Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Marking time..

From Brother Ivo:

So what is it about the historic figure of Thomas Cranmer that makes him "the greatest Archbishop of Canterbury" in the eyes of the Peter Broadbent the Bishop of Willesden for the time being?

Well it plainly wasn't his human perfection.

Cranmer lived in interesting times and found himself bobbing like a cork though the maelstrom of Reformation politics and being overwhelmed by the wills of monarchs un-constrained by the Human Rights Act.

It took him eight years to complete his first degree. He served a monarch and church predecessor who were as vain as they were educated. He broke his vow of chastity by a secret marriage and his vow of obedience to the Pope and the Roman Church by consorting with heretics.

He allowed himself to become the tool of Thomas Boleyn in his quest to put his daughter on the throne, using her undoubted sexual allure with which she drew the King and herself into adultery.

When she was unable to provide the male heir, Cranmer was enough of a conservative to never consider the possibility that the princess Elizabeth, whom he had baptised, should become the Monarch, though happily she did, becoming arguably England's greatest ruler.

He took her mother's confession before her execution but continued to serve a King who was becoming increasingly monstrous in his person and his pride.

He was complicit in the destruction of the Public Services (aka the Monasteries) to which his master brought destructive zeal. Had Arthur Scargill and Peter Broadbent been living at the time they would have considered Cranmer the Lord Tebbitt to Henry's Margaret Thatcher. Both would probably have perished as leaders of the Pilgrimage of Grace – and Cranmer would still have stayed loyal to the increasingly powerful king.

With the accession of Edward VI he accepted a theological lurch towards the radical which he had previously struggled to moderate, and when the sickly king gave way to Mary, he attempted to reach accommodation with her, by recanting certain views. When he failed to avoid the martyr's fate, he redeemed his vacillations with a bravery that secures his reputation.

Despite this all, his writings offered an expression of theology that manages to draw those of different traditions into a degree of accord which epitomises English inclusiveness focused upon tradition.

The mantle of Cranmer's use of language and shaping of ideas passed to William Shakespeare. Through his historical plays, this writer also rose from modest beginnings and attempted to give form to complex ideas and to offer a commentary on contemporary politics, while saying something about our essential selves. He recognised that fallible rulers often have a "Project" – in the case of the Tudors, to bring peace to the realm whose dynasty, for all its faults, put an end to the Wars of the Roses which had devastated the country for decades, to the detriment of the ordinary subject.

In the exercise of his dramatic art, Shakespeare gave voice to deeper truths by putting his words into the mouths of an array of historical characters supplemented by fictional ones. When we contemplate the characters of Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Henry IV or Richard II, we are more likely than not to allow ourselves to be influenced by the imagination of a theatrical chancer who was part poet, part Arthur Daley.

Brother Ivo wonders if Bishop Pete boycotts Shakespeare?

The Bard puts his own thoughts, words, philosophies and analyses into the mouths of sundry characters for his own purposes. All of us "know" that the characters are expressing the author's views but we place ourselves into his hands so that through the temporary suspension of our belief, we may be drawn to a better understanding of contemporary issues.

Bishop Pete has now opened his twitter account to His Grace. That is a welcome olive branch. Brother Ivo hopes that His Grace will accept it.

The writing of this blog has been a huge labour of love, sacrifice and Christian witness. We know from time to time His Grace's ashes have cooled, and it has been in recognition of this that Brother Ivo has offered his own modest efforts to ease the load.

His Grace may need his time of reflection, and his communicants must pray for him whilst he does so.

There may be good and proper reasons why His Grace needs to reduce his labours. The opinions of him who may or may not be the greatest Bishop of Willesden cannot be one of them.

(Posted by Brother Ivo)

436 Comments:

Blogger bluedog said...

'He allowed himself to become the tool of Thomas Boleyn in his quest to put his daughter on the throne, using her undoubted sexual allure with which she drew the King and herself into adultery.'

Really and truly, Brother Ivo, where did you get that idea?

Henry VIII's 24 year marriage to Catherine of Aragon had failed to produce a male heir and he had already taken Anne's elder sister Mary as a mistress. So why didn't Sir Thomas Boleyn pimp Mary as Catherine's replacement? All the evidence suggests that Anne was acutely embarrassed by Henry's infatuation with her, and understandably so. Hooking up with your sister's Ex is always bad form and likely to cause an unpleasant family rift. We can reasonably assume Anne bent over backwards, so to speak, to avoid this compromising situation. Anne apparently refused to grant Henry her favours until after marriage was solemnised. To suggest that Sir Thomas Boleyn pimped Anne as a replacement for Catherine seems unlikely in the circumstances, given that Henry apparently took the lead.

Henry VIII was consistent in one thing at least, all his six wives were descendants of King Edward III. In view of the questionable claim of Henry VIII's father Henry VII to the throne, only won by the killing of King Richard III, one can understand the feeling of insecurity in the Tudor court. This dynastic consistency on Henry's part further underlines that marrying Anne Boleyn was designed to ensure, inter alia, the continued legitimacy of the Tudor line.

Henry VIII would not have needed Sir Thomas Boleyn to work that out.

24 April 2013 at 11:33  
Blogger Neill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 April 2013 at 11:36  
Blogger Neill said...

Spot on in sentiment and direction, Brother Ivo. Thank you. His Grace is lucky to have you within his blogging household.

24 April 2013 at 11:37  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Brother Ivo,

Thank you for your erudite and thoughtful piece.

Do send His Grace my well wishes for his rest and recovery.

24 April 2013 at 11:40  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Bravo, Brother Ivo, bravo! An excellent "elevator speech" summary of a complicated character in complicated times. Signore Machiavelli led a simple life compared to poor Thomas. A rare treatment at a point when historiography is once again being harnessed to pull simplified ideologies, to serve up scrubbed and idolized characters and to sound jingoistic jingles. Such won't get you a job writing for Hollywood, though. Or texts for our dumbed-down university courses, come to think of it.

24 April 2013 at 11:55  
Blogger Albert said...

what is it about the historic figure of Thomas Cranmer that makes him "the greatest Archbishop of Canterbury" in the eyes of the Peter Broadbent the Bishop of Willesden

Except that that's not quite what Bishop Pete says. He says:

our greatest ever Archbishop

I think that 'our' may be important. Yes, perhaps he is the greatest of Protestants to hold that office, but he is hardly in the same category as the great Catholic holders of the office.

You have described him as weak and vacillating. Compare him with St Thomas of Canterbury. It's like saying David Cameron (Cranmer) is greater than Margaret Thatcher (Becket), which would be as silly as it is embarrassing. You've spoken of his difficulties in getting his degree. Intellectually, he was muddled. His peculiar doctrine of the Headship of Kings resulted in him affirming that Nero was head of the Church, even while he was a pagan persecutor of the Church. He's hardly in the same category therefore as St Anselm, is he?

Also, I don't think that Cranmer is quite as responsible for many of the wrong things done in his time. He was a pawn, a weak man who could be brushed aside (Thomas Cromwell ran the Church instead of him for a while). He reminds me of Blair to Major: "Weak, weak, weak!".

In starting a new tradition, he hardly matches up to St Augustine (who also had a few flaws). Cranmer is drawn along by circumstances.

What does he leave us? Wonderful written English. You cannot take it away from him, although he clearly cribbed from the Medieval Latin texts. It's hardly enough to make him the greatest ever Archbishop of Canterbury is it? I'm not even sure I would say he was the greatest post-Reformation Archbishop.

24 April 2013 at 12:58  
Blogger Albert said...

his writings offered an expression of theology that manages to draw those of different traditions into a degree of accord which epitomises English inclusiveness focused upon tradition.

Except of course, that very large portions of the country rejected that, as contrary to English tradition ("like a Christmas game") they rose up against it and only accepted it because the King used violence against his own people and their own English tradition.

24 April 2013 at 13:07  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Cranmer wrote the finest English liturgy ever, for which I am truly grateful. Anglican Evensong liturgy is unsurpassed. It brought God and the people nearer. Great intellectuals do not always make the greatest leaders, of The Church or elsewhere.

24 April 2013 at 15:23  
Blogger Anon said...

His Grace is in my prayers,
Silent Follower.

24 April 2013 at 15:45  
Blogger Albert said...

David,

Cranmer wrote the finest English liturgy ever, for which I am truly grateful.

Which one do you mean? He wrote more than one.

24 April 2013 at 16:31  
Blogger michael north said...


Most talk of ecumenism is sentimental and lazy-minded. Some real good might have been done in that direction if Cranmer's words had been used wherever possible when the Mass was being turned into English, post Vatican2. Instead, the job was handed to a bunch of sociology graduates. The last pope tried to undo some of the damage.

24 April 2013 at 17:02  
Blogger Albert said...

Michael,

Coverdale's translation of the Canon is wonderful. I'm not sure what he would think about his translation actually being used though! The use of these kinds of translations would have grounded the Catholic Church in this country in a deeper English tradition and in a more prayerful spirit.

24 April 2013 at 17:36  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Albert.

Which one do you mean? He wrote more than one.

Answer. Correct. But being a practical sort, I refer to the one that we use, still, just about, in a few churches and in the Cathedrals, anyway.

Although the liturgy of the Common Worship series is now widely accepted and we have, of course, the "creativity" of Fresh Expressions, which as a do it yourself effort is only as good as the local author, nothing cuts it, for me, like the Prayer Book.

24 April 2013 at 18:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you David. I agree. The BCP is lovely. Obviously as a Catholic, I take issue with some of its theology, but the prayers are beautiful, and Evensong can be embraced, even by me, without reservation!

I wasn't meaning to be picky in asking which one you were referring to. It's just that they are so different (1549 & 1552). Personally, I would say 1549 is the best of the lot (including 1662). I think most people think that 1552 is nearer to what Cranmer himself meant, and I think that order is not so good.

