are limited and short-lived. The fool must eventually stand on his own and is thereby revealed. This is a desirable outcome, is it not?

carl

11 July 2012 at 03:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

The only constant seems to be his delusion that Catholics follow rules and regulations and "religion"

That whole "mortal sin" thing requires you to keep a (completely undefined) portion of the law under penalty of going to hell. If you commit a mortal sin you must avail yourself of the sacraments of the church in order to restore yourself to a state of grace. That's pretty much the definition of "following rules" and doing "religion."

carl

11 July 2012 at 03:19  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I am amazed that Your Grace is still labouring (sic) under the misapprehension that we have any kind of conservative government...

11 July 2012 at 06:57  
Blogger IanCad said...

Carl

I didn't mean to give the impression that I was advocating military rule-- Just commenting on the course of history.
You are so right; the military does garner its integrity from the neutral political stance that it should adopt.
Same goes for the seperation of church and state.

Ian

11 July 2012 at 07:25  
Blogger bluedog said...

anna anglican @ 10.21, this communicant does not believe that a return of the hereditaries is feasible or advisable. There were after all 800 of them and if they did return, what of the current lifers?

Here's an alternative suggestion for you, combining elements of an electoral college as suggested by Willie, with a certain hereditary grouping.

Go to Google and check out 'The Plantagenet Roll', there being an estimated 30,000 living descendants (the current Duchess of Cambridge and her siblings would be in the Mortimer-Percy book).

Now there's an electoral college for you!

11 July 2012 at 08:45  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

The whole bill is a shambles. The benefit to the country of non-partisan Lords refining the work of parliament has been one of the reasons why our system has worked so well in the past.
Whilst I would be in favour of some tinkering (reduce numbers to 600, a third elected on PR, a third hereditary and a third from all walks of life, including a slightly reduced Lords Spiritual, and with representatives from the other faiths in Britain included) to give as wide a scope of knowledge as possible and to ensure that no political party can claim a majority in the House of Lords, this bill seeks to tear the very fabric of our system apart, gut it and then patch it back together again. All that will be left us a hollow husk that will fail to work as intended!

11 July 2012 at 09:08  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Your Grace,

Everyone can see that there are really good alternatives to the status quote and what Clegg is proposing- if your communicants can see it, why can't the government?

11 July 2012 at 10:34  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Carl

I shall have to remind myself not to start calling you Sgt. Zim !

11 July 2012 at 10:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Your Grace. Capital news , what !

Telegram boy arrived early this morning with the glad tidings. Absolutely topper. One hasn't felt this way since Mafeking...

(...from the wilds of England...)

11 July 2012 at 10:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Noooo, noooo, we Catholics have to show respect to our host. You wouldn't want a 'yellow card' now, would you?

Don't worry Dodo. I was only teasing. There's no reason why Cranmer should reply to me.

Nevertheless, it's hard sometimes not to comment on the strange choices of things he write about.

11 July 2012 at 10:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

That's pretty much the definition of "following rules" and doing "religion."

I assume you mean this as some kind of condemnation, as if "religion" and "following rules" are opposed to Christianity. Personally, I would rather trust Jesus who said:

"If you love me, keep my commandments"

and scripture which says:

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Although I'm never really clear on whether you Protestants kept that bit in or not.So here's another passage which ties in with mortal sin:

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people.

11 July 2012 at 11:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Now behave yourself and leave the natives be.

Keep us posted on your adventures and especially if you manage to breakthrough the Pink News ban.

11 July 2012 at 11:05  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

Have you fathomed out len's doctrine of justification? For the life of me, I can't.

Probably not. The problem for most Protestants is that they don't see that they core of the Protestant doctrine was double predestination and a denial of free-will. Once you admit free-will, you've really got a Catholic doctrine.

I suspect someone like Carl bites the bullet on this a la Calvin.

11 July 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, a friendly bird replies. Inspector keeping head down and not making himself too obvious. Have received news that Scotland Yard have dispatched two armed detectives by Scots express to bring him in. Something to do with ‘conspiracy to enlighten a gay blog site’…

Will write a book on the experience one day, working title ‘The 39 homophobic posts’…

11 July 2012 at 11:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

The problem for most Protestants is that they don't see that they core of the Protestant doctrine was double predestination and a denial of free-will.

When most people use the phrase 'free will' they mean Libertaruan will - freedom without contingency. Only God has that kind of freedom. Man's free will is contingent upon God's Providence.

Once you admit free-will, you've really got a Catholic doctrine.

Technically, you have got a weak adaptation of semi-pelagianism. The purpose of which is to place the ultimate decision of man's destiny within the confines of the creature's will. But that doesn't address my comment about mortal sin - which flat out requires you to keep (parts of) the law in order to be saved. And the remedy for mortal sin is an appeal to the sacraments of the RCC.

You can't avoid this by quoting Scriptures that have nothing to do with the topic.

carl

11 July 2012 at 13:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

my comment about mortal sin - which flat out requires you to keep (parts of) the law in order to be saved.

Of course you have to keep parts of the law in order to be saved. For example:

"You shall not commit adultery."

As St Paul says: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

One who commits such sins needs recourse to the Church's "ministry of reconciliation". After all, our Lord said:

If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.

You write:

You can't avoid this by quoting Scriptures that have nothing to do with the topic.

My quotations related to your comment about rules and religion.

Technically, you have got a weak adaptation of semi-pelagianism.

It's a little difficult to deal with that accusation given that you are referring to free-will and you have just denied one doctrine of free-will without giving the doctrine of free-will you mean.

The purpose of which is to place the ultimate decision of man's destiny within the confines of the creature's will.

No, the purpose of speaking of free-will is to maintain what scripture says when it denies universalism while teaching:

God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all

11 July 2012 at 13:37  
Blogger len said...

Albert,
The problem with most Catholics is that they try to justify themselves through their' good works', of course they add lip service to the' Grace of God'and make at least some of the right noises regarding theology but basically they are working for their salvation. This makes Catholics on the same level as any other religion.

Catholicism is definitely 'another Gospel' which Paul spoke of but because it mixes truth and error in equal measure it is an extremely dangerous and toxic mixture.

