Sunday, March 17, 2013

The Queen must quash Chris Bryant's anti-Anglican obsessions


He seems to want the entire British Constitution re-ordered to suit his own petty obsessions. Not content with hacking away at the Act of Settlement, or aggravating for equal 'gay marriage', or riding roughshod over the General Synod by demanding that Parliament impose women bishops upon the Church of England, Labour's Chris Bryant MP now wants to turn the historic Anglican Chapel of St Mary Undercroft, beneath the Palace of Westminster, into a multi-faith prayer room.

This would then permit the venue to bypass Anglican strictures and be used to conduct same-sex weddings.

So, a centuries-old Christian crypt - which stood beneath the Royal Chapel of St Stephen and dates back to 1135 (where His Grace was consecrated Archbishop) - is to be stripped of its crosses and Christian iconography in order that the odd gay MP can be joined in holy bi-patrimony (and lesbians in holy bi-matrimony). No doubt Christ Bryant would seek to remove a few rows of pews as well, just to make room for the prayer mats, and then re-plaster and paint the walls magnolia as symbol of 'secular neutrality', so that Muslim politicians (who have never complained) won't feel offended by the visions of painted saints and gilded idols

According to The Telegraph, the plans 'are being considered by senior parliamentary officials together with Helen Grant, the Equalities Minister.

This is quite astonishing, not least because 'the plans' are not for a here-today-gone-tomorrow Equalities Minister to propose, and neither are they for 'parliamentary officials' to consider, however senior. Like Westminster Abbey and certain other places of worship, the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft is a 'Royal Peculiar'; that is to say, its clergy are accountable not to the Bishop of London or to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but directly to the Monarch. It is, effectively, the Queen's private chapel. As Supreme Governor of the Church of England, it is inconceivable that she would agree to its re-designation as a multi-faith prayer room, not least because it would be a contravention of her Coronation Oath to defend the Protestant Reformed Religion. And the Palace of Westminster has many hundreds of rooms, any one of which might be used by non-Christian politicians for meditation or quiet contemplation without the need for a Bryant's zeal for the dissolution of a chapel.

It comes as no surprise to learn that Chris Bryant has sought (and been granted) the support of John Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons, in his Cromwellian quest (Oliver Cromwell had the crypt whitewashed and used it to stable his horses). Apparently, the Speaker has asked Black Rod, Lt Gen David Leakey, who is responsible for the Chapel, to examine the proposals.

When he consults Buckingham Palace, the Queen is likely to respond politely in the negative, while really thinking 'Over my dead body'.

And that, no doubt, is what Chris Bryant and John Bercow are actually waiting for. It's just damned inconvenient to the aggressive secularists and multi-faith ecumenists having a Supreme Governor of the Church of England who speaks openly of the gospel of forgiveness, the uniqueness of Jesus the Saviour, and the love of God through Christ our Lord.

Her Majesty is fully aware of the significant position of the Church of England in our nation’s life. "The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated," she said last year. "Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.

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

Chris Bryant and John Bercow are simply deaf and blind to this spiritual reality.

90 Comments:

Blogger Katie said...

Why not hand the chapel back to the people who built it? I think Papa Bergoglio would keep it safe from the likely developments which you mention.

17 March 2013 at 11:42  
Blogger Gustavo said...

"As Supreme Governor of the Church of England, it is inconceivable that she would agree to its re-designation as a multi-faith prayer room, not least because it would be a contravention of her Coronation Oath to defend the Protestant Reformed Religion"

So is inconceivable the same as infallible? As in, it is infallibly true that it would contravene her Coronation Oath hence it is inconceivable that an English monarch would change what is deemed true with respect to religious proclamation? My question is, if it is all right to consecrate the theologically sterile Cranmer there, why isn't it okay to consecrate the sexually sterile in marriage there as well?

17 March 2013 at 11:54  
Blogger Gustavo said...

And speaking of inconceivabilities with respect to Coronation and Consecration Oaths, what was it Poole said to Cranberry about his, "Other perjurers be wont to break their oath after they have sworn; you break it before."

17 March 2013 at 12:02  
Blogger graham wood said...

Whilst I have no time at all for either Bryant or Bercow the issue centres on the relevance of a place, a physical location, (immaterial whether origninally Anglican, Roman or anything else.)

Under the New Covenant Christians are not to be conditioned or restricted by "places of worship", buildings, and other such relative trivia.
In answer to the "place" mentality, Jesus told the Samaritan woman a fundamental truth of Christianity, namely,
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth. This can be done anywhere - in or out of a physical building.

Jesus' words "I will build ny church" did not include ornate basilicas, cathedrals, or even "parish churches", interesting, indeed fascinating, though many of these remain for purely architectual and historical reasons.



17 March 2013 at 12:08  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

My feeling is that Bryant is a despicable little pervert.

I agree with Katie that if it were handed back to those to whom it belongs we may never have to bother with the likes of Bryant or his opinions again.

I fear that the CofE and the Queen have become so Dhimmified that this ridiculous proposal may get legs.

17 March 2013 at 13:12  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Your Grace,
Thank you for bringing this up for debate.

This ancient religious place acts as a symbol of Christianity in these islands, located in a building of most significance for our government. As such, it must be preserved as just that, solely a Christian place of contemplation and worship. Other faiths can have other accommodation.

Lapsing into distinctly untheological, and possibly unChristian, language, stuff Bercow and Bryant, with their here today, gone tomorrow, petty relativisms.

We have a constitutional Monarch, yes, but at some point our gracious Queen has to say, No. I am Head of The Church and I will defend it.

17 March 2013 at 13:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Fellows !

There can be few MPs who have not heard of the Gay Agenda. And here we have the Gay Agenda in action. Militant gays know that confrontation with the Christian church is not only inevitable, but requisite. Christianity is the bolster that stops this society becoming a gay society.

Is there anything wrong with a gay society. Well, yes, everything. Everything we hold dear, from whether the traditional family unit of one man and one woman continues to be the bedrock of society right down to gay friendly teachers instructing their class that same sex coupling, including copulation, is wholesome.