24 April 2013 at 18:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Ivo, a surprisingly Roman Catholic view of Henry’s lackey, which one fears will do nothing to alleviate our Archbishop’s present humour. One is similarly surprised that more is not made of Cranmer’s marriage. Here was a priest looking after his own needs first, and what was required of him in his clerical duties came in at a poor second. So you can see how the Inspector views the man more of an opportunist than a man of principle. Indeed, it could be argued that his principles were formed to excuse him of said duties. He sits uncomfortably in the line of protestant fathers and luminaries as a result, don’t you find ? And yet, these aforementioned ‘heroes’ of the reformation are vital today for Protestantism. Without them, protestants no longer have a case…


24 April 2013 at 19:00  
Blogger Jimbo said...

Pete Broadbent has never heard od Stephen Langton. Wrote the Magna Carter don't you know and put the Bible into chapters.

24 April 2013 at 21:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say, this thread is quieter than Bridgend youth club on a Friday night. Must be something going on ?

25 April 2013 at 19:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Rather goes to show how utterly, we, the Archbishop’s flock, are dependant on the man for spiritual inspiration. Get well soon, that man.

By the way, in Victorian times, a well-to-do chap who was down would cheer himself up by affecting himself with ‘actresses’. if you catch this man’s drift {...AHEM...}

Cheery pip !

25 April 2013 at 20:06  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

I find the second exhortation, of Cranmer's final speech, to be lacking.

25 April 2013 at 20:59  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

Rather goes to show how utterly, we, the Archbishop’s flock, are dependant on the man for spiritual inspiration

I think that's unfair I enjoyed Brother Ivo's piece, which I found very diverting. That very few people have bothered to comment on it, probably reflects the fact that few Anglican know much about their own history, still less about the longer history of the Church. After all, if they knew more, they would be less likely to be Anglicans.

25 April 2013 at 21:39  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

You are a bounder, Sir. Gentlemen, and most especially serious Christian gentlemen, would do no such thing.

Albert

I agree Brother Ivor's post was well crafted and thoughtful. I am surprised so few Angligans have commented and felt it best not to in the circumstances. I have rather strong opinions on Thomas Cranmer but then the school I attended was Saint Thomas More High School and our motto: "God's Servant First".

This period was a dark time indeed for the Church, embroiled as it was in matters of State and international politics and in need of reform. A testing time for the integrity of all those at the centre of the drama.

25 April 2013 at 21:58  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

If I might read between the lines ...

After all, if they knew more, they would be less likely to be Anglicans.

Heh. Yes, that's my problem. I don't know enough about Rome. If only I knew more about the RCC, I would be RC.

carl

25 April 2013 at 21:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert dear thing. Ivo does a sterling job. One is always intrigued as to what the fellow will come out with next...


25 April 2013 at 22:06  
Blogger Peter D said...

Carl

Oh, you know sufficient to find out more but, in my opinion, you're too stiff necked. As I've said in another place, Calvinism was a new religion and Anglicans know too little about it and its influence on their faith. Luther's rage could have been accomodated, given time. Not Calvin's reinterpretation of the Bible and misrepresentation of the Christian message.

Yes all assertions, I know but worth saying nevertheless.

25 April 2013 at 22:19  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thanks for keeping the cart on the wheels, Br. Ivo. Hope it works, though resurgence of the other influences makes me doubtful.

25 April 2013 at 23:28  
Blogger OldJim said...

Peter D

Calvin's doctrines were of a piece with Luther's. Save on the question of the mode of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, where Calvin became a thoroughgoing Zwinglian whilst Luther vacillated somewhat.

It would be truer to say that the rage of Luther's heirs and successors, even Melanchthon the utterly muddleheaded, might have eventually been accommodated. In many places they hedged and compromised between Luther's doctrine and that of the Old Faith, and this compromise is what would later be considered the "Lutheran" stream of the Reformation - that fact, along with Luther's mystical mode in comparison to Calvin's more systematic approach, is what creates the impression that Luther was some kind of moderate and Calvin am ideologue and a zealot who took the thing too far.

We mustn't belabour under this delusion. Luther didn't launch some Erasmian reform movement. Erasmus launched the Erasmian reform movement. Luther launched Calvinism, the pure form of which many of his own camp eventually retreated from in fear.

And quite understandably.

26 April 2013 at 00:14  
Blogger Peter D said...

Old Jim

I stand corrected. I am neither a theologian nor a historian.

My impression is that Luther was motivated by personal insecurities, doubt and angst, aggravated by the ills of the Church and his own spiritual confusion. Not a 'moderate', I agree, but redeemable. Calvin, on the other hand, applied a warped logic to scripture and his theology was ice cold as a result.

26 April 2013 at 00:44  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

OIG

Brother Ivo has an interest in the life of ideas and, as best he may determine, how he should explore that world in the light of the Gospel.

It was that interest, like most readers, which has brought him to His Grace's blog since its earliest days: where would we go in its absence? The Internet has many places of interest but few others have the nuanced blend of knowledge, style, perspective and topicality, seasoned by a a commentariat which may passionately disagree, but rarely disappoints those seeking a new take on current affairs.

His Grace is entitled to his time, our patience and our prayers. Brother Ivo offers a Ministry of gentle encouragement, seasoned with respect for whatever outcome may emerge.

26 April 2013 at 07:42  
Blogger doubleA injobs said...

Thousands of the peoples Search Online Jobs from home and Every people Different type of Jobs, Here is a Best online jobs from home just like Copy Pasting, Data Entry, Clicking Jobs, Article Sharing, Data Sharing, Website Clicking, Facebook Jobs, Marketing Jobs, Google Jobs and Much More Online Works
JobzCorner.Com

26 April 2013 at 08:15  
Blogger Flossie said...

Thank you, Brother Ivo, for your kind concern and gentle intervention. It somehow seemed disrespectful for us to chatter amongst ourselves while our gracious host may be suffering in mind and spirit.

Prayer works. Prayer is good! What else can we do?



26 April 2013 at 09:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Thank you for moving us on from the previous post!

26 April 2013 at 11:56  
Blogger bluedog said...

Brother Ivo, it is reassuring indeed to learn that you are His Grace's chaplin.

26 April 2013 at 11:58  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Brother Ivo asks whether Bishop Pete would boycott Shakespeare. A good question. It is only a matter of time before Shakespeare is removed from the curriculum on grounds of political correctness.
Do you mind me asking whether the following story has received any coverage in the mainstream media? I didn't see it in any newspaper or hear it on TV or radio but maybe I missed something:-
A young man demonstrating against "gay" marriage in Paris has been attacked and seriously injured. Samuel Lafont, 25, was stabbed four times in the back and his companions were also attacked. One suffered a stab wound in the arm. Lafont, who lost a lot of blood, is in the Georges Pompidou hospital in intensive care.
http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/pro-marriage-protestor-stabbed-by-queers-in-violent-riot-in-paris/

26 April 2013 at 13:15  
Blogger Flossie said...

This is on the La Manif pour Tous website, Julia, but you are right - there is no sign of it in the mainstream media.

http://www.lamanifpourtous.fr/en/toutes-les-actualites/174-soutien-a-samuel-lafont-apres-son-agression

How good is your French?



26 April 2013 at 13:29  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I don't know enough about Rome. If only I knew more about the RCC, I would be RC.

I never said that it would. Only grace can convert someone. What I said was:

few Anglicans know much about their own history, still less about the longer history of the Church. After all, if they knew more, they would be less likely to be Anglicans.

Are you going to disagree with that, Carl?

26 April 2013 at 13:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Julia,

Do you mind me asking whether the following story has received any coverage in the mainstream media?

I haven't see that. There was a blog post in the Telegraph a few days ago showing French police pushing a priest to the ground and kicking him in the head, before "disappearing him" behind some iron gates. It seems the priest was trying to protect a protester whom the police had already pushed to the ground.

We're not like to hear much about this stuff. The gay agenda rests on the idea of tolerance and inclusion, show that it is the opposite and it will lose everything.

26 April 2013 at 13:41  
Blogger Flossie said...

You can watch that shocking incident here, Albert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_3NRLah9J0g

It is true that if a gay activist had been stabbed by a marriage supporter, the press would have been all over the story.

26 April 2013 at 13:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Quite, Flossie. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

26 April 2013 at 14:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good afternoon types...

The Inspector thanks Flossie and Julia for illuminating him of the gay attack on a pro marriage Frenchman. As you know, the Inspector mounts constant patrols at Pink News, to monitor what these blighters are getting up to. Nothing about said attack, but plenty on the gay uprising in America to infiltrate their Boy Scouts association. (...As Mandy Rice Davies might say, “they would, wouldn’t they”...). Apparently, the sensible precaution of keeping heterosexuals’ children safe from predatory gay men is a step too far for LGBT. It’s discriminatory, they say, without realising that discrimination can be a good thing.

The pages of Pink News are full of instances of reaching for litigation in the courts if the SLIGHTEST, well slight, is perceived LGBT. This includes telling them that their chosen lifestyle is wrong. So, what we find is that the law against blasphemy is well alive in the twenty first century. Only it applies now to denying the gay god. Rather disappointing as it happens as one would have thought that now they have their ‘marriage’ special privileges, they would have all gone home and lived the gay life happy every after. What went wrong, we shout !

Anyway, if you are unlucky enough to come up against a militant gay, here’s what to do: Smile weakly, and back away. Do not speak and certainly do not answer any question like ‘How are you for SSM’, not if you don’t want to be persecuted in the courts. If you are an Anglican Archbishop it might even be demanded of you that you apologise for centuries of church ‘persecution’ as happened to ++Welby. Do what that man did – refuse to commit. If you are a Christian B&B proprietor, just tell him you’ve stopped trading with immediate effect, and slam the door shut.