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

Albert , you seem to be making all the' right noises' regarding your religion but do you know what the Catholic Church teaches regarding Christ being the only mediator between man and God and His rival for the position namely the Pope?.

"We the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, humbly offer you our warmest congratulations on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of your ordination to the priesthood… our thoughts go back to that great event fifty years ago by which your Holiness was taken from amongst men and appointed for men in the things that pertain to God, was made a minister of Christ and a dispenser of His mysteries, received power over the real and mystical body of our Saviour and became a mediator between God and man - another Christ." Address to Pope Pius Xll in 1949:-

11 July 2012 at 18:22  
Blogger len said...

Jesus warned of many false Christ`s who would come in the latter times, the Pope apparently by the remarks made about him by his own Church ..appears to be one of these' false Christ's'.

11 July 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger len said...

Albert, How am I justified?. Well the Bible spells this out quite clearly.I am surprised that anyone could have even asked this question because this is basic Christianity.

1. "Forgiven" (Ephesians 1:7; 1 John 1:9, 2:12; Colossians 1:14, 2:13)

2. "Righteous" (Romans 1:17; 3:21-25; 4:1-6; 5:17)

3. "Children Of God" (Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26) We've become "adopted" (Ephesians 1:5) by God.

4. "Saved" (Ephesians 2:8)

5. "Born-Again" a Peter 1:2) we are "new creations"! (2 Corinthians 5:17)

6. "Redeemed" a Peter 1:18; Ephesians 1:7)

7. "Justified" (Romans 5:1)

(Of course this assumes that one is born again, because if not you have to be your own saviour which is why I compared Catholicism to any or all other religions where you have to be your' own saviour'.As God`s standard for a saviour is sinless perfection I see all attempts at saving oneself as utterly futile.

11 July 2012 at 18:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

What nonsense you write about Catholicism. Back on the Pope as antichrist, now I see. You have no understanding of the quotes you randomly post or what they actually signify.

Why not leave the discussion to two people who at least know what they are talking about and have clear and worked out theological positions?

I am interested to learn about the issue of free will as seen by a Calvinist, even if you're not.

11 July 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo.You have no understanding of the quotes you randomly post or what they actually signify.

I say old bird, you have that bounder Len figured out, what !

11 July 2012 at 20:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Psssstttt Inspector ... have you infiltrated the pinkies yet? Are you posting with a new ID?
Tread cautiously.

11 July 2012 at 22:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl said ...

"When most people use the phrase 'free will' they mean Libertaruan will - freedom without contingency. Only God has that kind of freedom. Man's free will is contingent upon God's Providence."

hat does this actually mean?

Did Adam use his free will, meaning he had the capacity to say "no", or not?

Catholics describe it as "Adam's Happy Fault" because it was God's plan to bring humanity intothe Godhead through Christ. However, wasn't the exercise of Adam's will independent? He knew what he was doing and had the inner resources to refuse. Not "contingent" but known.

Was Mary's consent to carry the child Jesus a voluntary act which she could have refused? Was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ an exercise of free will? What was the Garden of Gethsemane about, if not? The action of Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate and the mob? All free actions or all contingent, determined by circumstances and by God's Will?

Catholic's would say these are all freely chosen actions some rejecting moral good and God's desire despite the ability todo otherwise, and others prompted by Grace through the Holy Spirit and acted upon.

11 July 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Psssstttt Inspector ... have you infiltrated the pinkies yet? Are you posting with a new ID?
Tread cautiously."

You mean: how's the trolling of another forum going?

12 July 2012 at 07:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

The problem with most Catholics is that they try to justify themselves through their' good works', of course they add lip service to the' Grace of God'and make at least some of the right noises regarding theology but basically they are working for their salvation. This makes Catholics on the same level as any other religion.

As far as I can see, you are replying here to my quotation of our Lord: "If you love me, keep my commandments." Perhaps your complaint should be directed at him. But whether it is, or not, you will understand that I accede to his authority, rather than yours.

In the meantime, why don't you address the issue I raised with Carl: free-will and double predestination. Where do you stand on all that?

12 July 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert

Free will, Predestination, Original Sin, Etenally burning Hell, Sunday Worship, State of the Dead, Petrine Inheritance.

I have had the privilege of disputing with you on a couple of these issues in the recent past. It would be wonderful if a thresd were developed for the debate of each of these controversies.
Always, it seems, that when anything pertaining to the above is discussed it is at the tail end of an unrelated thread that has been hijacked. I must admit I have been guilty myself, on occasion, of this breach of protocol.

12 July 2012 at 12:54  
Blogger Albert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 July 2012 at 13:31  
Blogger anna anglican said...

What is Petrine Inheritance?

12 July 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I was watching the ESPYs last night. I had never bothered to watch them before and I probably won't again. I have never seen an award show with awards possessing less integrity. Fan-voting simply cannot produce legitimate results. Anyways...

Albert

Double Predestination is just a scarey way of saying "The Doctrine of Election." It troubles me not at all. But I suspect you knew that. :)

carl

12 July 2012 at 13:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Ian,

I must admit I have been guilty myself, on occasion, of this breach of protocol.

Protocol? Whose protocol? Where do these things come from?

12 July 2012 at 13:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Before I answer, let me preface me response with a question. Please tell me. Could Pilate have released the Lord Jesus - a man he knew to be innocent? Note I am not asking you if he had the authority to release him. I want to know if Pilate could in fact have released him. Was it a possible outcome of that day in 27AD?

carl

12 July 2012 at 13:41  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Double Predestination is just a scarey way of saying "The Doctrine of Election."

No it isn't. It is the form of election that sits most uneasily with the passages of scripture I quoted before. In all seriousness, why don't you respond to my charge that it isn't biblical?

It troubles me not at all.

That's odd, Calvin described it as "dreadful [horribile] indeed."

12 July 2012 at 13:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Let me seek some more clarification. If Pilate wasn't able to release Jesus, what was stopping him?

12 July 2012 at 13:47  
Blogger IanCad said...

Anna

The notion that the authority of the Pope is inherited from Peter.