Do we want to continue as men and women, or as mere individuals. Do we want MPs who are quite unashamedly homosexuals first and members of the society they wish to change second, wrecking what we have.

Do we want aggressive secularists joining in on their side. Not so much to support the gay society ideal, but to punish the national faith they not only don’t believe in, but of who’s worth they do not wish to appreciate. Whose secularism CANNOT allow them to appreciate.

Take final warning everyone, Same Sex Marriage isn’t the end of it. Just the start...

17 March 2013 at 13:53  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

"...not least because it would be a contravention of her Coronation Oath to defend the Protestant Reformed Religion."

This would be the Protestant Reformed religion which His Grace was not a follower of when telling the Roman Catholic Church what it should do during the Mass presumably...?

"His Grace isn't Protestant: he is Anglican." (Comments, 13 March 2013 @ 12:51).

Or is this another instance of Anglicans only being Protestant when it suits them?

17 March 2013 at 13:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

There can be no greater accolade for an AoC than to be compared to Beckett. Have we in ++Welby another Beckett ?

A start would be to organise a sit-in by the Lords Spiritual in the chapel. Let it not be said the place was desecrated by the corrupt hand of man, and Christ’s church in the immediate did nothing.

May God’s strength be with you Welby now and for the rest of your tenure...


17 March 2013 at 14:16  
Blogger Owl said...

Chris Bryant, homosexual and fabian.

Says it all really.

I wonder what the proportion of homosexuals are in parliament. Somewhat more than the national average it would seem.

Why is Stonewall/LBGT defended by so many MPs?

Methinks that things are a bit queer n Westminister.

17 March 2013 at 14:41  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

This Chris Bryant is, I think, the homosexual MP who thought fit to pose in his swimming trunks for a photograph that was circulated in some magazine or website?
Odd indeed, possibly downright queer...
By amazing coincidence his electoral agent, Stephen Carnell, was arrested for possession of a huge stash of child pornography, 12,000 images many of the vilest categories.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/21/mps-agent-jailed-child-porn
The reason these people have excessive influence in parliament? Maybe because we are ashamed to say we are normal -and they are not.

17 March 2013 at 14:56  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

PS Stonewall/LGBT is not just "defended" by many MPs. It is financed and subsidized by our tax system and by numerous schemes for "equality and diversity". These range from local government grants to the funding of the mad and perverted Terrence Higgins Trust.
The historic reason was that the Labour government under Tony Blair was taken in by the argument that homosexuality and race are the same sort of issue.
They're not. The laws based on that fallacy need to be repealed. Write to your MP and demand it.

17 March 2013 at 15:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Gustavo

Yes, for we know it was only the Pope who had authority to absolve oaths.

It appertaineth to the Bishop of Rome to judge, which oaths ought to be kept and which not.

He may absolve subjects from their oath of fidelity, and absolve from other oaths that ought to be kept.

How dare Cranmer adapt the legal principles of Rome for use against the power of Rome?

carl

17 March 2013 at 15:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Interesting Jack. There is a well established connection between homosexuality and disgusting pictures of children, in many but not all instances. One wonders if the investigating police examined Mr Bryant’s hard drives. Perhaps Scotland Yard should take an interest...

17 March 2013 at 15:20  
Blogger bwims said...

Don't hold your breath waiting for the Queen to fulfill her coronation oath to "defend the faith"... she's done a pretty poor job of it up to now.

Her great-great-grandmother wasn't worried about rocking the constitutional boat when it came to telling the politicians what's what.

With a son like hers, what does she have to lose by a bit of brinkmanship regarding our culture from time to time?

The very least I would have expected would have been some kind of statement about redefining marriage, but she just sits back taking the money, and doesn't say a dicky bird.

I've never felt so Republican.

17 March 2013 at 15:52  
Blogger Flossie said...

I am sure Her Maj takes her coronation oath most seriously:

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

Queen. All this I promise to do.

I would be fascinated to know what she says to David Cameron about gay marriage during their regular meetings. How will she be able to put her signature to the wretched Bill having made the promises above?

The ghastly Chris Bryant (also known as Mr Underpants, having posed on Gaydar in this state of undress) seems to hold a great deal of sway at the moment. He is on the committee of MPs who are presently scrutinising the Bill, and misses no opportunity to ridicule opponents.

He once trained as a priest and has a degree in theology, but seems to have renounced the faith in favour of self-worship.

17 March 2013 at 16:29  
Blogger TigerO said...

Flossie quoted;

"Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"

I have put very important words in bold. Since Parliament makes the law and if they deem it "the right thing to do" there is little the Queen can do (in regard to gay marriage outside of the C of E).

His Grace states that he believes this chapel to be part of the Royal Estate. If this is correct then one must believe that Parliament has no jurisdiction over the property as to its purpose.

17 March 2013 at 17:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Let the Inspector extol Flossie’s 16:29 offering. Having a head of state who is as mute as Harpo Marx was in his films may have been the desirable position when Harpo was still alive, but it certainly isn’t now. All that we hold dear is continually under attack and HM must know that when she speaks, she speaks for the best part of the nation, not the worst part. So she upsets a few militant homosexual men and secularists – what of it ?

The nation is easy going. The Queen appears easy going. Let her words of wisdom ring out for the good of the realm. These men, and yes, it is primarily men who would dismantle what we have, are NOT easy going, and need to be informed that Her Majesty is NOT amused. We may as well get used to our monarch expressing deeply held conviction. The heir apparent does, and shows no indication that this would not continue should the crown fall to him.

God save the Queen !


17 March 2013 at 17:12  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Chris Bryant is off his rocker and so is that shifty little shit Berkow.

Once muslims get in there wont be any sharing with other religions, they have so many holy days and prayer times nobody else will get a look in. They fell out with citizens of an Essex town about sharing a little community centre saying they had to have it for the whole of ramadam.