Mind how you and take care out there...

pip ! pip !

26 April 2013 at 15:17  
Blogger Peter D said...

Brothter Ivor

Please convey warm wishes to Archbishop Cranmer from his Catholic followers. We, and in particular me, have had our differences, not always properly expressed, but we do all sincerely hope he returns. There are few blogs where Christians of different persuasion gather to express views.

Peter D

26 April 2013 at 16:11  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

Attributing bias towards Catholics as merely an act of English nationalism, denys the spiritual validity, and necessity of such a measure. A measure that must bear fruit, if Protestantism is to survive.

The heavens declare God's rejection of Rome.

26 April 2013 at 16:23  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Albert: What I said was:

few Anglicans know much about their own history, still less about the longer history of the Church. After all, if they knew more, they would be less likely to be Anglicans.

Are you going to disagree with that, Carl?


I'll happily disagree with it. I think that if history is going to put anyone off anything, it's going to be the Church of Rome. I don't see why knowing more church history would put people off being Anglican particularly.

OldJim: Calvin a Zwinglian on the Lord's Supper? What makes you say that? Calvin staked out a third position, which is often called "real Spiritual presence" or something of that ilk, different to Zwinglian "bare signs".

26 April 2013 at 16:42  
Blogger Albert said...

Thomas,

A study of Church history normally corrects doctrinal misunderstandings and prejudices - I know this from personal experience - perhaps if you expressed why history would put you off Catholicism, I could tell you whether I think a grasp of history would help with (what I take to be) your doctrinal misunderstanding.

More specifically, I think history gives us a sense of the development of doctrine, something which undercuts Protestantism in many ways. In Anglicanism, development of doctrine puts into sharp relief the developments Anglicanism accepts, as opposed to those it doesn't accept. It raises the question of how you distinguish between the two (something Anglicanism urgently needs to answer as it changes apostolic polity on matters such as women's ordination, re-marriage after divorce and homosexuality).

Finally, I would say that most Protestants - Anglicans included - have little grasp of Church history, certainly not after 451. They pick up in the period immediately before the Protestant Reformation, but only to justify the latter. The latest historical scholarship has corrected this picture of the late Medieval Church. Moreover, a grasp of the history for those thousands years shows it not only to be a history of human sinfulness (as in all ages) but also of fruits of the Spirit (fruits which Protestantism relies on one denying).

In the end, how does someone go from the Bible and the apostolic Church to the Church of England? The path is not obvious.

26 April 2013 at 16:57  
Blogger Albert said...

I nearly forgot, history also shows us those intellectual moves, made by the Medieval Church (like nominalism) without which Protestant doctrine cannot be understood. Once we understand that Protestantism is radically contingent on questionable philosophical developments and foundations, it alters how we see it.

26 April 2013 at 16:59  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Albert: For example, historical studies showing the development of the papacy, and its early nonexistence, not to mention the historical pope/antipope struggles.

More specifically, I think history gives us a sense of the development of doctrine, something which undercuts Protestantism in many ways. In Anglicanism, development of doctrine puts into sharp relief the developments Anglicanism accepts, as opposed to those it doesn't accept. It raises the question of how you distinguish between the two (something Anglicanism urgently needs to answer as it changes apostolic polity on matters such as women's ordination, re-marriage after divorce and homosexuality).

The same rule of faith as the rest of the protestant church, sola scriptura (though some Anglicans want to dissent from that. Still, it's a consistent rule). I can’t see that it’s a problem for protestants, except perhaps liberal ones.

Finally, I would say that most Protestants - Anglicans included - have little grasp of Church history, certainly not after 451. They pick up in the period immediately before the Protestant Reformation, but only to justify the latter. The latest historical scholarship has corrected this picture of the late Medieval Church. Moreover, a grasp of the history for those thousands years shows it not only to be a history of human sinfulness (as in all ages) but also of fruits of the Spirit (fruits which Protestantism relies on one denying).

I would say that most Catholics also have little understanding of church history, and that most people are pretty ignorant of history in general. Clearly, though, there are protestant scholars of the medieval church as well as the ancient and reformation and post reformation periods.

How does Protestantism rely on denying fruit to the medieval church? Unless you’re implying we believe that there was no church in the medieval period (the Anabaptist/restorationist position), I can’t understand what you’re getting at I'm afraid.

In the end, how does someone go from the Bible and the apostolic Church to the Church of England? The path is not obvious.

The same could be said of the Roman Catholic Church.

nearly forgot, history also shows us those intellectual moves, made by the Medieval Church (like nominalism) without which Protestant doctrine cannot be understood. Once we understand that Protestantism is radically contingent on questionable philosophical developments and foundations, it alters how we see it.

That’s only a problem if you don’t believe in God’s exhaustive and totally sovereign providence. Moreover, you don’t need to be nominalist to be Protestant. Not to mention, once again, that the Roman Catholic Church (in its current form) is also based on radically contingent philosophical developments.

Sorry this response is somewhat brief, am off out.

26 April 2013 at 18:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's interesting that Roman Catholicism supposedly rests on notions of love, amongst other things, yet all its vast and vile abuses throughout its history which show much the opposite still don't seem to kill it off. If I believed in Satan then I'd be inclined to think it protects its own.

26 April 2013 at 18:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Since the thread has taken the usual gay tangent, it seems appropriate to post this now:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314975/John-Paulk-Ex-gay-movement-poster-boy-says-sorry-gay-along.html

Despite his gay, ex-gay, gay toggling, he apparently remains a devout Christian. Phew.

26 April 2013 at 18:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

It’s true, young DanJ0. Roman Catholics love you, and they love you so much that they get annoyed when our tolerance of your lifestyle is taken by LGBT to be some kind of damn green light for you to go ahead and queer marriage. Now, don’t you feel all the more reassured for that, what !

By the way, isn’t the anus referred to as ‘The Devil’s hole’ in antiquity ?

26 April 2013 at 19:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


{AHEM}, might be the “Devil’s entrance”. Anyway, you'd certainly know for sure, educated gay man that you are...

26 April 2013 at 19:21  
Blogger len said...

Albert' Once we understand that Protestantism is radically contingent on questionable philosophical developments and foundations, it alters how we see it.'
26 April 2013 16:59 (Blinded by the darkness?)

Catholicism on the other hand based on error and deception this is easily verified by anyone with a grain of common sense and the ability to read the Bible.
If one made a list of all Catholic dogma and then looked in the Bible to verify it one would see that the majority of Catholic dogma is the invention of men and has nothing to do with Scripture
The Reformers were attempting to discard the rubbish imposed by Catholicism and to reveal the simple truth of the Gospel.I am not saying these were 'perfect men'but they initiated a questioning attitude to the traditions of men heaped upon the Gospel by Catholic 'theologians'.
As Spurgeon said' A master excavator was MARTIN LUTHER; how grandly he laid bare the glorious foundation of justification by faith alone! An equally grand worker at this great enterprise was Master JOHN CALVIN, who laid open long stretches of the ancient foundations of the covenant of grace. Well was he supported by his brother of Zurich, Zwingle, and John Knox in Scotland, and others in this land. They cleared away for a while some of the rubbish, but there was such a mass of it that they had to throw it up in heaps on either side, and it is beginning to come crumbling down again on to the foundation, and to cover it up once more. A perfect reformation they could not work, and the remnant of the rubbish is now our plague and hindrance. Everywhere the much rubbish is being diligently cast upon the wall by the emissaries of the evil one, and we can scarcely get to the foundations to build thereon the gold and silver and precious stones which God commits to us with which to build up his own house.'

26 April 2013 at 19:31  
Blogger len said...

Danjo is perfectly right there is little love in those who persecute others.Jesus persecuted nobody.
It is the 'religious Pharisees' who pertsecute, who heap up burdens on poor mens backs.

Jesus message was based on love, love for God and love for fellow men.
I would ask all those seeking truth to avoid the 'religious' and do not judge Jesus on the basis of these loveless religious frauds.

26 April 2013 at 19:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I think it was referred to as a 'chocolate starfish' by most people in antiquity.

26 April 2013 at 19:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. Your position on homosexuality. Now if you please, and be quick with it...

26 April 2013 at 20:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 April 2013 at 20:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Confound you Len. You have always been as slippery as a slippery thing when it comes to your stance on homosexuality. Now see here, that nuisance, the Inspector is determined this time to drag the bloody thing out of you. Do you fully understand ? No more skulking in the cats room. Stand up and declare yourself !



26 April 2013 at 20:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Where is he ? That born again blighter. Show yourself, you scoundrel....

26 April 2013 at 21:39  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Dash it all, I trust that The Archbishop recovers from his melancholy soon.

27 April 2013 at 00:55  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah, another thread of the gays vs Roman Catholicism vs Protestantism.

"The broken record" methinks.

Can we not discuss other matters?For example :

What about intervention in Syria, or the insanity of the SNP currency plan? Or will there be war in Asia?

27 April 2013 at 00:58  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

This is written to be helpful and to ask you to consider your comments.

Peter Damian, writing in the 11th century, showed a remarkable insight into homosexuality and its corrupting nature.

"Tell us, you unmanly and effeminate man, what do you seek in another male that you do not find in yourself?" he asked. "What difference in sex, what varied features of the body?"

He continued, "For it is the function of the natural appetite that each should seek outside himself what he cannot find in his own capacity. Therefore, if the touch of masculine flesh delights you, lay your hands upon yourself and be assured that whatever you do not find in yourself, you seek in vain in the body of another," he concludes."

He wrote on the particular malice of the vice of sodomy. According to Damian, the vice of sodomy "surpasses the enormity of all others," because:

"Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind ... It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise ... It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity ... It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things ...