Albert

You have a point. Maybe it's OK to change the subject of a thread.
HG, has always been most tolerant on this issue and to my knowledge has never chastised his flock for straying.
Let the thread blow where it listeth, so to speak.

12 July 2012 at 13:48  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Carl,

"I have never seen an award show with awards possessing less integrity. Fan-voting simply cannot produce legitimate results"

A possible argument about rampant democracy perhaps (re the theme of this post)? Or perhaps the vote should not include fans?

Anyway, I think I've braved the cold Cornish water long enough and I'm going to get dry (been surfing in the rain...never had so much fun!).

12 July 2012 at 14:02  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Ian,

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't realise there had been other threads put up, better go and read them too.

Re Carl's question- very good one and needs thinking about. Perhaps Pilate could have said no, but he (Pilate) was a weak man who got scarred by a group mob mentality on one hand (very strange for a Roman of his position)and the politics of revolt on the other, but that's why he did what he did.

12 July 2012 at 14:08  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

If Pilate wasn't able to release Jesus, what was stopping him?

It's a little after 8am and I have to go to work. But the short answer would be 'the power and will of God.' I will get back to this on my lunch hour.

carl

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

Carl,

Expectans expectavi

12 July 2012 at 15:22  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo and Corrigan. Bless you two for all the flak you endure here. Henry VIII's national church can never equal or copy the universality or theological and historical prestige of the Universal Church of Rome. All the flowery rhetoric, fine writing skills, as well bloviating and Catholophobic (new word?) swipes here by a supposed Canadian rabbi lorry driver of the Universal Church of Rome with the 265th bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter as it's head, can never change this fundamental spiritual and historical fact. My roots are Church of Ireland. Thankfully my father married a Roman Catholic Czech and I was blessed to be born back home in the true Church of my brother and sister Celtic Catholics in Ireland and all over the world. I love my Anglican spiritual brothers and sisters and biological Anglican family but where will they be someday when the monarchy ends and there is no longer a need or a reason to have a national church? How can they still remain in a national church that from it's inception never had a vetebral column? For their spiritual loyality to Canterbury good Anglicans must put up with never ending trendy nonsense such as priestesses, bishopettes, and gay "marriage". Not to mention left wing social justice causes which the above article is but one example. Because of the C of E's obsession with pleasing everyone and standing for everything they have lost all chances of unity with Rome and the Orthodox Churches. Very sad indeed.

12 July 2012 at 15:35  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@John Magee,

You don't like the 'flak' against Catholicism, but I think that there can be 'legitimate criticism' of The Church of Rome, without being called anti-catholic?

In any case Dodo and Al give Carl, Len, Ernsty as good as they get. Just like Danjo does with all of them of the gay rights issues.

12 July 2012 at 16:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John Magee: "Bless you two for all the flak you endure here."

John, the only reason Dodo is here is because he loves conflict. He doesn't endure it, he craves the bloody thing.

12 July 2012 at 17:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

The whole Double Predestination/Single Predestination debate interests me about as much as the Infralapsarianism/Supralapsarianismdebate. God chooses a people for Himself, and in so choosing He passes over others. Is the act of 'passing over' an implicit act of pre-destination? The answer does not change reality. It doesn't change the nature of God. Either way, Pharoah was still a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction.

carl

12 July 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

As it is written:

... for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. Acts 4:27-28

It could not be clearer. Pilate would never have released Jesus. If Pilate had done so, he would have frustrated the hand and plan of God. He would have subverted what God had beforehand predestined to take place. God was not sitting in heaven crossing His fingers and hoping that Pilate would do what was necessary. Remember that God chose a people in Christ before he laid the foundation of the world. The Cross was not Plan B to Adams' failure. The Cross was the only plan from the very beginning.

But this presents a problem does it not? Why then does God find fault? For after all, Jesus said to Pilate:

“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” John 19:11

So Pilate sinned, and yet Pilate did exactly what God had predestined to happen. That's an active verb. It's not like He "looked down the corridors of time" and played better chess moves then men. The things that happened occured because God actively intended them to occur. We should not be surprised at this because what man intends for evil, God intends for good.

But I haven't answered my own question. Why then does God find fault? If Pilate sinned, then he freely chose to sin. But how could he freely choose if the outcome was ordained?

The answer is found in an unstated assumption about the nature of choice. Men tend to assume that a valid choice must of necessity contain at least two possible outcomes. In other words, we assume that Pilate's choice is invalid unless there is some finite probability that he could have chosen the contrary path. The point seems obvious, but is it?

We know that Jesus was perfect man, and that He was exactly like his brothers in every way except that He did not sin. He possesses the exact same human will that I do. He was tempted in exactly the same way that I am. He lived the life I was supposed to live so that He might be a fit High Priest. The difference of course is that He did not sin. He could never sin. It was not in his nature to sin. So then, were His choices to resist temptation valid choices? They did not contain the possibility of a contrary outcome. Did he therefore make a free choice to obey the Father? Yes. Otherwise it could not be characterized as obedience. Was there any finite probability that He could have sinned? No. Otherwise, He could not be perfect man. There was only one possible outcome in his free choice and that was to obey. If thse things were not true, we would have to assert that Jesus is not exactly like His brothers and so is not a fit High Priest.

Again we may consider the redeemed man in heaven. This is the man who is freed from the bondage of sin, and so can never sin again. He has the peace with God that can never again break out into open warfare. He will henceforth only obey because it is his nature to obey, and yet he will obey according to free choice. If we deny this we must assert that the redeemed man is less human than the sinful man.

Pilate sinned by condemning a man he knew to be innocent. His was a free choice, but he would never have made another. He could not have made another lest he frustrate the Word God - the very Word that God watches closely to make sure it is fulfilled. Pilate's free choice was constrained by the ordained will of God. Like Pharoah before him. Like the brothers of Joseph before him. As it is written "You intended it for evil, but God intended it for good." Men do exactly what God by His power and will has already predestined.

carl

12 July 2012 at 19:06  
Blogger len said...

The only person who truly has free Will is God Himself.

Albert is throwing in these' high sounding religious phrases' which some pretend to understand but no one really does.Smoke and mirrors with no substance..again.