I would say that we have reached the tipping point and need to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of all others. Our obsequious over tolerance of other faiths whose own buildings are now dotted around the country in abundance has gone far enough. Pity the Queen has had most of her powers taken away and watered down. I would hope that she can politely decline this latest sneaky little plan for homosexuals to get “married” in a Church. I think we ought to look at all the MP's in Westminster and see just how many and who is homosexual or not and carry out a risk assessment. I think there are far to many of them to be healthy. With their constant pushing of society to do what they want they are bringing bringing about what they fear the most.

17 March 2013 at 17:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The production of evil images of sexually abused children only exists because there are homosexuals willing to produce it for homosexuals willing to view it.

This disgusting stain on mankind MUST be stamped out, and let nothing stand in it’s way.

Let Parliament consider this. A register of ALL known homosexual men associated with convicted felons of this grave crime, with their IT equipment to be subject to regular inspection by the authorities.

We owe the young nothing less....

17 March 2013 at 18:02  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

This is more than a "petty obsession". It would be a significant act of cultural vandalism. Any movement seeking profound social change focuses on removing or redefining the symbols of the prevailing social order. In this instance, what's being attacked is an established Christian church prohibiting same sex marriage.

Cromwell understood this when he turned this chapel into a horses stable. And so it stood, neglected, used as a coal cellar, until after a fire in 1834. And so did Emily Davison who, on the eve of the 1911 census, spent the night in the broom cupboard of this crypt in order to give her address as the House of Commons, despite not being allowed to stand for Parliament or vote.

In 2011 a plaque was placed on the cupboard to commemorate Ms Davison's efforts to achieve social justice for women. Is Mr Bryant hoping for a similar recognition? A plaque commemorating the first same sex marriage in this chapel devoted to Mary? Originally, the chapel was set aside for worship by members of the court and royal household. Today, it is used by Members of Parliament for family weddings and christenings. Certainly, that would gain Bryant a place in history.

17 March 2013 at 18:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One hopes sense will prevail in Westminster, but if it doesn’t, then give Bryant his selfish wish.

He can have his place in history - let his remains be the first to reside there when the time comes.


17 March 2013 at 18:21  
Blogger David B said...

Actually, Inspector, it is the fact that most people are heterosexual that stops us becoming a gay society.

Do you really think, though, that it is right that gay people past the arbitrary age of consent that the law allows heterosexuals should not have the same rights as anyone else?

I don't see a rationale for that myself. I'd be interested to see one that stands up.

David

17 March 2013 at 18:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

it is the fact that most people are heterosexual that stops us becoming a gay society

I would like to see some evidence that an actual human ontology called homosexuality actually exists outside of the desire that makes it manifest. "I desire to have sex with another man. Therefore I am by nature homosexual" is not a valid argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The complementarity of male and female is far stronger evidence of human ontology than transient human desires - especially since we all admit to the existence of perverse desires. If desire defines ontology then there is no such thing as perversion.

carl

17 March 2013 at 18:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Perhaps another time, David B. This tread is not about homosexuality per se, but the efforts of a homosexual MP to de-Christianise a Christian chapel. With a small mention of his (...former ?...) agent, a convicted collector of indecent images. You are known by the company you keep, some wise soul once said.

Do we have with Bryant, a prima facie case of a gay man attempting to undermine the Christian religion ? Of course, that is the Inspector’s wondering, and he has no wish to libel the man. Perhaps Bryant can issue some clarification as to his intents. He might even inform us all what his angle is, though as he is a politician, one does believe that such a desire is wrapped in the impenetrable cloth of his business, not ours.

If you are in any doubt about the seriousness of the situation, remember the Gay Agenda advocates dismantling organised Christianity. They are right, in as much as they will never achieve a gay society while it is here...

As for your point of the predominance of heterosexuality, one does know the average Russian peasant in 1917 had no interest in Marxist Leninism, and look what happened there. Sure you’ll agree, when you dispense with your own secularism and start looking for the truth and not utopia.


17 March 2013 at 18:50  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Unfortunately the Queen has been completely mute on abortion, homosexual marriage. It is a great disappointment and a reneging on her coronation oath. I think if she took a stand, the people would support her. The homosexual movement has declared war on Christianity and I think Christians have to stand up and start shouting. The politicians only listen to agro. That's why Muslims get a much louder say. We have to stop being so passive and begin to take our nation back.

17 March 2013 at 19:45  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Speaking as an atheist, who thinks the who;e thing is mummery .....

I agree wholeheartedly with His Grace.

It's a disgrace - the history alone requires that the place be left in peace & not fought over.

17 March 2013 at 20:07  
Blogger Berserker said...

Marie 1797 is right. Islam, in my opinion, deliberately imposes these holy days and prayers five times a day to keep the male population from getting any half decent jobs. Their whole religion is predicated on fostering ignorance. You obviously can't run a business or be an employee of a company if you have to go to prayers five times a day. Sorry, you might if you're a carpet seller in some grotty bazaar.

How many MP's are gay? No figures available.
How many BBC staff are gay? No figures available.

Perhaps Bercow wants to reintroduce the Speaker's tradition of using the crypt as a dining room!

17 March 2013 at 20:18  
Blogger Nick said...

Its nothing less than what I'd expect from a morally bankrupt party like Labour. I doubt Her Majesty share Chris Bryants vision of Britain as an atheistic PC dystopia.

It seems Mr (or should that be "Mrs") Chris Bryant abandoned his career as a CofE priest as he felt that being gay was incompatible with Christianity. As least he was able to understand that. No doubt this proposal is a bit of a back-swipe at the church for his unhappiness in his career.

He knows that holding SSM ceremonies would offend most Anglicans, and that is probably why he wants to do it - spite.

Its a pity the Queen can't send him to the Tower.

17 March 2013 at 20:31  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, deflecting Messrs Bryant and Bercow from their sacriledge is clearly a job that Her Majesty should delegate to HRH Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales.

Prince Charles holds an Islamic doctorate from an Egyptian university and more importantly is patron of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies at the University of Oxford. In addition, HRH is now learning Arabic, and will hopefully achieve the same fluency in classical Arabic as Barack Obama.