"This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church ... it separates the soul from God to associate it with demons. This utterly diseased queen of Sodom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to GodÖ She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice ... She humiliates her slave in the church and condemns him in court; she defiles him in secret and dishonors him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire. ... this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind's vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence. (emphasis added)

"Shall I say more?"


My advice to you is to stop your preoccupation with this vice. Fine, object to it and homosexual marriage as gravely harmful. However, there's no need to continually post on it in the manner and style you do.

As for len, I recall he has cited St Paul's Letter to the Romans (verses 24:32) on more than one occasion. This contains the Bible's clearest condemnation of homosexuality. You ought to read this too.

Those facing this temptation and attempting to overcome it, deserve our prayers and support. Christians who teach it is acceptable and reconstruct the Bible to justify their vice, dserve our opposition. Is there really anything to say to those who reject God, indulge in the vice, defend it as 'normal', and see no harm in it for individuals or society?

27 April 2013 at 01:03  
Blogger bluedog said...

'Or will there be war in Asia?' asks Lord Lavendon @ 00.58.

Possibly the most important question that can be asked at present. To this communicant it overshadows all other foreign policy considerations - Euro woes - Syria etc.

One only has to look at photos of Japanese and Chinese coast-guard vessels steaming at speed within a cable's length of each other to realise that tensions are very high indeed. A single error by a helmsman could cause a collision that triggers a conflagration.

Google maps is a wonderful thing and one can see that the disputed islands are far nearer both the south-western islands of Japan and Taiwan than they are to the coast of mainland China. As control of the islands would give the Chinese the free access to the Western Pacific that they seek, it seems that China will go to extreme lengths to try and force a Japanese retreat. And the Japanese, who's navy is once again the best in Asia, are not retreating. And the Americans are backing the Japanese to the hilt.

The root of the problem is the lack of democracy in China. To deflect domestic discontent the CCP has started a programme of demonising the Japanese. Thus the Chinese bloggosphere cheers every move by its coast guard and navy. Sadly reminiscent of pre-Great War jingoism.

See www.xinhuanet.com/english for blood-curdling bombast.

27 April 2013 at 10:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Gentlemen, allow the Inspector to inform you all that he is NOT pre-occupied with homosexuality, outside of the immediate. Let him further inform you that this week gone saw the preliminary scrutiny of the SSM bill in the Lords. Part of the process to allocate it parliamentary time in the Lords.

Let the Inspector further inform you that he did not initiate the subject on this thread.

Be in no doubt whatsoever that SSM marks a defining moment in the struggle to prevent society making a further stumble along the road of degeneration. And bear this in mind: SSM will open doors to the militant gay movement. Open many doors. Doors that should be locked to them.

We watch as a new priestly caste is created, and protected by an updated law of blasphemy. To deny the gay their merest desires or to criticise them is to be a most grievous offence indeed...

27 April 2013 at 10:34  
Blogger Albert said...

Thomas,

women's ordination, re-marriage after divorce and homosexuality). The same rule of faith as the rest of the protestant church, sola scriptura (though some Anglicans want to dissent from that. Still, it's a consistent rule). I can’t see that it’s a problem for protestants, except perhaps liberal ones.

Well, I wonder what your position on those three things is. Whatever position you argue for, it is possible to argue against on the basis of scripture alone. And that's without getting in to the question sola scriptura, and whether it conforms to its own standard.

historical studies showing the development of the papacy, and its early nonexistence, not to mention the historical pope/antipope struggles.

Yes, but as I am indicating, there are historical studies showing just about everything (there were women apostles in the early church, apparently). There are also historical studies which contradict any idea of the non-existence of the papacy - including from ARCIC. So "historical studies" do not solve anything. Moreover, history shows us that there is a clearly developing tradition. As you worry about the papacy, there will be scholars who doubt that the divinity of Christ was there from the beginning, as opposed to being a later pagan corruption. There will be those who doubt whether the scripture we now have is as it should be. All these things can be argued about, and the only thing one can agree upon is some kind of development. When Newman presented his idea of development, Anglican said it wasn't true. Protestantism required a basically static view of doctrine. Now, Anglicans defend women's ordination on the basis of development of doctrine. And this leads exactly to Newman's argument: why accept some developments and not others. How do you decide which is authentic and which not?

As for a development which makes no sense and clearly has no basis in either scripture nor the ancient Church, how about this one: the idea that the monarch is the Head of the Church. It would have surprised Nero to hear that, even while he persecuted Christians, and yet that was Cranmer's view. A second idea: the doctrine that a local Church can be visibly separated from the whole and still be its local embodiment (provided the local monarch agrees, of course). These things have no basis and yet you worry about the papacy. Straining a gnat and swallowing a camel?

I would say that most Catholics also have little understanding of church history

Yes, but unlike Protestants, Catholics do not rest on private judgement. Private judgement without knowing the categories and history of the discussion is blind.

How does Protestantism rely on denying fruit to the medieval church? Unless you’re implying we believe that there was no church in the medieval period (the Anabaptist/restorationist position), I can’t understand what you’re getting at I'm afraid.

I just mean that one comes to understand that it really was the visible Church and cannot be legitimately broken from. That much of the Protestant critique of Medieval Christianity is just Tudor propaganda.

That’s only a problem if you don’t believe in God’s exhaustive and totally sovereign providence. Moreover, you don’t need to be nominalist to be Protestant. Not to mention, once again, that the Roman Catholic Church (in its current form) is also based on radically contingent philosophical developments.

I cannot see how one can hold classical Protestant doctrine on justification without also being a nominalist. Outside of that context it is just a doctrine of annihilation rather than salvation. And here is the key point, as Protestantism require nominalism, and nominalism is a later philosophical development, it follows the Bible is not nominalist. Therefore, the classical Protestant doctrine is not that of the Bible.

27 April 2013 at 11:35  
Blogger Albert said...

Len & Dan,

You really are very similar. Len seeks to say that Catholicism is not biblical, knowing full well that I can defend it from that charge and put the charge against Protestantism. Dan worries about the vile abuses of Catholicism, knowing full well, that irreligionists, despite being a very small group and having arrived on the scene very late, are nevertheless top of the Premier League when it comes to inhumane abuse. No one comes near to them.

27 April 2013 at 11:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Lord Lavendon,

Can we not discuss other matters?

Yes, of course. No one makes you discuss theology. Does that entitle you to stop others doing so?

27 April 2013 at 11:40  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Thank you, Flossie, for that link.
Which Telegraph blog was it that mentioned this?
Curious isn't it, this silence in the mainstream media about all the assaults and violence to marriage supporters?
I saw LGBTs push and kick marriage supporters in Trafalgar Square, until the police pushed them off. Also they called any fellow-homos in the La Manif Pour Tous movement "stupid".
Even the logo of La Manif Pour Tous has been declared illegal. But the ratings of the Hollande government have collapsed, that's one hopeful sign.
You ask how good my French is. Enough to be going along with. Enough not to have to use a translated webpage!

27 April 2013 at 11:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Julia,

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100213251/french-police-assault-a-priest-protesting-gay-marriage-this-debate-is-bigger-and-uglier-than-the-mainstream-media-admits/

27 April 2013 at 12:11  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

ALbert: Thanks for the response. Here's mine (Part 1):

Well, I wonder what your position on those three things is.

Women’s ordination: sinful
Re-marriage after divorce: sinful
Homosexuality: sinful

Just because it’s possible to argue against doesn't mean that those arguments hold any water. It’s possible to argue that Roman Catholicism permits homosexuality and advocates giving communion to monkeys, the possibility of that argument’s existence isn't a problem for the validity of the rule of faith.

Yes, but as I am indicating, there are historical studies showing just about everything (there were women apostles in the early church, apparently). There are also historical studies which contradict any idea of the non-existence of the papacy - including from ARCIC. So "historical studies" do not solve anything.

You seem to be worried that just because there are two contradictory claims it is impossible to decide between them. However, this just leaves you in a complete epistemological morass, and unless you apply it in every area of life (you can’t) then it’s special pleading.

Moreover, history shows us that there is a clearly developing tradition.

I though historical studies didn’t solve anything?

All these things can be argued about, and the only thing one can agree upon is some kind of development.

Just because we can’t agree doesn’t mean the conclusion isn’t reasonable or true. I can shut my eyes, stick my fingers in my ears and say there has been no doctrinal development, as you put it. If I do that, is there nowhere else to go? On your theory of knowledge it would seem so.

When Newman presented his idea of development, Anglican said it wasn't true. Protestantism required a basically static view of doctrine. Now, Anglicans defend women's ordination on the basis of development of doctrine. And this leads exactly to Newman's argument: why accept some developments and not others. How do you decide which is authentic and which not?

It depends what you mean by development. All Protestants are doing is applying the norming norm of scripture to theology, correcting past theological errors, improving formulations. Theology isn’t static, but truth is. The question is how that truth is discovered. As for Anglicans defending women’s ordination, I’ve never heard anyone use anything like Newman’s development hypothesis to defend it, if they bother to defend it at all. I think you’re giving liberals too much credit.

27 April 2013 at 12:18  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Albert: Part 2:

the idea that the monarch is the Head of the Church.

You were an Anglican, and you believe the monarch is the head of the church? That would be Christ. The monarch can be the supreme governor of the church, though this is not required but adaiaphora.

A second idea: the doctrine that a local Church can be visibly separated from the whole and still be its local embodiment.

Question-begging on the nature of the church.

These things have no basis and yet you worry about the papacy. Straining a gnat and swallowing a camel?

The papacy is definitely a camel. Not a gnat. There’s no way the papacy is a small issue.

Yes, but unlike Protestants, Catholics do not rest on private judgement. Private judgement without knowing the categories and history of the discussion is blind.