God`s plan of salvation is really very simple ..you need a religious organisation to help you misunderstand it(Catholicism has done a' real job' on the gospel I do not seriously think any Catholic can possible understand all the bends and twists in the ever evolving' Catholic mystery religion.

The bottom line is man cannot possible comply with what God wants from man(however hard man tries to be 'good').Man if honest with himself) will realise what God asks from man is impossible for man to provide.Only God can supply the nature that is able to satisfy God.

Works based'Religion is a 'treadmill' always asking for a better performance 'Just try that bit harder'put in a bit more effort,religion is a 'crutch 'for those who do not trust Christ enough to throw away the crutch .


So what is the answer?. God needs to put His Spirit into man to enable man to understand and to communicate with God.This is the holy Spirit dwelling within the human Spirit .This brings about a re-birth, a re- alignment within man.
Religious practices cannot change man only(if he is honest) make him painfully aware of his shortcomings.

Man cannot change himself(however hard he tries) only God can bring about the change within the spirit and the personality of a man to enable complete and lasting change.

Ezekiel 36:26 >>

'I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh'.

12 July 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger IanCad said...

Joshua 24:15.

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

So we can choose. Free will!?

There is a difference between Predestination and the Foreknowledge of God.
If we do not have Free will, then is God the author of evil? We know He isn't and cannot be. Thus we have Free will.
Does God know the end from the beginning?

Revalation 1:8

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,
which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

12 July 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

IanCad: "Thus we have Free will."

Or, of course, reality is not what you think it is regarding god.

12 July 2012 at 21:06  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

The whole Double Predestination/Single Predestination debate interests me about as much as the Infralapsarianism/Supralapsarianismdebate

That's a bit odd, for surely this is the heart of Protestant thought? Luther denied human free-will because he denied all creaturely free-will. Calvin taught double-predestination, together with limited atonement to maintain the sovereignty of God. For them, anything less was pelagianism (or a version thereof). So this can hardly be a side issue: deny that God predestines some to hell and you deny the Protestant "Gospel" - you become a Catholic. That was my original contention. Nothing you have said has challenged that.

God chooses a people for Himself, and in so choosing He passes over others. Is the act of 'passing over' an implicit act of pre-destination?

It's interesting that even you have dressed that up to look more like Aquinas or Augustine and less like Calvin, but clearly you believe in limited atonement.

And this of course is a problem, for a complaint that can be made to Aquinas and Augustine is that in their doctrine of predestination, they run up against passages like 2 Pet.3.9:

The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

and in case there is any doubt:

God our Saviour, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

...passages that (to use your language) could not be clearer. But if Aquinas and Augustine are in difficulties, then how much more Calvin and those of you who follow limited atonement?

With regard to Acts 4.28, you say it could not be clearer. Actually, quite apart from the fact that the Greek construction is (I think) unique to this verse, it is less clear than all that - as your own explanation shows.

You have given two examples of people who act freely even though there is no possible alternative to their acting. But both of these are of those who see and know the good and can attain it. Put the matter another way, a man who acts freely by grace is in a quite different position vis a vis God's causality than one who acts according to sin. It is exactly this difference that you need to clarify.

At the moment you simply agree with Augustine and Aquinas - your position looks (formally at least) Catholic. The logic and the scripture you cite fall short of your Protestant doctrine, and you have not shown how that doctrine is consistent with the two passages I have given in this post.

12 July 2012 at 21:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

I'm finding your attention-seeking in this discussion a bit creepy.

12 July 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

The bottom line is man cannot possible comply with what God wants from man(however hard man tries to be 'good').Man if honest with himself) will realise what God asks from man is impossible for man to provide.Only God can supply the nature that is able to satisfy God.

Spoken like a true Catholic!

Albert is throwing in these' high sounding religious phrases'...Smoke and mirrors with no substance..again.

I can't see that I am. All the technical terminology has come from Carl. Is it Smoke and mirrors with no substance..again when coming from Carl?

12 July 2012 at 21:18  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Albert,

I think Danjo is missing his sparring partners Dodo and Inspector (who seems to be trawling through gay websites- why?- he has plenty of nice men to argue with here!(:

12 July 2012 at 21:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good evening Anna. Inspector here. Have abandoned plan to wreak bloody revenge on pinkies. Honest man that he is, he refuses to post under a different name, and they were waiting in the bushes for him. One understands they were ‘dogging’ so to speak…

12 July 2012 at 23:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna
I coming to view you as a sweet young woman but one who needs to follow the flow of threads a bit closer. What's the Petrine inheritance, for goodness sake!

I think what is being discussed is central to our faith. I am reading it and not contributing.

As for DanJ0, he's a nuisance one has to tolerate much like len.

Btw
Was I predestined to post this or did I do it threough free will and am responsible?

13 July 2012 at 01:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Albert: "I'm finding your attention-seeking in this discussion a bit creepy."

You really can't help yourself can you, you weirdo? As I said a long time ago, you're a man for whom "no" is simply not an acceptable response to your behaviour. You seem to find it unacceptable that someone tries to ignore you and post around you. In my case, you try all sorts of stuff to try to force engagement, from writing stupid logical errors in response to my comments, to writing outrageous descriptions of what I believe. Yet I still ignore you for the most part. But look, here you are again echoing my words to you to try to force another reply. This aspect of your personality is not going to be limited to online stuff either. It's core, I'd say. In fact, I bet you have a history of being rather over-focused on people in real life, and probably a reputation for it too amongst certain people around you. I've met one or two people like you before in real life, hence my ongoing reaction; people who try to control others to get themselves off. You actually disgust me as well as really, really creep me out, you vile, creepy old man. You honestly make my skin crawl.

13 July 2012 at 07:18  
Blogger Albert said...

You have no sense of irony or humour do you Danjo? I was not trying to elicit a response from you. In fact, I'm slightly surprised you've bothered to reply at all.

When I reply to your posts it is because you are attacking something I believe or a freedom that I currently hold. You expect to say what you like and then control the responses.

BTW the last time you wrote a response, like this one, attacking my personality off-line, it had to be removed because it was too disturbing.