But back to the point. One can scarcely imagine any member of the Royal Family better equipped than Charles to explain to the infidel that this is one ancient building that should retain its architectural function.

He does that sort of thing rather well, doesn't he?

17 March 2013 at 22:10  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I wonder just how many LGBT's are in all of Westminster, and the ratio to heterosexuals? Gay rights do seem to have become an unhealthy obsession.

17 March 2013 at 22:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Agreed Bluedog. For this man anyway, Charles remains a somewhat unknown enigma. Let him prove himself an Englishman...


17 March 2013 at 22:32  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

If, as TigerO (17:04) argues, the Queen’s oath to ‘maintain and preserve inviolably’ the Church of England is subject to the whim of legislators then the oath is, effectively, meaningless and the Queen as Supreme Governor of the C of E is, effectively, toothless. Watching film of the Coronation, I had always found the moment when the Queen made her oath dramatic, moving and highly significant. Another of my fond beliefs bites the dust.

17 March 2013 at 23:07  
Blogger Corrigan said...

So, Cranmer, you're living in a world which seems to have a blind, unreasoning hatred of you because of your religion, eh? Welcome to Catholicism.

17 March 2013 at 23:11  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

Carl Jacobs
"I would like to see some evidence that an actual human ontology called homosexuality actually exists outside of the desire that makes it manifest ... If desire defines ontology then there is no such thing as perversion."

Do you you hold the view that human sexuality is uniform and universal? That a homosexual orientation does not 'exist' but is merely a chosen perversion, the result of sin and freely excercised choice?

I agree homosexuality contradicts the divinely established order for creation. It offends God's design of and will for human sexuality. Seen in this light, homosexuality is a deformation of the soul's natural inclination to heterosexual union.

But is the homosexual orientation simply the result of sin and free choice? Do 'homosexuals' not exist? Life, to me, seems more complex. Ontologically, we are all human; all sinners.

Theories about the 'causes' of same sex attraction abound and no one claims to understand fully the complex character of human sexuality. Some biological basis for sexual attraction is commonly accepted, although there appears to be a mix of genetic, hormonal and psychological causes. Isn't heterosexual attraction as much a product of these forces as homosexual attraction?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but you seem to want to dismiss the existance of homosexuals as a group. Why?

17 March 2013 at 23:40  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. bluedog on Prince Charles: Oh Dear Lord, oh Dear, oh Dear.

When Diana died, someone remarked to me that she really had been "a silly girl." My answer then, and now: "What kind of boy does that make Charles, then?"

It's one thing to tolerate the religion that is the enemy of our own. It's quite another to empower it and enable its destruction of everything we are.

18 March 2013 at 01:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Peter Damian

A homosexual is one who engages in homosexual behavior. I do not deny that homosexuals exist. They clearly do. I deny that there exists a human nature that allows a man to justifiably declare "I desire to have sex with another man because I am by nature constructed to have sex with another man."

It is the Creator that fixes purpose in His creation. For there to exist a natural homosexual nature, God would have had to create it. And He clearly did not. He created man for woman, and woman for man. In that sense human sexuality is uniform and universal. Homosexual desire on the other hand is sin. And where does sin originate but the desires of the human heart and the actions that proceed therefrom? Men pervert the purpose of God for the service of their own desires. The contrary argument from nature is intended to deflect the source of that desire from the moral complicity of the human heart to the (alleged) moral neutrality of genetics.

In fact, that argument is not even consistently presented. If the pedophile suggests that he is justified by nature in his sexual attraction to children, we (heterosexual and homosexual) laugh him to scorn. Why? Because we have made an a priori judgment regarding the morality of adults having sex with pre-pubescent children. We don't care whether he is driven to such acts by genetics. We simply want him isolated and punished. His desire is not justified by his appeal to nature. And yet with homosexuals we are told to make a moral judgment based upon the alleged genetic inevitability of homosexual desire. Why the inconsistency? Because the argument isn't really founded upon genetics.

In fact it's founded upon consent. The prior moral judgment is that homosexual behavior occurs between consenting adults. Given that prior condition, we allow ourselves to say "It may be considered naturally occurring." That returns us once again to the fact of chosen behavior, and makes a mockery of the argument from nature. We have as much as said "That which is naturally occurring is good, but only if we consider it good in the first place."

I realized long ago that the only observable of homosexuality (other than participation in homosexual sex) was self-reported desire. You can't find a gene. You can't find a morally neutral independent cause that makes the choice inevitable. Homosexuals want to find that independent cause because the whole of creation testifies to the unnaturalness of their desires. They seek to silence the testimony of the accusing witness. But it cannot be silenced. It can only be suppressed.

carl

18 March 2013 at 02:33  
Blogger Flossie said...

I totally agree with carl, as usual. Not too many years ago Chris Bryant would have resigned in disgrace after advertising his body in gayworld, but such is the climate of fear around the whole topic now that he thinks he is invincible.

Alas I don't think the Queen is going to do anything to stop this. She assented to the abortion act, which clearly broke the sixth commandment. Likewise she could have easily warned Dave off gay marriage when it was first mooted by telling him she could not assent to it.

Carl, your last sentence is quite chilling. Pride does come before a fall, and this is not going to end happily, of that I am convinced. The British public are eventually going to get fed up with being pushed around by the likes of Chris Bryant and the sycophants and toadies who are presently greasing up to him.

18 March 2013 at 06:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Berserker: "You obviously can't run a business or be an employee of a company if you have to go to prayers five times a day. Sorry, you might if you're a carpet seller in some grotty bazaar."

My Muslim colleague manages very well to combine engineering with daily prayers. In fact, it has less impact than the cigarette habit of some of my other colleagues. Of course, it relies on my company making a quiet room available and allowing him an extended lunch break on Fridays but as it makes allowances for breeders to take time off at short notice to look after their sick offspring or if schools shut suddenly then it's all part and parcel of being a good employer.

18 March 2013 at 08:23  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Carl @ 02.33 says with regard to the incidence of homosexuality, 'You can't find a gene.'

A statement that may be described as a 'high risk activity'.