Yes, they do, to become Catholics. I understand the pretence of certainty that Catholicism requires, but actually to become a Catholic you have to exercise private judgement. Furthermore, the finality of communication remains with the individual.


I just mean that one comes to understand that it really was the visible Church and cannot be legitimately broken from. That much of the Protestant critique of Medieval Christianity is just Tudor
propaganda.


Question-begging on the nature of the church once again.

I cannot see how one can hold classical Protestant doctrine on justification without also being a nominalist. Outside of that context it is just a doctrine of annihilation rather than salvation.

Please explain this claim. There certainly have been Realist Protestant philosophers, such as Gordon H. Clark.

And here is the key point, as Protestantism require nominalism, and nominalism is a later philosophical development, it follows the Bible is not nominalist. Therefore, the classical Protestant doctrine is not that of the Bible.

This does not follow, unless you believe that the Bible is a purely human book. And just because nominalism wasn’t formalised does not mean it did not exist. The Bible was written by Jews, not Plato.

27 April 2013 at 12:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

France has a significant proportion of its people who claim to be Roman Catholic, the recent abuses of the Roman Catholic Church seem to have had a lower profile in France, and there's an unholy alliance of the religious and the far right-wing there opposing same-sex marriage. It's no wonder there's acrimony on the streets in a protest environment.

Of course, if a Roman Catholic claims that the demand for equal civil rights of gay people, justified by the liberal values of freedom, tolerance, fairness etc are somehow significantly undermined by the violent actions of the CRS and some others in a protest then it seems fair enough to me to show the flaw in that line of thought with an illustration using the Roman Catholic Church and its evil. Afterall, the Church in its hubris claims it is its god's organisation in Earth yet behaves like the Devil's at times. How undermining is that? Yet it still carries on somehow.

27 April 2013 at 12:42  
Blogger Albert said...

Thomas,

Just because it’s possible to argue against doesn't mean that those arguments hold any water.

I agree. But I'm interested in your positions - only on homosexuality are you in agreement with the CofE, and the CofE will probably change that at some level. On divorce, do you accept remarriage after divorce?

On the other hand, I have studied all these questions considerably. Although I come to the same conclusions as you, I can see how people come to other positions. I'm not convinced by their arguments, but I'm not so arrogant as to assume my own judgement always coincides with the Word of God - and if I was, I would have to deny certain passages of scripture. But more importantly, Protestantism requires everyone to be able to adjudicate on these matters. It just doesn't work. Matters are not that clear.

You seem to be worried that just because there are two contradictory claims it is impossible to decide between them.

I am saying that the Word of God transcends my human limitation. The fact that someone says something different from me could make them an utter heretic, or me a heretic or just show that there is more to something than I can see. How do I decide in these matters? You seem to be saying that just because one can decide between opposing views, therefore one always can. I don't think that is true, and I certainly don't see how one can come to certitude of faith in such circumstances.

I though historical studies didn’t solve anything?

Doesn't solve precise theological articles and questions, it can't partly because of human limitation and that what we find is doctrines in a state of development/corruption.

All Protestants are doing is applying the norming norm of scripture to theology, correcting past theological errors, improving formulations.

Which assumes they are able to grasp that norm sufficiently accurately and exhaustively. Nothing you have said has shown this to be the case. You have simply suggested that because you disagree with a position, it cannot be taken seriously.

27 April 2013 at 12:44  
Blogger Albert said...

Thomas,

As for Anglicans defending women’s ordination, I’ve never heard anyone use anything like Newman’s development hypothesis to defend it, if they bother to defend it at all.

I'm very surprised. I recall it coming up in the 1992 debate itself! Look at all that Affirming Catholicism literature. It just sounds like the reason you are so confident of your position is because you don't read people who disagree with you!

You were an Anglican, and you believe the monarch is the head of the church? That would be Christ. The monarch can be the supreme governor of the church, though this is not required but adaiaphora.

No, of course not. But Cranmer did. I don't think he would have thought it was optional. How can it be optional? It would make no sense of any church polity, but especially not of the CofE.

Question-begging on the nature of the church.

How so?

The papacy is definitely a camel. Not a gnat. There’s no way the papacy is a small issue.

If we are talking about the historical basis for something, the papacy has clear historical foundations. As you say, the fact that you don't think it does, does not mean I have to take your view seriously! The idea of Headship of Prince or the divisibility of the Church has not basis in scripture or tradition.

Question-begging on the nature of the church once again.

Not at all. Have you read The Stripping of the Altars?

Please explain this claim.

The historical significance of nominalism to Protestantism is well documented by McGrath in his book on the subject. If there is no human nature then all that is left is the will. God's grace cannot actually work on human nature to perfect it, he must just impose his will. Again, this development in Medieval thought is well documented - not least by scholars tracing the origins of modernity. Given this, I am entitled to ask how Clark combines realism with sola fide.

This does not follow, unless you believe that the Bible is a purely human book.

It follows that the authors of the Bible were not Protestants.

And just because nominalism wasn’t formalised does not mean it did not exist.

So you think the Biblical authors were nominalists?

The Bible was written by Jews, not Plato.

Do you think the only alternative to nominalism is Plato?



27 April 2013 at 12:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, you continue to spew forth about the tiny number of abusive priests in the RCC. How about giving us your considered opinion on the ‘tiny’ number of gay men who are predatory, and dare it be said, paedophilic, in their aspirations . You could start with your mentor Tatchell, and his curious remarks about child-adult sexual activity. Totally illegal of course, but as you like to flippantly say, “Hey”

27 April 2013 at 13:02  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

demand for equal civil rights of gay people, justified by the liberal values of freedom, tolerance, fairness etc

No one is denying equal rights for gay people. What is denied is that gay relationships can be equivalent to heterosexual marriage and should therefore bet treated equally, and require other people to treat them equally. That move commits a kind of fallacy of composition and flies in the face of reality. The proposed law shows this, by having to lower the bar of marriage for gay couples, while maintaining it for heterosexual couples. That's discrimination and privilege.

somehow significantly undermined by the violent actions of the CRS

The point is to show that sometimes liberalism isn't really that liberal. But if these things do not stem from liberalism, what are they resting on?

Afterall, the Church in its hubris claims it is its god's organisation in Earth yet behaves like the Devil's at times. How undermining is that?

Intellectually, it is not at all undermining, since the Church claims to be made up of sinners and recognises that therefore members of the Church sin. Confirming what we teach is hardly undermining of what we teach. If we make any claim in this regard it can be framed in the words of Chesterton:

When people impute special vices to the Christian Church, they seem entirely to forget that the world (which is the only other thing there is) has these vices much more. The Church has been cruel; but the world has been much more cruel. The Church has plotted; but the world has plotted much more. The Church has been superstitious; but it has never been so superstitious as the world is when left to itself.

27 April 2013 at 13:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, by the way, you types have all the equality you ever need now. Anything extra, like twisting marriage, is a damn privilege. Just face it lad, gays are always going to be unhappy self loathers. NOTHING on this earth can prevent that...

27 April 2013 at 13:07  
Blogger Albert said...

Thomas, I forgot to say,

I understand the pretence of certainty that Catholicism requires, but actually to become a Catholic you have to exercise private judgement.

There is a big difference between being able to judge in matters of doctrine that I am unable to judge to the degree required for faith, and the judgement that I can and am able to make that judgement and then exercising that judgement (even though eminent people draw different judgements). What I can judge, from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, is that the truth will be preserved for me to find it. Now if that conflicts with my limitations as a searcher, I am reasonable in judging that I need a teacher.

27 April 2013 at 13:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "How about giving us your considered opinion on the ‘tiny’ number of gay men who are predatory, and dare it be said, paedophilic, in their aspirations ."

What on earth do you expect me to say? Predatory paedophiles, whether homosexual or heterosexual, are very dangerous and ought to be locked up, probably permanently.

"DanJ0, you continue to spew forth about the tiny number of abusive priests in the RCC."

You assume I was talking about the sexual abuse, of course. My opinions about the Roman Catholic Church go much, much wider than that. Beyond the physical abuse and cruelty of children in care. Beyond the abuses of power in places like Spain regarding adoptions. Beyond even the religious pollution of our culture. It goes back to the systematic murder of people like the Cathars, to systematic religio-political manipulations in European development, and beyond. I despise it.

"You could start with your mentor Tatchell, and his curious remarks about child-adult sexual activity. Totally illegal of course, but as you like to flippantly say, “Hey”"

My mentor? You live in a homophobic dream world, I swear. Tatchell's letter to the Guardian has a context of its own but I fully support the current age of consent myself. I've said it explicitly and in detail in the past a number of times, and I've said it very recently on one of the threads here. What more can I say? Or doesn't it matter what I say and think as long as I'm gay and so can stand in for whatever your homophobic mind can conjure up? I think it's time for you to go to your pub and bore the alcoholics down there again with your anachronistic views.

27 April 2013 at 14:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Just face it lad, gays are always going to be unhappy self loathers."

*holds mirror up*

27 April 2013 at 14:36  
Blogger Fr. John+ said...

I don't need some bloody papist telling me his propaganda, when I hear it weekly from the erstwhile Novus Ordo folk, all of whose orders are 'Absolutely null and utterly void' when Tridentine rubrics are conscientiously applied, TYVM.

really, you Brits indulge in a lot of blather, and seem to forget that culture and Christianity, and honest racial awareness, actually matters!

Unlike some:

http://cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/our-race-is-our-home/

27 April 2013 at 15:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Fr John* (sic)

You sound like Anders Breivik. You don't have any weapons, do you?

carl

27 April 2013 at 15:44  
Blogger Albert said...

I don't need some bloody papist telling me his propaganda

It sounds like you do Mr John.