13 July 2012 at 08:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As far as I am concerned,there's no humour in any of this between you and me. I'm deadly serious. Of course, all that is an ideal payload to someone with a pathology like yours. No wonder you're attracted to the Catholic Church, it provides institutional cover for creepy people like you.

13 July 2012 at 09:57  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Hi Dodo,

I call it being polite- some of your female buddies take it a different way (presumably because all she thinks about is sex?).

I dislike how threads can be hi-jacked by people throwing abuse around. Why say anything more serious when that happens?

The thread was about the House of Lords. It's not my fault it got onto a tangent I don't know every single dogma about the RCC.

Do we have free will or does God want us to be toy robots? If we didn't have free will, why aren't we all in the garden of Eden, all loving each other and chatting to God, when he pops by?

13 July 2012 at 10:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

I just lost an hour's worth of work responding to you. I am angry at myself right now because I didn't copy my post before the browser ate it. I will re-create it later.

Please be patient.

On the bright side, my keyboard is still intact.

carl

13 July 2012 at 13:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Oh dear Carl.

Thank you for the effort - I've had that problem myself before, and it is very frustrating. Don't feel under any obligation to write it all up again if you're feeling more like you want to throw your machine out of the window!

P.S. Have you tried refreshing the page? I am surprised by how often it retains the post.

13 July 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

(Part 1)

If you can exegete Acts 4:27-28 then please do so. Understand however that I personally know a man who teaches koine Greek, who preaches from the NA27 text, and who was a technical consultant for the translation of the NASB. The argument I made is the argument he would make. That does not make him right or wrong. But it does mean that I can confidently ignore assertions like this:

With regard to Acts 4.28, you say it could not be clearer. Actually, quite apart from the fact that the Greek construction is (I think) unique to this verse,

btw, if you do try to exegete Acts 4:27-28, please understand that I am going to immediately ask you for the infallible interpretation of the verse as provided by the infallible interpreter of Scripture - the RCC. Oh, and I already know that no such infallible interpretation exists.

carl

13 July 2012 at 14:06  
Blogger IanCad said...

And you know what? The rewrite will never be as good as the original.
If it's going to be a long post Wordpad is the only way.

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

Carl,

But it does mean that I can confidently ignore assertions like this:

Well, I did begin by putting it in a kind of parenthesis. But I still find your approach odd. Surely, the NT uses language in new and different ways. We normally try to get to the nuances by comparing the usage. This is hardly something you should ignore.

13 July 2012 at 14:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

All Albert did was gently poke fun at you. Good on him; you deserved it.

All you've done on this thread is launch personal and nasty attacks on the Inspector, Albert and myself. You wait for us to comeback at you. If we don't you manufacture an "attack" as an excuse to tryto draw us into acrimonious disputes.

Have you no self awareness or is this a deliberate tactic in your strategy to discredit objections to your single issue cause?

Only 'creepy old men', 'repressed homosexuals' or 'troll faux Catholics' could possibly not accept your sheer brilliance in logic and concede defeat in the presence of genius.

You poor thing. What will you do now we've seen through your forum chess strategy?

13 July 2012 at 21:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo, don’t be TOO hard on the boy. After all, he has a handicap to bear, which he has yet to do in good grace. Though behold, he wishes to project this handicap onto a society which of course doesn’t care whether he is a homosexual or not…

The Inspector admits he was rather annoyed that the boy considers him a repressed homosexual. After all, he has never been given a reason to come to this conclusion. But of course, he did not come to it. He merely deludes himself, as he must. When you are a liberal gay, it appears you must delude yourself on many issues. The stark truth that his sexual deviancies are tolerated, not celebrated, would make the average gay Joe count his blessings. Not this lad, he’s on the ascent thanks to his imaginations.

The Inspector has now been following this blog for a full twelve months. During that time he has digested Albert’s postings and has this to say on DanJ0’s curious attitude to them. They are nothing ‘creepy’, that’s for sure. So what can we deduce from the boy’s obvious horror. There is clear evidence from the homosexual community that once you are past it, you become repulsive to them. The Inspector has long noted this to be the case, though obviously not from personal experience. Indeed there is a saying, “nobody loves an old queer”. So despite Albert not being as old as his avatar would suggest, it seems that white whiskers has the boy running for cover, swearing under his breath. Of course the boy will come back against the Inspector on this point. Rather than the usual expectorate old fruit, how about a bit of originality.

Tally ho !

13 July 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh look, it's the weekend with the late night trolls again. I suppose it's inevitable that you two otious berks have rocked up, sniffing out conflict and trying to pile up tinder. Are your lives so threadbare that this is the highlight of your week? For feck'sake, the Inspector is even away on holiday, he says, and he still comes here.

I've been here long enough to see your personality through and through, Dodo. You turned up, with all your multiple, concurrent, fake IDs, deliberately challenging the blog owner and trying to cause religious conflict with the protestants and Anglicans. When it looked like you were going to be moderated away, you switched to homosexuality and began trolling there with your homophobic nonsense. You and the Inspector even happily admit to trolling as one of the comments earlier shows.

You have no discernable shame, integrity, honour, ethics, honesty, or self-awareness. You have been shown to use fake IDs to try to gang up on people and to appear to have support for your own opinions. Your gross hyprocrisy and blatant lying have recently been exposed for all to see. You're obviously intellectually inadequate for most debates or conflicts which is why you regularly engage in obsequious and cringe-worthy displays of pandering so you can try to team up with stronger people and shout from behind their backs. You're actually just a poor excuse for a person.

I have more sympathy for the Inspector. The guy appears to have little in the way of a social life, other than hugging a whiskey bottle on his own, and this is how he gets his core interactions. Heck, it's so important that he doesn't even disengage when on holiday. As a never-married man in his 50s, burdened with Catholic guilt about his latent homosexuality, he's essentially a victim of the Roman Catholic Church and its mental abuse of children. He's practically a posterchild for Stokholm Syndrome too, choosing to troll gay forums elsewhere and write the most homophobic stuff here simply to get attention from people and to feel he has like-minded friends, even if they're social scratters like you.

14 July 2012 at 07:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bravo that DanJ0 !

Brought a tear to the Inspector’s eye, so it did. You see, he had no idea that pointing out your all too obvious sad inadequacies was hitting home !