As knowledge of the human genome grows it may well be that there is a genetic source of homosexuality. What then? A number of factors suggest that homosexuality is not just 'sin'. For example, how do you explain the 'camp' behaviour that manifests itself in some homosexuals? It's not learned, it emerges at puberty.

Your entire argument depends on science failing to prove you wrong.

Not a position that this communicant would ever assume.

18 March 2013 at 09:53  
Blogger bluedog said...

non mouse @ 01.04 said 'When Diana died, someone remarked to me that she really had been "a silly girl." My answer then, and now: "What kind of boy does that make Charles, then?"

The answer to that question has to be 'very gullible'.

It was the Spencer sisters wot dunnit. Consider Charles' position in the late '70's, his proposal to Amanda Knatchbull had been rebuffed in the wake of the Mountbatten assassination and he may have been under pressure to cherchez la femme from his father. Remember that Diana’s elder sister is married to the then Sir Robert Fellowes, HM Queen’s then private secretary. The marriage of Charles to Diana was a classic courtier’s coup. Being extremely well informed and aware of Charles’ problem, the Spencer’s provided the solution in the form of Diana. As we know, the marriage didn’t work for long and Charles was clearly bored to tears by his bride.

The relevant question now may be ‘has Charles over-compensated by marrying Camilla?’

18 March 2013 at 10:31  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Stupidly unaware- as usual, that rather a lot of Muslims regard any place in which they have worshipped as belonging to Islam and no other belief system.

This Chapel is set out as a Christian place of worship, and I believe all mainstream Christian varieties use it. Great! As much hospitality as is possible, feasible and sensible already happens without the place losing its essence.

If you strip it down to its dimensions what are you sharing which no other room has? Muslims just want a big carpet facing towards Mecca!!! If you do not- and I bet HM and the listed building people have a lot to say on the matter it is full of Christian iconography and soaked in Christian place memories.

This suggestion is philistine, perverse, small-minded, ignorant, and shows a total and utter lack of commonsense. The selectors and electors of those particular constituencies have a lot to answer for.

18 March 2013 at 11:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs(02:33)—You can’t find a morally neutral independent cause that makes the choice inevitable

A report written by ‘a Special Interest Group in the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ says in section 2:

‘It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.’

Whether the term ‘Special Interest Group’ should alert us to the possibility that they are less objective than they should be, I cannot say.

18 March 2013 at 12:06  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Danjo

Are you seriously not aware that the term "breeders" is used as an offensive weapon against heterosexuals like me who choose- in my case, knowingly, deliberately, and joyfully to engage lovingly and with mutual respect in acts that gloriously create new lives. Your own life was so formed!!! By "breeders". You are the son of "breeders". Danjo Breederson.
We are not ashamed of our actions. My husband genuinely loves and respects me, and I am aware of the implication that no sane man could want to do that (erch, I believe you have said) with a woman, nor should be able to find satisfying relationship possible with what you clearly consider a lesser creature. We are aware- and alive to the intended insult. We are proud to be breeders, you prat, the world indeed needs us to be and the problem with "breeders" is merely your own.

18 March 2013 at 12:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "Your entire argument depends on science failing to prove you wrong."

And also on a false dichotomy again.

18 March 2013 at 12:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy,

Of course. I was just seeing who would jump on that whilst ignoring this earlier:

"It seems Mr (or should that be "Mrs") Chris Bryant abandoned his career as a CofE priest as he felt that being gay was incompatible with Christianity."

You, by the look of it.

"We are proud to be breeders, you prat, the world indeed needs us to be and the problem with "breeders" is merely your own."

Thanks for your help with the breeding, luv.

18 March 2013 at 12:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As for the article, if the facts are true then I'm against what Chris Bryant is proposing. Also, I wasn't that impressed with his approach in committee regarding the same sex marriage bill. That's nothing to do with his wearing just underpants on a private dating site either.

18 March 2013 at 12:29  
Blogger Flossie said...

Johnny Rottenborough - if you want to know about the Special Interest Group in the Royal College of Psychiatrists, please do read here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmpublic/marriage/memo/m102.htm

It is basically one gay activist and a handful of hangers-on.



18 March 2013 at 12:35  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

A multi-faith centre? Like, for everyone? Goodness, those chaps are clueless. A very nice looking place (I'm a big fan of the Gothic Revival style) but a little-bittle too shiny and colourful for simple Yiden like me. Maybe the Reform or Reconstructionist brothers and sisters with their big "temples" would go for tsuch pomp, but this fellow prefers fewer distractions. And, oy, all those icons glaring so sternly. Are they looking at me? I don't see a stand for my prayerbook, comfy chairs to snooze on when the visiting rabbi waxes verbose, a screen to keep the chaps from sneaking peeks at the young ladies at their devotions, nor...and this is no small matter...a shmaltz herring and single malts table to refresh with after the rigours of prayer.

18 March 2013 at 12:46  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! According to my Lord's Chaplain, Mr. Slope, the said MP and Mr Speaker are only looking for a suitably place to house the Holy Underpants of Bry-Antioch, an object of pilgrimage and devotion for the followers of St. Dorothy. Surely we have some wriggle-room?

18 March 2013 at 12:48  
Blogger Owl said...

Lucy,

The use of "breeders" would have to be considered a "freudian slip".

Dan would appear to hold "mothers" in contempt, perhaps he had difficulties with his own mother.

btw, well said Lucy!

18 March 2013 at 13:00  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

"Thanks for your help with the breeding" is laughable, really. I was sufficiently thanked by my own children on Mothering Sunday, thanks.

But before you think it is appropriate to disrespect the work of mothering & fathering as some kind of bait(what?!) again, just consider who will be doing the work of the world that keeps you in food, clothing and shelter when you are too old to be a net contributor of work yourself.

In an agrarian economy those who didn't have descendants had no one to look after them during old age. The true mechanics of an economy are now more shrouded in mist, but nevertheless, underlying all that the next generation will be doing the farmwork, the market garden work, and tending the cottonfields and so on and paying your pension. So you are dependent on well brought up hardworking children. So it is actually in your own interests that stable family units should thrive.