27 April 2013 at 16:02  
Blogger michael north said...


Peter D @ 01.03

Your quote from Peter Damian echoes my conviction that today's epidemic of homosexuality is a symptom of the triumph of solipsism today. If sex is nothing more than a bundle of sensations to which one has a right, masturbation is the obvious course to adopt. A global industry is established on that "lifestyle choice". But one still feels the need for company, so it makes sense to share one's masturbation with someone physically similar.

Coarse popular wisdom used to be expressed in the words "a bit of the other". Sex today isn't about the other: it is about the self and its imagined rights. It is a wanker's world.

27 April 2013 at 16:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

There is a big difference between being able to judge in matters of doctrine that I am unable to judge to the degree required for faith, and the judgement that I can and am able to make that judgement and then exercising that judgement (even though eminent people draw different judgements).

You are normally a very precise writer. I have read this sentence several times and have no idea what you are trying to say once I reached the comma.

What I can judge, from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, ...

Which you cannot understand absent the infallible interpreter. This is after all why you tell me that I cannot judge the RCC according to the Scripture.

... is that the truth will be preserved for me to find it.

Except that you must first identify the infallible interpreter before you can find the Truth. You use fallible private judgment to choose the RCC from the competing alternatives and then ascribe to it the authority to define Truth for you. Why did you choose the RCC? It was for all intents and purposes an arbitrary choice.

Now if that conflicts with my limitations as a searcher, I am reasonable in judging that I need a teacher.

Yes, we all need teachers. But you have started with the notion that you can't "judge in matters of doctrine [...] to the degree required for faith." You can't turn to Scripture or tradition or history to justify your choice of a teacher when you deny any subjects he might teach can ever be understood in the absence of the authority of the Magisterium.

carl

27 April 2013 at 16:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I'm just off out, so perhaps a brief example will suffice to explain the unclarity.

Private judgement tells me that I am unable to tell, to the point of faith whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. What I am judging there is simply the limitations of my ability. Therefore, I know I need a teacher. It is a completely different level of private judgement to say I can judge whether the Holy Spirit thus proceeds. That it is a judgement, firstly that I do have such a power of judgement and then an exercise of that judgement. It is qualitatively a higher form of judgement.

As the Psalmist says:

I do not occupy myself with things
too great and too marvelous for me.
[2] But I have calmed and quieted my soul,
like a child quieted at its mother's [i.e. the Church!] breast;
like a child that is quieted is my soul.


Private judgement therefore operates only in terms of a negative process of elimination. I can produce positive evidence for Rome, of course, but nothing that, of itself would convince anyone, as opposed to support a judgement.

Sorry, a bit rushed.

27 April 2013 at 16:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Michael North: "Your quote from Peter Damian echoes my conviction that today's epidemic of homosexuality is a symptom of the triumph of solipsism today. If sex is nothing more than a bundle of sensations to which one has a right, masturbation is the obvious course to adopt."

You know that we're people like everyone else at the end of the day, right? We have friendships, form relationships, fall in love, enjoy companionship ... we're not from another planet just because we are attracted to the same sex. It's just like heterosexuality really.

27 April 2013 at 16:56  
Blogger non mouse said...

Goodness, Your Grace. What fun they're having- playing with the rope you've given 'em!

One wishes YG well and prays, as ever, for your return in due course.

27 April 2013 at 17:11  
Blogger len said...

Albert.... you say that you can defend Catholicism from the charge of being' un -biblical'.But you can only do this from mis- interpreting scripture and adding' traditions' to scripture.Since their is no record of 'oral traditions' the Catholic theologians can claim any tradition is based on an 'oral tradition' of which their is no record.A licence to add anything to scripture?.Does this not seem to be more than a tad unscrupulous?.
Who interprets scripture?.Well Catholics say that no scripture is for private interpretation (this would include Catholic 'theologians' of course)
so if God did not intend for us to read His Word why did He give it to us?. The whole foundation of Catholicsm is based on one misinterpretataion of scripture!.If one studies cults then sometimes they will give only one verse or part of a verse in trying to defend their teachings. Most cults and ,isms are built around one verse isolated from the plain teaching of the Scriptures rightly divided.
Also God quite plainly encourages us to study His Word to edify ourselves.'His Word is a Lamp to our feet' also;


2 Timothy 2:15 states,"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

2 Peter 1:19-21: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

To further illustrate the false foundation of Catholicism Jesus is stated many times in scripture to be the 'Rock' on which His Church is built..... "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." That simply means that one cannot take a single verse of Scripture and build a doctrinal view while ignoring other Scriptures that deal with the subject.

Albert you seem to be implying by your statement that you can make error seem like truth and vice versa?.How very Catholic!.

27 April 2013 at 17:13  
Blogger len said...

Inspector, My position on Homosexuality.

Well let me see.I am a Christian a follower of Jesus Christ.What did Jesus say about sinners?.
Jesus said we were all sinners.Jesus said He did not come to condemn 'the World'(sinners)but to save' the World' (sinners)
The Holy Spirit came to' convict' the World about sin and to reveal Jesus Christ as the Savour of sinners.
It is the Love of God(revealed in Jesus Christ) which draws men towards God.

27 April 2013 at 17:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, at last. Some honest straight from the heart indignation from you at 14:35

Perhaps we can all see an end to your off the cuff trite comments about the RCC then. This man will accept the average Joe Gay is not a danger to the young, if you will accept the average RC is not evil, and not a member of an evil church. If you can’t, why not sod off to Pink News, where the RCC is, apparently, a continuation of the NAZI party. On a recent thread about Merkel, one German gay berated the UK communicants for comparing Christian conservatives to NAZIs. Rather commendable of him, don’t you think. For his trouble, he was subjected to vile anti German sentiment, just brimming under the surface of these self loathers. Why these hard done by bastards don’t just wear a bloody pink triangle on their shoulder to show a disinterested world their inner pain escapes this man...



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

Len, you are a damn odd type of Christian that denies organised Christianity. Anyway, your position on homosexuality – where is it ? Why do you give gays an easy time of it, when you spit such venom at Roman Catholics ?

27 April 2013 at 17:58  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Albert: On the other hand, I have studied all these questions considerably. Although I come to the same conclusions as you, I can see how people come to other positions. I'm not convinced by their arguments, but I'm not so arrogant as to assume my own judgement always coincides with the Word of God - and if I was, I would have to deny certain passages of scripture. But more importantly, Protestantism requires everyone to be able to adjudicate on these matters. It just doesn't work. Matters are not that clear.

I don’t assume my judgement always coincides with the word of God. I am open to the possibility of being wrong, however I do not believe I am. If someone can show me a flaw or error in my beliefs through scripture then I will change my mind. However I simply do not believe that to know something you have to know it certainly.

You seem to be saying that just because one can decide between opposing views, therefore one always can. I don't think that is true, and I certainly don't see how one can come to certitude of faith in such circumstances.

There are certainly things more and less clear, and some things which should be held tentatively, without anathematising one’s opponents. I just think that scripture is sufficiently clear for a normal person through the due use of ordinary means to come to a knowledge of Christ and how to be saved.

Doesn't solve precise theological articles and questions, it can't partly because of human limitation and that what we find is doctrines in a state of development/corruption.

If a theological article is based on a historical claim then surely historical truth can elucidate theological truth. It seems like an ad hoc limitation to say otherwise.

Which assumes they are able to grasp that norm sufficiently accurately and exhaustively. Nothing you have said has shown this to be the case. You have simply suggested that because you disagree with a position, it cannot be taken seriously.

No, I have not shown that to be the case, nor was that my objective. I was aiming to show with that statement that Protestants are not being inconsistent with regard to doctrinal development. Also, when have I suggested the latter? That sounds like a hostile caricature of what I have said. I take plenty of opposing positions seriously, though not all of them. Should I take Islam and Scientology equally seriously?

I'm very surprised. I recall it coming up in the 1992 debate itself! Look at all that Affirming Catholicism literature. It just sounds like the reason you are so confident of your position is because you don't read people who disagree with you!

I have read disagreeing literature on women’s ordination and debated it with several of my friends who don’t agree with me. I have never heard that argument come up. Just because I haven’t read literature from 1992, when I was one, doesn’t mean I don’t bother to read opponents. I haven’t resorted to gratuitous insults and idle and uncharitable speculations about you, so I’m not sure why you feel the need to do so.

27 April 2013 at 19:17  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Part 2: No, of course not. But Cranmer did. I don't think he would have thought it was optional. How can it be optional? It would make no sense of any church polity, but especially not of the CofE.

No, as in the monarch is assigned chief governance of the church (estates ecclesiastical and temporal) but are not “the head of the church” in a sense which is meaningfully equivalent to the Pope’s position. I mean that it is legitimate to have a church which is governed by the monarch, but also legitimate to have a church which is free from monarchical control.

the doctrine that a local Church can be visibly separated from the whole and still be its local embodiment

The premises that are being begged here is that the Roman Catholic Church is the whole, and that God’s church is supposed to be a visible institution.

Of course, the development hypothesis looks suspiciously like an ad hoc tool to avoid the falsification of the main premises of Catholicism. The idea of “divisibility of the church” assumes that the church is supposed to have some other unity than the spiritual unity of the members of one body and harmonious unity in individual churches. But why should we accept that?

Not at all. Have you read The Stripping of the Altars?

No, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that by assuming that the church is a single institution that cannot be broken from you were begging a premise.

The historical significance of nominalism to Protestantism is well documented by McGrath in his book on the subject. If there is no human nature then all that is left is the will. God's grace cannot actually work on human nature to perfect it, he must just impose his will. Again, this development in Medieval thought is well documented - not least by scholars tracing the origins of modernity. Given this, I am entitled to ask how Clark combines realism with sola fide.