You are a most definite queer thing you know. Here you are, virtually friendless posting daily on a right wing Christian site. Getting your view in as is your wont.

And what a view it is. Lashings of secularism and liberalism for all. We’ve had plenty of that combination for the last fifty years and look at society now. Not enough of it then, so a bit more will see us through you think…

Intelligent man that you are, you decided through the thought process that secularism and libby things are the way. You analysed the strengths and weaknesses of other approaches, dismissed them after careful investigation, and in the fullness of time, you were left with those truths.

Did you hell ! One puts it to you that the position you started from was “I am gay”. And around that core did you not only wrap yourself with the comfort of justifying your situation, but also managed to delude yourself that society has nothing better to do than to accommodate your every whim !

14 July 2012 at 11:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Here you are, virtually friendless posting daily on a right wing Christian site. Getting your view in as is your wont."

That's part of the idea of my being here. If I can't defend my position on my own against a bunch of right-wing Christians and assorted waifs and strays, whilst kicking trolls and social inadequates in the nuts along the way, then I probably ought not to hold that position. And I have, over and over again. There's no-one here who has managed to land a decent blow yet despite many, many attempts. In fact, that's actually part of the underlying problem with the guy Dodo is trying to metaphorically rim at the moment.

14 July 2012 at 13:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anyway, how's the holiday at the moment? I hear that Cumbria is rather lacking in facilities for your sort of person. Perhaps you should have gone on a retreat to Kirkcaldy instead. Killed two birds with one stone, so to speak. ;)

14 July 2012 at 13:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. One actually admires your tenacity at what you do. It all comes down to whether or not one’s own position can survive the onslaught of criticism you level at it. It would not be worth taking it for a walk otherwise, don’t you agree.

Rather pleased to say it does, but do keep it up…

14 July 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Very good at 13:11

Rather looks like the name was provided by some church lady busy body’s somewhat mischievous son, all in good faith of course…

14 July 2012 at 13:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, you're just a cultural Catholic, as far as I can tell, and driven by nostalgia and a sense of being part of something bigger. I tend to hold contempt for the Roman Catholic Church, recognising its self-interest and its corporate nature, rather than criticise it. Why bother? It does more damage to itself with all the various scandals and dodgy stuff it's been doing for decades. Something that corrupt and essentially evil can't really hide its nature from the general public. We just need to make sure it can't get its grubby hands on our freedom.

14 July 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger OldJim said...

Hello, I read this blog and the comments all the time, and I just wanted to say, inspector, dodo, albert, danjo, and yes, whilst we're naming names, anna, carl and len too - and don't think that because I haven't named you you're not included, just naming the salient names on this thread - you're wonderful, you always cheer me up, you all seem like interesting, funny, intelligent people who by and large want to do right by what you believe.

Just thought that perhaps you could all do with the internet equivalent of a warm hug after a bath and new clothes, goodness knows that it's small beer compared to the joy you have given me.

14 July 2012 at 13:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Old Jim, you’re a top man, what !

Sorry about DanJ0 and his antics. But we haven’t given up yet on him, you might like to know. Though there will come a point when we eventually do, and shove him head first through one of those recycling skips at the town dump :->

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

DanJ0, the arrangement is simple. It’s between us and God, and our eventual coming together of. The church is there to serve us to achieve those ends. One’s own freedom is just as important as yours, and will not be denied the Inspector…

14 July 2012 at 14:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "One’s own freedom is just as important as yours, and will not be denied the Inspector…"

Luckily, I don't mind consenting adults manifesting it in the street if they wish. No need to keep it quiet and private. No need to have special places in the backstreets to do your stuff. You can do tell people what you are. Socialise with like-minded people as you wish. You can wear your little in-house symbols on your lapels and put bumper stickers or special magnetic symbol thingies on your cars. You can marry people in your special way, invoking whatever you feel comfortable with. I don't mind at all if the men marrying you wear dresses and silly hats. Feel free to do all of that. You're free.

14 July 2012 at 14:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm a liberal, you see, and I support Article 9 of the ECHR despite my being an atheist. I just don't want you lot to have special religious privilege in the machinery of the State with which you can take my freedom away based on your unsupportable religious beliefs.

14 July 2012 at 14:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0


As I said ofyou earlier:

"All you've done on this thread is launch personal and nasty attacks on the Inspector, Albert and myself. You wait for us to comeback at you. If we don't you manufacture an "attack" as an excuse to try to draw us into acrimonious disputes.

Have you no self awareness or is this a deliberate tactic in your strategy to discredit objections to your single issue cause?

Only 'creepy old men', 'repressed homosexuals' or 'troll faux Catholics' could possibly not accept your sheer brilliance in logic and concede defeat in the presence of genius.

You poor thing. What will you do now we've seen through your forum chess strategy?"


Point proven, I think.

You really imagine you're on here "kicking trolls and social inadequates in the nuts" and that " ... no-one here who has managed to land a decent blow yet despite many, many attempts."?

14 July 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Point proven, I think."

Lol. No wonder you hide behind the skirts of other people in debates and arguments, shouting your abuse from the back and trying to escalate conflicts. Jesus, you're inadequate in almost every respect. Why do you even bother? Have you no dignity or self-respect?

15 July 2012 at 08:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

As I said , point proven - amply. You just can't control your narcissism.

Now hoover and dust your one bedroom flat before popping along to Morrison's for your weekly shop, via Tesco, of course, in case they have any 'specials' on offer.

15 July 2012 at 12:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

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

Oh my, how shocking. You've certainly as razor-sharp a tongue as you have intellect. Dodo, if you want to go beyond the screen then it hasn't escaped my notice that you spend your Friday and Saturday evenings, often into the early hours, trolling online here with your latent-gay sidekick. What's happened to your love life? I mean, I know a man like you in his 60s probably has trouble getting it up without some little blue pills but are you past even cuddling now? Or is that married label as malleable as your alleged Catholicism? Mind you, if you are actually married and I were your wife then I'd be on my knees every night thanking god that you've found the internet, late-night trolling, and the outlet of smutty comments to the women here instead of having to endure your old-man fumbling. In the past, I suppose all she would have had was the peace of you wanking in your shed, or tinkering on the allotment.