18 March 2013 at 13:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "Dan would appear to hold "mothers" in contempt, perhaps he had difficulties with his own mother."

Most of my friends are breeders and I have friends of both sexes. Obviously my parents were breeders too. I had no related problems with my mother, we got on very well together. Moreover, the world should be grateful she produced me. :)

Incidentally, Concannon, don't think I've forgotten that you've had relationship problems with the truth here in the past. When I see your name, I immediately think "liar".

18 March 2013 at 13:10  
Blogger Owl said...

Dan,

Thank you for your inane comment.

You do seem to have some serious problems. I will light a candle for you.

18 March 2013 at 13:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "But before you think it is appropriate to disrespect the work of mothering & fathering as some kind of bait(what?!) again, just consider who will be doing the work of the world that keeps you in food, clothing and shelter when you are too old to be a net contributor of work yourself."

If you're in the UK then my taxes are helping pay for your offspring and building/maintaining society for when they're older. In fact, I often argue to make it a better place too, such as by advocating a secular state and equal rights for minorities. No, no, there's no need to thank me. Afterall we all have our parts to play; you to open your legs periodically, me to do clever engineering things.

18 March 2013 at 13:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Some of my best friends are breeders too.

18 March 2013 at 13:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "You do seem to have some serious problems. I will light a candle for you."

Thanks, John. I'm sure god will be looking into your mind now thinking: what a nice man to be doing something so thoughtful and Christian.

18 March 2013 at 13:18  
Blogger MFH said...

Your best post for ages. Your Grace is back on form. Stick to this and save us from the drivel.

18 March 2013 at 13:32  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

you are a real troll and not a nice man, and you very clearly hate the female body. Your default mode is that if I am a mother ergo I am less clever than you the clever (male) engineer. You think none of the women here are graduates? You think I am your prejudiced and bigoted definition of a mother? Frankly I think it ill befits any of us to brag about our education, career, or achievements, and I will go no further than to say that no one who knows me would call me "luv"- just not appropriate- a fact which a small degree of linguistic sensitivity would have shown you. When I was at university- a while back, there was a funny t- shirt that said " Once I couldn't spell enginur, but now I are one" which some engineers wore; perhaps you had one.

Well, we can all play with stereotypes and wind ups, but I suggest you ditch them.

18 March 2013 at 13:41  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Flossie (12:35)—If it is a fact that sexual orientation is of biological origin, it remains a fact regardless of who cites it.

Disclosure: I am as anxious as anyone to see the Bercow-Bryant axis—a malevolent coming together of a red dwarf and a flasher—defeated and the chapel remain a Christian place of worship.

18 March 2013 at 13:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy, I'm sure you've got laundry to do for your family, or something similarly domestic and utilitarian. You've reached a level of outrage now that you've nothing much left next other than a flounce. So, swish your crinoline and be off.

18 March 2013 at 13:52  
Blogger Flossie said...

But that's just the thing, Johnny Rottenborough, it isn't. There is not one scrap of evidence that it is, no matter how hard some people have tried to find any.

Some people do have disordered urges which - no matter where they came from or how they got there - should not be acted upon.

18 March 2013 at 15:11  
Blogger Flossie said...

Lucy - DanJo likes his bit of fun at our expense. You shouldn't feed him! :)

18 March 2013 at 15:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie: "Some people do have disordered urges which - no matter where they came from or how they got there - should not be acted upon."

Obviously the word "disordered" is a contested concept there, and the word "should" has underlying assumptions. In your case, they're merely based on a god hypothesis from which you derive your beliefs as though it were actually true. That's fine, of course. Muslims do the same sort of thing, only using a different god hypothesis. The rest of us just need to make sure you lot don't get up to too much mischief when you're manifesting your religious beliefs. Similarly, Chris Bryant probably ought to be discouraged from his mischief too. As the article says, there are plenty of available rooms around there.

18 March 2013 at 15:42  
Blogger Flossie said...

Not so, DanJo. You might not like the 'god hypothesis' but you cannot deny that the design of the human body was not intended for homosexual practice, nor is the outcome of such practices in health terms desirable.

18 March 2013 at 16:07  
Blogger Hugh Sorrill said...

I'm astonished by the bile and hatred against gay people in these comments, not to mention the ignorance.

I'm a man. I happen to be sexually attracted by men generally - though not by all, of course. Such has always been the case for me and no doubt is the reason why the person with whom I have a deep emotional bond, which I hope and expect will last a lifetime, is a man. He is my husband, I am his, in fact if not - yet - in law.

This is my witness; my sexuality is an intrinsic part of me, a natural part of me and nothing can diminish the truth of that.

Now I can see that some for their own reasons, think my sexuality is 'sinful', my marriage 'invalid', even after the law is changed. I couldn't give a stuff: they are entitled to their own opinions.

I object, however, when lies are told.

Firstly: to equate homosexuality with paedophilia is gross, offensive and untrue. The gender of the victim is irrelevant; the sexual assault of children is wrong. Period. Or is it somehow 'better' if the child being assaulted by a male paedophile is a girl? Most are. By extension, is rape merely an expression of red-blooded heterosexuality?

Secondly: What is the 'Gay Agenda'? What it is not is gay people wanting everybody to be homosexual, how absurd to think we might. And how exactly would we achieve that? Nonsense.

But there is a gay agenda: equality under the law, no more, no less. And that means equal legal recognition, in the same terms, for the marriage of people of the same sex. (Religions can require their own adherents to do what they like, that's fine. The law of the land is for everybody.)

What we - actually I'm not speaking for anyone but me here - what I want, my agenda, is for people to be able to have sex with other consenting adults in any way they enjoy. I want young people who, like I did, find themselves attracted to people of the same sex to understand that homosexuality is part of the NORMAL DISTRIBUTION of sexual expression within the human species and that sexual and emotional relationships on that basis are as good, rewarding and uplifting as any other. I want young people of any sexuality to understand that when they express their sexuality with another person it should be with mutual respect at the very least, profound love at best.