Well there is dispute about the historical significance of Nominalism to Protestantism, and there were Protestants (e.g. Peter Martyr Vermigli) who were rooted in a Thomistic/realist tradition, but even if Nominalism were indisputably the historical root of Protestantism that does not mean that realism is philosophically incompatible with Protestantism. I don’t know why you think that Nominalism requires a denial of the existence of human nature, it would simply consider human nature to be a collection of common characteristics rather than an abstract object, not to mention that God works in individual men and women, not on some ideal, disembodied nature.

It follows that the authors of the Bible were not Protestants.

It really doesn’t, given that they received revelation from Christ.

So you think the Biblical authors were nominalists?

I don’t think the Biblical authors were realists or nominalists in a modern (or medieval) sense, they were not philosophers and did not, to the best of our knowledge, rise out of a Hellenistic milieu. But I think it perfectly plausible that they intuitively took a nominalist position. However, considering that I do not consider realism to be incompatible with Protestantism, I’ve not particularly given it enormous consideration.

Do you think the only alternative to nominalism is Plato?

No, my point was that their milieu was Jewish, not Hellenistic, and that those are simply not categories in which their thought is framed.

What I can judge, from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, is that the truth will be preserved for me to find it. Now if that conflicts with my limitations as a searcher, I am reasonable in judging that I need a teacher.

How can you possibly judge that? And even if your premises and your conclusion followed, that doesn’t get you to the Roman Catholic Church. And the “I am reasonable in judging…” could well be disagreed with and we’re back to square one, it seems.

27 April 2013 at 19:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I don't think you've really understood Catholicism. Does that sound likely? For example, I can't for the life of me see where I have said anything that remotely entails Christians shouldn't study the Bible.

So here's my question to you, Len: how well do you think you understand Catholicism?

27 April 2013 at 19:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Thomas,

I haven’t resorted to gratuitous insults and idle and uncharitable speculations about you, so I’m not sure why you feel the need to do so.

I'm sorry, it was not my intention to be insulting or uncharitable. And looking back at what I wrote, I don't think it was. I was perhaps letting a little of my exasperation get the better of me though. You seem very confident in dismissing other people's beliefs and opinions, while not really knowing that those beliefs and opinions are. In this latest post you seem to have lumped your separated Christian brethren with Muslims and Scientologists.

People who argue for the women's ordination do so on two possible grounds, I think. Either they argue this is a restoration of an earlier practice or they argue it is a legitimate development of doctrine of earlier practice. Consider biblical writers on this question. The CofE's report on it speak of the trajectory of scriptural teaching. One can point to scholars of the calibre of NT Wright, who disagree with you. How can you have the confidence necessary to respond, if you don't know their positions? The only way is to have a prior authority to appeal to, but this you deny. I find it genuinely puzzling.

Similarly difficult for me is this:

I don’t assume my judgement always coincides with the word of God. I am open to the possibility of being wrong, however I do not believe I am. If someone can show me a flaw or error in my beliefs through scripture then I will change my mind. However I simply do not believe that to know something you have to know it certainly.

I just don't see how that can be about faith. Sure, you could be talking about matters of discipline, I suppose, but when it comes to faith, how can it be the deliverance of private judgement. Faith is certain.

I just think that scripture is sufficiently clear for a normal person through the due use of ordinary means to come to a knowledge of Christ and how to be saved.

Does the doctrine of sola scriptura come as something certain, or what about sola fide? And what are we to make of people who deny core doctrines? Are they all to be dismissed as evil? And how do you know what is essential?

27 April 2013 at 20:08  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

You say that knowledge of truth depends upon the prior authority of the Magisterium. The fact that you might be able to tell that you need a teacher doesn't mean you can identify the Magisterium as that teacher. So upon what basis then did you exercise your private judgment to discern the Magisterium as teacher? How do you know it teaches the truth? What standard do you apply to determine the veracity of its teachings?

carl

27 April 2013 at 20:28  
Blogger Albert said...

Thomas,

If a theological article is based on a historical claim then surely historical truth can elucidate theological truth. It seems like an ad hoc limitation to say otherwise.

Again, I am not saying it cannot elucidate it. I am saying it cannot lead to the certitude of faith.

Also, when have I suggested the latter [that positions you do not agree with should not be taken seriously]? That sounds like a hostile caricature of what I have said.

No, I looked back at what you said, and I think that my point stands. Here's an example:

Just because it’s possible to argue against doesn't mean that those arguments hold any water. It’s possible to argue that Roman Catholicism permits homosexuality and advocates giving communion to monkeys, the possibility of that argument’s existence isn't a problem for the validity of the rule of faith.

The context of that what a question about divorce, women's ordination and homosexuality. Do you think that NT Wright's position on women's ordination is analogous to someone arguing Catholicism permits giving communion to monkeys? If you do, then you are not taking his position seriously. If you don't then, by making such an extreme and daft comparison, you are not taking my position seriously.

No, as in the monarch is assigned chief governance of the church (estates ecclesiastical and temporal)

Okay, where is your basis for that?

The premises that are being begged here is that the Roman Catholic Church is the whole, and that God’s church is supposed to be a visible institution.

Not at all. I could be an atheist and still believe that the doctrine that a local church could be visibly separated from the whole and still be the local manifestation of the whole is not found in the ancient Church. You haven't given me any reason to doubt that proposition.

Of course, the development hypothesis looks suspiciously like an ad hoc tool to avoid the falsification of the main premises of Catholicism.

Now I'm confused because you earlier admitted theology is not static. But remember, Newman's grasp of development of doctrine stemmed not from his Catholicism, rather his Catholicism stemmed from his grasp of the development of doctrine. The historical data - on a whole range of matters - point in that direction. You've made a similar point yourself with regard to nominalism, justification and NT.

I don’t know why you think that Nominalism requires a denial of the existence of human nature, it would simply consider human nature to be a collection of common characteristics rather than an abstract object, not to mention that God works in individual men and women, not on some ideal, disembodied nature.

I'm just wondering how this sentence makes any sense. It seems to me that you don't have a category for a Thomistic metaphysics lying between nominalism and Platonism.

there were Protestants (e.g. Peter Martyr Vermigli) who were rooted in a Thomistic/realist tradition

That's a claim, not a fact.

How can you possibly judge that? And even if your premises and your conclusion followed, that doesn’t get you to the Roman Catholic Church. And the “I am reasonable in judging…” could well be disagreed with and we’re back to square one, it seems.

I'm not sure what your first question refers to. Secondly, I have given an indication of the way in which I could get to the papacy from here, whereas you have given me nothing in relation to sola scriptua. Thirdly, I have responded to the question of how different judgements are (well) different, and therefore not back to square 1.

Incidentally, I asked about divorce: do you accept the remarriage of divorcees with a previous spouse still living?

27 April 2013 at 20:34  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I think it comes in two ways with regard to thought. Firstly, by a process of elimination, combined with the confidence of faith (i.e. all other responses do not logically live up to the confidence of faith). Secondly, having found Catholicism as the one that does respond to the problem, I would then appeal to history to see if this was arbitrarily plucked out of the air. I see it is not.

From here, by grace, I can respond to to it with faith - that is to say, I can respond to Christ with faith, through the teaching of the Church.

27 April 2013 at 20:39  
Blogger Albert said...

P.S. Thomas, the issue of development of doctrine in relation to women's ordination, came up at a recent General Synod debate.

27 April 2013 at 20:41  
Blogger Peter D said...

The Bible does not hold the complete Truth - the Church does; Christ's Mystical Body on earth.

A shocking statement for a Protestant to read!

As a Catholic, I believe what the Church says definitively and dogmatically (Scripture actually tells me to do this), and then I read the Bible to enhance my knowledge but always alongside Catholic apologetics.

Honestly, does a Protestant do otherwise?

Scripture consists of of a complex Truth and one that existed before it was written. The New Testament was written by members of the early Church and was accepted as authentic by the Church. Nowhere does Scripture say it is definitive or easily understood statement of all that Christ taught and that it should be followed alone or individually interpreted.

Understanding the Bible and the Truth it reflects is open to human distortion. It can and has been misrepresented - look at the numerous protestant 'understandings'. The Bible has to be understood in terms of Church's teaching.

That's the way God planned it; and He has told us so in the Bible.

27 April 2013 at 22:12  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Albert: I'm sorry, it was not my intention to be insulting or uncharitable. And looking back at what I wrote, I don't think it was. I was perhaps letting a little of my exasperation get the better of me though. You seem very confident in dismissing other people's beliefs and opinions, while not really knowing that those beliefs and opinions are. In this latest post you seem to have lumped your separated Christian brethren with Muslims and Scientologists.

That’s alright. However, I still think you are reading me unfairly, with the worst possible spin. Whilst I may appear curt on this thread, that is for the sake of brevity, sacrificing some politeness and fleshing out of arguments to avoid multiplying posts. So I’m sorry if I appear dismissive, it isn’t my intention.

I don’t want to talk about myself much, but so you know, I do not live in a conservative evangelical bubble, and very frequently dialogue with people who disagree with me (indeed, given my beliefs, this would be hard to avoid). I think I’m right, but I have changed my mind on a number of issues in the past, and will change it again if I believe I’m wrong. On lumping in Christians with non-Christians, I was just actually making the point that, amongst people I disagree with, some people are to be taken more seriously than others. I might just have easily included Arminians or universalists.

Either they argue this is a restoration of an earlier practice or they argue it is a legitimate development of doctrine of earlier practice. Consider biblical writers on this question. The CofE's report on it speak of the trajectory of scriptural teaching. One can point to scholars of the calibre of NT Wright, who disagree with you. How can you have the confidence necessary to respond, if you don't know their positions? The only way is to have a prior authority to appeal to, but this you deny. I find it genuinely puzzling.