15 July 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, old son. Delete your last post to Dodo. You can do better than to resort to personal insults like that. After all, you tell us you have never been defeated, so why post as if you have….

15 July 2012 at 14:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, like Marie, your sidekick has googled to try to find out about my private life. H e then tried to lie about doing so though, of course, it was blatently obvious he was lying. Moreover, he did so because he was guilty of gross hypocrisy during another of his behind-the-skirts attempts at attack and hadn't got the personal integrity to throw his hand up and admit it. The guy is enough of a scratter to appear on Jeremy Kyle. That he has the gall to try to claim any high ground from an association with Christianity is astonishing. You diminish yourself by sailing along with him.

15 July 2012 at 15:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Moreover, I don't see you giving him a kick for all his immorality here. Not even a Christian admonishment. Most of the other Christians here have tried to appeal to a supposedly shared Christian ethic at various times, you know. Think on that, huh.

15 July 2012 at 15:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

It’s the man’s style, he is a bit of a bruiser for God, that’s for sure. Not so about a lack of censure, Inspector has had a quiet word in his ear before…

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

@Old Jim,

That's so nice of you to say so! Thanks for the internet hug to us all!

15 July 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector said ...

"DanJ0, old son. Delete your last post to Dodo. You can do better than to resort to personal insults like that."

No he can't, that's the whole point. He just can't help himself, He's a narcissist with very definate evidence of paranoia.

Let the post stand. It speaks volumes about him. Yet again he descends to personal and obscene abuse.

Slowly but surely his hatred of normal, everyday folk surfaces. He must have a very barren life.

The man has very serious "issues", I'd say.

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

DanJo

"Check and mate", as they say.

You just cannot conceal your sewer of a mind and absence of all personal decency.

Thank you for revealing your true colours yet again.

15 July 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Thank you for revealing your true colours yet again."

You're welcome. Next time you try jumping in, shouting from behind someone's back, to escalate a conflict for your own gain, as you are wont to do time and again, you can expect more of the same.

You may go back to your amateur dramatics, trolling, hyprocrisy, and lying now. At least while you're busy trying to cause trouble here, you're not trying to hound and bully 'fellow' Christians like Len and Blofeld.

15 July 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And another quiet evening for Mrs Dodo, it seems. ;)

15 July 2012 at 22:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJo said ...

"Next time you try jumping in, shouting from behind someone's back, to escalate a conflict for your own gain, as you are wont to do time and again, you can expect more of the same."

Ohoooo, scary ... run to the hills ... he's threatening to say nasty things and be abusive.

Do get over yourself! Is this how you were parented, by being personally demeaned? It actually doesn't work on adults.

And, as I said, thank you for revealing your true self.

Have you ever considered therapy to tackle this displaced hostility?

15 July 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Is this how you were parented [...]"

Oh blimey. Dodo, given that you claim to have offspring, it horrifies me to think what they've turned out like with a role model like you. Christ on a bike!

15 July 2012 at 23:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Have you ever considered therapy to tackle this displaced hostility?"

Have you ever considered why certain people troll forums and other social media? Now there's something for therapy! Did you ever go back to Pink News, using your extended family's multiple IP addresses to try to get past their ban on your trolling?

15 July 2012 at 23:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0, is this where I'm supposed to reveal details about my family and marital life? To justify myself to you of all people? All part of a 'win-win' tactic on forum chess?

As if! Dream on.

You were completely rumbled at this little game no so long ago, you "social engineer". Have you forgotten or are you just trying to reframe it for the 'silent reader'.

15 July 2012 at 23:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blimey, the trolling of Pink News by the Inspector and yourself was worse than I thought. I've just been over there. I even got copied and pasted there when I asked you here whether you were hoping to encourage a retaliatory strike on this blog owner's site. Looked like that might have been a bit of a heads up over there. You really are a piece of work, and no mistake. Why do you do it? What are you actually for?

15 July 2012 at 23:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You even boast about it on this thread:

"Keep us posted on your adventures and especially if you manage to breakthrough the Pink News ban."

11 July 2012 11:05

and

"Psssstttt Inspector ... have you infiltrated the pinkies yet? Are you posting with a new ID?
Tread cautiously."

11 July 2012 22:32

15 July 2012 at 23:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Getting a little bit desperate are we? Talk of imaginary "retaliatory strikes" against this blog. And you giving a "heads up" over there? Have you lost it completely? I mean, just what is the point of this?

As for Pink News, some honest posting of comments over there about matters under discussion resulted in us being banned. Is that 'trolling'?

And if you really cannot see the humour in those comments to the Inspector then you're way, way past the point where therapy might help!

16 July 2012 at 00:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And you giving a "heads up" over there?"

No, Dodo. I've never posted anything on Pink News. After your antics over there, some of them came over here and saw me asking what on earth you were trying to do. It was copied over there with this comment by one of them:

"I have seen that IPs have been blocked. But the following seen on Cranmer is interesting, we should be aware and PN need to act"

"Is that 'trolling'?"

You know full well you were both trolling. The Inspector was even posting a running commentary over here at one point and gloating. It looks like there were lots of complaints about your conduct there. Your comments were deleted and you were IP-blocked by the look of it.

It's not funny for anyone but yourselves. It wasn't funny when we had loads of disruptive Anonymous comments here either before the blog owner had to lock them out, some of them almost certainly being you given your use of multiple, concurrent fake IDs at the time.

Dodo, every time you've been hung out to dry like this you go into denial mode, trying to kick out and making a load of distracting noise, even though you have no hope of a defence. It really doesn't show you in a good light, you know. You're a recidivist through and through.

16 July 2012 at 06:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

You just make it up as you go along - that or it's paranoid delusions creeping into your over inflated ego.

I have no reason to account for my actions to one such as you. Such pomposity!

And, by the way, there were no 'anonymous comments' posted here, no retaliatory attack, though you and a couple of others attempted to suggest we were trying to provoke one; the blog doesn't permit them.