Religions for years have told us that sexual expression is intrinsically bad, deeply dangerous; that people should only have sex in the way and with whom the religion decrees.

We're all grown up now, and don't have to be subject to this sexual abuse by religions.

18 March 2013 at 16:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie: "Not so, DanJo. You might not like the 'god hypothesis' but you cannot deny that the design of the human body was not intended for homosexual practice, nor is the outcome of such practices in health terms desirable."

Actually, I very much doubt there was intention behind the appearance of design at all. I'm an atheist afterall. Also, you seem to be assuming things about homosexual "practice" there. Does what you imagine include lesbians? Taking "design" to mean the the product of evolution to date, the human body wasn't designed for throwing itself out of aircraft with a silk canopy attached either but no-one seems to have much of a problem with that. People sometimes get hurt, and even killed doing such things. Whilst we don't specifically promote the sport as a society, we promote the freedom of choice that skydivers, and others, make. In fact, I daresay we structure our society in the UK based on our current, collective understanding of the human condition.

18 March 2013 at 17:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hugh Sorrill. No Christian hates people, but we are highly critical of “I am what I am” back passage enthusiasts like you. It’s a filthy habit and one you should consider giving up lest you catch a very nasty disease that will spend the rest of your life trying to kill you.

There you go, we love you and we hope that you will love we too.....



18 March 2013 at 18:04  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
Thinking about evolution, humans evolve and adapt according to their environment and surroundings, why then in all the millennia hasn't the male body evolved to be more accommodating to the practice of homosexuality? Why are the same health problems abundant and instead of getting better have become worse amongst homosexuals? There can't be a homosexual gene after all otherwise the back passage of those with the homosexual gene would be slightly different to the heterosexual surely?

18 March 2013 at 18:14  
Blogger Hugh Sorrill said...

Good grief, Office, be as critical as you like - that's your right. But boy it really does sound like hate, especially when your characterisation of complex sexuality is absurdly reduced to one act.

One act, I may point out, that has proven an effective contraceptive technique for heterosexuals since probably forever. Plenty of straight people enjoy that kind of sex. Plenty of gay people don't.

What's more heterosexual sex offers a broad palate of nasty diseases all its own.

So let's all take care of ourselves and our partners, shall we?

I find I love you, too. I love you not despite your sins but because of them - notably but not exclusively your wilful ignorance, your reluctance to admit it, your arrogance in assuming you know what's best for me and your ultimately doomed effort to influence the general polity. In short I love you, as I do everyone, for your flawed and beautiful humanity.

I do not want to have sex with you.

18 March 2013 at 18:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Now see here Hugh Sorrill. You types want a change in society to suit a small percentage of the population. To wit, the ridiculous notion that same sex couples can marry. How the bloody hell are we going to deny a much larger percentage sharia law when they demand it in their communities. To wit, backed up in British law.

It’s never been better to be a homosexual in the UK. But it’s not enough, is it. You demand, you get. Some of us traditionalists are somewhat annoyed at this. The next step you gays want, in line with the Gay Agenda, is to visit schools and tutor the young in buggery. And don’t even bother to express your denials.

Male homosexuals are disordered, generally bitter and depressed. If you don’t believe that, take yourself over to the comments section of Pink News. It’s the nearest you can get to Dante’s Inferno this side of hell...





18 March 2013 at 19:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "It’s the nearest you can get to Dante’s Inferno this side of hell..."

You've clearly not shopped in Oxford Street in the run up to Christmas then.

18 March 2013 at 20:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Thinking about evolution, humans evolve and adapt according to their environment and surroundings, why then in all the millennia hasn't the male body evolved to be more accommodating to the practice of homosexuality?"

Oh Marie, no. No. Surely, no.

18 March 2013 at 20:27  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

Carl Jacobs

Harsh words indeed, presented in an uncompromising fashion!

“A homosexual is one who engages in homosexual behavior.” and “Homosexual desire …is sin.”

Surely a homosexual is a person who is sexually attracted towards their own sex and the sin consists in cultivating this attraction or giving expression to it? You are conflating the condition leading to the attraction with a longing for or actual expression of this attraction.

Would you agree that there are people with an inclination towards same sex attraction who neither cultivate such desire nor act upon it? If so, what sin do they commit?

I do not deny that homosexuals exist. They clearly do. I deny that there exists a human nature that allows a man to justifiably declare "I desire to have sex with another man because I am by nature constructed to have sex with another man."

I am not claiming a special privilege for homosexuals based on a set of distinct moral imperatives particular to this category. If we accept homosexuality exists, justification for homosexual acts does not follow. A homosexual inclination contradicts what should be a natural desire for the good of married love and procreation. However, there surely are homosexuals, created by God, who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct.

“For there to exist a natural homosexual nature, God would have had to create it.”

This is not what I am saying. Does our creation by God free us from original sin and the flux of matter and history? We know our spiritual natures, our souls, our natures, have been harmed by original sin and are not ordered as God intended. We also know we are the products of human reproduction and the result of imperfect biological and genetic processes as well as social circumstances. Put all this together and we have a variety of people with a range of different challenges and predispositions.

“The contrary argument from nature is intended to deflect the source of that desire from the moral complicity of the human heart to the (alleged) moral neutrality of genetics.”

Not by me.

The number of people who have homosexual tendencies is not negligible and it appears the homosexual condition is not “chosen”.

God may permit the inclination within His creation without allowing for its expression. God's intent is perverted and none of us are how we should be and yet we have all have a unique soul from God.

I would not defend either the expression of homosexuality or any other sexual departure from God’s purpose. However, I do think we should exercise greater care in how we describe this and greater sensitivity towards those experiencing this condition who might need the support of their family and their Church.

18 March 2013 at 20:51  
Blogger len said...

It would be wise not to be an advocate for the sinful nature of man.

Jesus quite clearly identifies that the desire to sin is as important as the act of sin.It is not so much the individual acts of sin that make a sinner but the' sin nature' that compels one towards sin that is the problem.God has supplied the solution for that...'.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'(Ezekiel 36:26)
Unless one goes to the root of the problem the 'tree' will continue to flourish and produce' bad fruit.'