Now go and see if Tesco have a special offer on a sense of humour. You're in sore need of one.

16 July 2012 at 12:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, it's all a matter of record as you well know: the multiple IDs, the homophobia, the hypocrisy, the lying, the trollng, and your squawking and flapping every time your face is rubbed in your own crap. I don't expect you to give an account of yourself to me, I'm happy enough just to point at all your past and current unethical and immoral behaviour whenever you try to cause trouble like this. As for the Anonymous comments, I was talking about in the past when it was becoming so bad that the blog owner had to turn the facility off. No doubt, the people causing the trouble there, some of which was probably you given your other ID shenanigans, thought it was all very 'humorous' too.

16 July 2012 at 13:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The astonishng thing is that you claim to be a Christian despite behaving as badly as you do. You have no shame.

16 July 2012 at 13:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

I'm not getting into blog tennis with you about all that nonsense. Let's just say you're adept at 'spin' and outright fabrication.

You dare claim the moral highground after this obscene and offensive post:

"I mean, I know a man like you in his 60s probably has trouble getting it up without some little blue pills but are you past even cuddling now?

Mind you, if you are actually married and I were your wife then I'd be on my knees every night thanking god that you've found the internet, late-night trolling, and the outlet of smutty comments to the women here instead of having to endure your old-man fumbling. In the past, I suppose all she would have had was the peace of you wanking in your shed, or tinkering on the allotment."


I think this demonstrates the depth of your depravity and hatred towards normal, married heterosexual couples. A hang-over from your own troubled family life, no doubt. Was your family life really so bad that this has stayed with you? I mean you must be in your late 40's by now - get over it!

And what is it you actually do for a living? An "engineer", we know. Is it "ethical"? Do you spend your days manipulating people on the internet for the purposes of advertisments? Using your deceitful skills to extract useful information to pass onto your 'blue chip' company and others?

Is that why you feel the need to come on here pontificating about there being no such thing as absolute moral imperatives, just human based ethics? To attack Christians, find some supposed weakness and exploit it to justify your existance?

16 July 2012 at 14:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I'm not getting into blog tennis with you about all that nonsense. Let's just say you're adept at 'spin' and outright fabrication."

No, let's just say I say it exactly as it is and that I take no prisoners when gobby little scratters think they can try it on in the hope they have a small gang to back them up.

Actually, I think I'm about done with you now. I always feel like I need a damn good wash whenever you're around. It's like having to talk to a 'guest' on the Jeremy Kyle show.

16 July 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJo

Do you really believe the nonsense you post? Such pomposity, arrogance and egotism!

Your loathing of heterosexuals and routine recourse to obscenities and false accusations says a good deal about you and your hang-ups.

Do stop wasting my time with your self obsession and these fantasies and go get a life.

16 July 2012 at 23:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 July 2012 at 09:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Loathe? Lol. You complete and utter berk. Most of my general friends, all of my closest friends, most of my colleagues and neighbours, and all of my family including my parents are, or were before they died, heterosexuals. I don't live in Gay World where there are always pretty rainbows and straight people are not allowed, you know. Sometimes I wonder how you even manage to tie your own shoelaces given what you write at times. Perhaps you don't.

17 July 2012 at 10:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course, one might wonder in return what the weeks and weeks of homophobic comments you made some months ago, your regular attempts at trying to gang up on and bully various homosexuals here, and your more recent trolling of Pink News might show about you if we're to follow your line of reasoning there. ;)

17 July 2012 at 11:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

All a tad defensive for me. Let's face it, your homosexuality is kept hidden from your work colleagues; you have no close relationship to speak of and your don't even enjoy fairly mainstream homosexual activities.

You even boasted recently about having "sex" with a close friend who is now married and suggested you could "turn" him again.

Clearly something troubled you in your youth or childhood. Was it you dad or mum? Someone has let you down and you are displacing this angst onto those you assume to be late middle aged men - Albert, the Inspector and myself - or middle aged women - Marie mainly. Is it approval you seek; Apat on the head for being a good little boy? And what a clever boy; a moral philosopher no less?

And your work - why is it such a secret? I mean someone has to manipulate 'punters' and provide information for big corporations.

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

Crikey Dodo, it's just as well you have nothing much in the way of self-awareness.

17 July 2012 at 15:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Can we therefore take it that you do? Then deal with the unresolved conflict. Stop transferring and displacing angst onto middle aged men and women, forgive your family and take personal responsibility.

And that job? Too embarrassed about it, are we? Ashamed?

17 July 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, I'm a professional, degree qualified engineer. This is not news here. There's no secret about it. I've mentioned it before, including some of the detail. You're being really weird now, you know. I mean on top of the usual loony, scattergun stuff that you do when you've been humiliated and need redress.

17 July 2012 at 19:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

What type of "engineer", DanJ0?

17 July 2012 at 22:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oh, and by the way, DanJ0 what on earth are you talking about when you say I've been humiliated?

Do you really think this tactic works?

You're the one with the the hang-ups about normal heterosexual realtionships who's compelled to make attacks on normal family life; the one without close and intimate relationships; the one who hides his sexuality from his work colleagues; the one who falls back on personal and obscene abuse whenever he runs out of arguments; living alone in a one bedroomed flat with his teenage dreams of Gary Barlow and 'Take That'.

What a barren and miserable existance. Get some help before it's too late!

18 July 2012 at 00:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As post-humiliation meltdowns go, this is one of your more, erm, surreal ones. You know, I think I'd better leave you to it now. Afterall, it usually takes a couple of weeks or more for your squawking and flapping to subside even at the best of times.

18 July 2012 at 06:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Yep, thought so - claim 'victory' as a way of avoiding answering a direct question. As if anyone falls for this.

You're the 'busted flush' old man. You moves are just too obvious.

18 July 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger len said...

Dodo your ploy of refusing any answer to your questions and then claiming' victory 'has now been taken over by 'Albert'.

A rather childish tactic and' played out' somewhat don`t you think?.

18 July 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

What are youtalking about? Are you on the wrong thread?

19 July 2012 at 03:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

What is it you do? What sort of "engineer" are you? Do tell!

19 July 2012 at 14:46  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older