18 March 2013 at 23:04  
Blogger len said...

There can be no compromise between Christianity and the secular World.The secular World once having its' foot in the door' of the Church will want to come in and turn the place' upside down' and make it conform to the degenerating moral values of the World.
The Church must make a stand if it is to survive,The Church cannot conform to this present 'World system .
What the World calls' progress'is actually a downward progression (if one can call it that)Society is actually breaking down in many respects and Society needs a 'yardstick 'to measure its fall.Society seem to want(if not demand) that the Church falls with Society so no one will notice the discrepancy between what we once were to what we now are.

18 March 2013 at 23:19  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

len

If these comments were directed at my post above I'd be interested to learn where, and in what way, you believe I have advocated on behalf of the sinful nature of man.

When Our Lord said: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart", wasn't he was referring to an active looking and coveting of the woman's body through impure desire? We are being called to avoid, subdue and control such sinful lust.

19 March 2013 at 00:20  
Blogger len said...

Peter Damien, Are you suggesting that we can control feelings of lust or any other feelings that are contrary to Christian living through' will power' alone?. (I have possibly misunderstood your post?.)
No one can live' the Christian life' , many have tried and all have failed.There is only one who can live the Christian life and that is God Himself!. It is only through the power of the God`s Holy Spirit that one can live the Christian life.
So living the Christian life is not gritting ones teeth and doing ones best but giving up trying to live the Christian life altogether and letting Jesus Christ live His Life through you.
I realise this will 'scare the pants off'those who believe that if they' let loose the reins' then they will fall straight into sin but that is where faith(in God to carry out His promises not in oneself) comes in.

19 March 2013 at 19:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Peter Damian. Ignore Len, as indeed the best of us do. He wants to born again you in some nearby canal. You will find any answers you want about Christianity from a Catholic priest, not some keyboard God botherer....



19 March 2013 at 19:30  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

len
Yes, I'm afraid you have misuderstood my post. I believe we have to co-operate with God's grace.

If you consider yourself sinless and find Our Lord's yoke easy and his burden light, then thank God for this. However, I am not yet perfect. I sin often, and frequently remind myself of Jesus' words, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me".

19 March 2013 at 23:50  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

Inspectoer
Further evidence of irascibility?

Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk recommends meditation upon this verse from Mathew in times of trial:
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."

He wrote of this:
"Thus Christ calls us to Himself, promising sweet rest for our souls. Like He would say to us: "Oh, pity poor and tired of worldliness’s, you got enough jaded by your thoughts, plans, and hopes and world worries and sadness. Nowhere you will find true rest and happiness but Me. Wherever you turn to, you will not find the real avail."

20 March 2013 at 01:13  
Blogger Murray said...

In 1629 Charles the 1st dismissed Parliament and passed "Royal Instructions" which included the following: " hereafter none do presume to print or publish any matter of news, relations, histories, or other things in prose or in verse that have reference to matters and affairs of state, without the view, approbation and license" of the government.

I guess the English Revolution was for naught
(or perhaps it will have to be refought).

[note: I will run this bit of verse by the censors]

20 March 2013 at 01:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter Damian, ones post of 19:30 was more for the casual reader who might be taken in by Len’s apparent born again state of grace and his self delusion of a sinless life. It comes at a cost – denying his brother his less barking interpretation of the word. As Christ himself might put it, “He is a religious nuisance”



20 March 2013 at 18:54  
Blogger len said...

“He is a religious nuisance”


The Pharisees said exactly the same thing which means I am exactly on the right track Inspector,in fact I would be worried if you agreed with me given your anti Christian views.

20 March 2013 at 19:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

...and he’s damn well proud of it, to boot !

20 March 2013 at 19:19  
Blogger len said...

Peter Damien ,I am afraid you also have misunderstood my post.Perhaps this will help,( do not tell the Inspector though because he does not believe one must be' born again' because he [the Inspector]reckons that he is perfect as he is!)


Dead to Sin, Alive in Christ(Romans 6)

6 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

20 March 2013 at 19:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Where’s St peter when you need him. He was rather good at ear-ectomy...

20 March 2013 at 19:32  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

len
Do you now accept the necessity of Baptism by water? I thought, in an earlier thread, you had dismissed this.

When Paul wrote:
"Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."

I read these further verses from Paul as calling us to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in this new life in Christ:
"In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace."

Seen in this light, a call to resist the temptations of the body, through ever closer union with Christ, I agree with your earlier comment:
"No one can live' the Christian life' , many have tried and all have failed.There is only one who can live the Christian life and that is God Himself!. It is only through the power of the God`s Holy Spirit that one can live the Christian life."

I understand this wonderful verse from Galatians as representing a pinnicle to be ever achieved and renewed:
"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

Our own powers can claim no credit for a life of true service. Christ is the source of all the life that we have once His grace resides in us. We pray and strive that the union between the Lord Jesus and ourselves becomes so close that it might be said the one lives in the other.

20 March 2013 at 20:14  
Blogger len said...

Peter Damien, 'Water baptism' is only an outward sign of what has already happened spiritually in adults.
Water baptism is infants has no meaning because water baptism can only take part by one who totally understands the implications of what is happening and why it is happening' (infants cannot repent and be aware of what and why they are doing what they are doing.)
Jesus is the baptiser in the Holy Spirit which is when the person is transformed spiritually.
'And so john the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. 6 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I baptize you with[e] water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.(Mark 1)

So the important thing was repentance and baptism by the Holy Spirit.Water baptism (in adults) is an outward symbolism of the dying(going down into the grave/water) and being raised to new life by the Holy Spirit




21 March 2013 at 22:46  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

len
According to scripture, you are mistaken. The spiritual rebirth of the rite of Baptism by water is amply explained by Paul; it recreates and transforms. The symbolism and the inward grace it channels go hand in hand. Christ himself instituted the sacrament.

22 March 2013 at 20:05  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older