I’ve certainly heard people frame the argument either as: this is scriptural, look at these passages (normally Galatians 3, Romans 16, the example of Deborah and those of Christ’s disciples); or those scriptures were contextual, of their time, but they don’t apply now in an age where women in general are emancipated. Perhaps that’s just rephrasing your categories though.

Also, whilst N. T. Wright is an eminent scholar, that does not give him automatic kudos on every issue. He is excellent in his fields of historical study of the resurrection, second temple Judaism and its context and has a commanding grasp of Greek and of the works of Paul, but that doesn’t give us a reason to think he’s an expert on the role of women and the theology thereof.

I just don't see how that can be about faith. Sure, you could be talking about matters of discipline, I suppose, but when it comes to faith, how can it be the deliverance of private judgement. Faith is certain.

I don’t think the NT is talking in epistemological terms when it talks of certainty- that there is no Cartesian doubt.

Does the doctrine of sola scriptura come as something certain, or what about sola fide? And what are we to make of people who deny core doctrines? Are they all to be dismissed as evil? And how do you know what is essential?

Yes, I believe sola scriptura and sola fide are certain. As for people who deny core doctrines, they can have a number of reasons for doing so. It may be that they are evil, but it may also be that they are superimposing a tradition or other source of authority foreign to scripture onto Holy Writ and therefore cannot accept these doctrines as it would mean rejecting their tradition or other source of authority. As for knowing what is essential, the Bible treats certain doctrines as essential viz. Galatians 1:8-9. Also if we know the mechanism of salvation, we could know some doctrines that would preclude salvation if not believed.

27 April 2013 at 22:31  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

The context of that what a question about divorce, women's ordination and homosexuality. Do you think that NT Wright's position on women's ordination is analogous to someone arguing Catholicism permits giving communion to monkeys? If you do, then you are not taking his position seriously. If you don't then, by making such an extreme and daft comparison, you are not taking my position seriously.
The broader context is this challenge from you: Well, I wonder what your position on those three things [homosexuality, women’s ordination, remarriage after divorce] is. Whatever position you argue for, it is possible to argue against on the basis of scripture alone.
The point of making an extreme comparison was to point out that the mere existence of the possibility of making an argument consistently within the rule of faith is not a problem for the rule of faith unless the argument made is in itself cogent. On those three issues I think the arguments are of varying merit (very little on the homosexuality side, for example), but my point in the quotation was not to dismiss them by analogy but to answer your claim that it was an issue that an argument could be made. This isn’t me dismissing people because I disagree, this is me attempting to respond to one of your points. I may have misunderstood you, but even if so it was an honest mistake and therefore I feel your characterisation of me is either mistaken or malicious. I presume mistaken.

Okay, where is your basis for that?

XXXIX articles. Please note I wasn’t saying it was correct, just that it was what the C of E believed.

Not at all. I could be an atheist and still believe that the doctrine that a local church could be visibly separated from the whole and still be the local manifestation of the whole is not found in the ancient Church. You haven't given me any reason to doubt that proposition.

That’s not the point. You would still be begging the premise if you were an atheist, as it’s a premise I don’t share. You’re welcome to demonstrate it to be true, but I don’t share it with you as a starting point.

Now I'm confused because you earlier admitted theology is not static. But remember, Newman's grasp of development of doctrine stemmed not from his Catholicism, rather his Catholicism stemmed from his grasp of the development of doctrine. The historical data - on a whole range of matters - point in that direction. You've made a similar point yourself with regard to nominalism, justification and NT.

But truth is static. Development along the lines of exegeting a single, fixed source of authority is fine, but the addition of new authoritative material is not. A lot of theological development has simply been purging unwelcome entrants (such as, in my view, Aristotelian libertarian free will and the attendant soteriology) from theology.

I'm just wondering how this sentence makes any sense. It seems to me that you don't have a category for a Thomistic metaphysics lying between nominalism and Platonism.

I think you’re exaggerating when you say that it doesn’t make sense, but if not then please explain what you mean. I do understand that there is Aristotelian realism as well as the Platonic kind, but it would still consider human nature to be an abstract object, no?

On PMV: http://percaritatem.com/2007/01/27/nominalism-and-protestantism-an-intrinsic-link-or-an-outdated-narrative/ with the disclaimer that I haven’t read the book quoted.

How can you possibly judge that? And even if your premises and your conclusion followed, that doesn’t get you to the Roman Catholic Church. And the “I am reasonable in judging…” could well be disagreed with and we’re back to square one, it seems.

27 April 2013 at 22:31  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

I'm not sure what your first question refers to. Secondly, I have given an indication of the way in which I could get to the papacy from here, whereas you have given me nothing in relation to sola scriptua. Thirdly, I have responded to the question of how different judgements are (well) different, and therefore not back to square 1.

How can you judge from the revelation of God in Christ Jesus that the truth will be preserved for you to find it? That seems to require an awful lot of private judgement, not least: working out what scripture is, finding a relevant text and exegeting it correctly to find out that truth will be preserved for you to find it. I don’t know how you get to the papacy from there actually, as there are plenty of other candidates and to decide between them you’d have to exercise private judgement. Sola scriptura being wrong wouldn’t make Roman Catholicism right, and this debate wasn’t originally about sola scriptura and to defend it would mean multiplying these posts even further. And working out your limitations as a searcher and the continuance of truth does not lead to the conclusion that you need a teacher inexorably. It may be that you need a special divine revelation, for example. Therefore to discern the need for a teacher is a species of private judgement, as far as I can tell.

Incidentally, I asked about divorce: do you accept the remarriage of divorcees with a previous spouse still living?

No.

27 April 2013 at 22:31  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Albert: Have you got a link to that debate, or do you know how I might find it? I'd be interested to listen.

27 April 2013 at 22:33  
Blogger bluedog said...

Messrs Albert and Thomas, having brilliantly sliced and diced Anglicanism and Catholicism, would you care to turn your minds to the sociological and metaphysical factors that are leading to the growing acceptance of Islam in the West?

Marshall Hodgson's book The Venture of Islam seems to be getting a lot of exposure at present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Hodgson

27 April 2013 at 22:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 April 2013 at 23:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Hound is right. Speaking personally, the mechanics of Christianity bores this man. Let the spirit triumph, and let us know who our enemies are, what !


27 April 2013 at 23:10  
Blogger len said...

I think some of the comments here highlight the problem of the ability to receive the Truth as God presents it!.
Each branch of religion renders God`s Truth null and void by 'the spin'they put on the Scriptures.'Traditions' in the case of Catholics.'The Church'for Catholics can (and does) override and take precedence over God rendering His Word immaterial.
Other brancehes of religion take the word of man over the Word of God for instance J W`s, Muslims etc.
It seems to be almost impossible for some to approach the Word of God without prejudices and pre conditions which distort their vision.

Catholics (and others) have devised religions of their own making with their own rules their own philosophy,their own path to salvation even their own 'representative on Earth' their own goddess(complete with child)the Catholic priesthood can even control Heaven and even contradict God`s Word!.
If ever a religious system was devised by men for the control and manipulation of others Catholicism must rank amongst the most effective!.

28 April 2013 at 08:51  
Blogger len said...

Albert ,
How do I understand Catholicism?
By direct experience and by studying Catholic doctrines and by reading the Bible.

Your question might have been
How do I understand the counterfeit?.

Bank officials are handling genuine notes all the time that is how they know a counterfeit when they see one.
Catholics do not allow the Holy Spirit to guide them into all Truth (as Jesus promised) because they do not need the Holy Spirit because they rely on the words of men(the Magisterium)which render the Words of the Holy Spirit null and void.

Who will you trust God or men?.




28 April 2013 at 09:01  
Blogger len said...

I hope and pray that His Graces meditations are becoming fruitful and God will guide him on which path he is to follow.

28 April 2013 at 09:03  
Blogger len said...

Inspector.... we are told to' test the spirits'because the spirit we are following might not be the Spirit of God. 'Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world'.(1John4:1)

We can know' false spirits' by what they teach.Some will deny the deity of Christ.Others will have devised a 'works based'stairway to Heaven which is a far more subtle way of replacing the finished work of Christ at Calvary with 'another means' to gain entrance to Heaven)

(either of those relevant to you?

28 April 2013 at 09:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. We seem to be agreed that we need the spirit of Christ. But why then is YOUR spirit being so pure, and for the rest of us so suspect ? Too good to be true, unless in your safe hands, perhaps ?

That is all that is available to us mere mortals. We are not divine, and needing to be incorruptible before God. We need the guidance of priests who are schooled to guide. How did you achieve a greater understanding than the rest of us ? At what point did you separate yourself from the rest of humanity to be Christ’s representative on this blog, if not wider ?

28 April 2013 at 12:28  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Bluedog

the sociological and metaphysical factors that are leading to the growing acceptance of Islam in the West?

Sociological:

Our continued reliance on oil. The vulnerability of the West to an oil embargo or choking price increase. The undue deference by western politicians and religionists given to the preferred 'religion' of Middle Eastern States located as they are on massive oil-fields

Metaphysical:
The same insane logic that fuels Judaism, Christianity only with a 21st Century penchant for indiscriminate violence towards States and the individual on the promise of the mother of all piss-ups and unlimited wild sex with virgins.








28 April 2013 at 12:35  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector @ 23.10, there seems little doubt that when the history of the West is rewritten in say, 2050, and possibly in Arabic, the surviving Christian Europeans will wonder how we could have been so stupid. The enemy is no longer at the gates but inside the walls, and still the politicians don't get it. Read Ken Clarke's comments in the DT today. Of course, like most egotists, Clarke is incapable of imagining that he can be wrong.

But dealing with Islam is something we can no longer avoid. Benedict XIV tried with his Regensburg address in 2005, was shot down in flames by the Muslims, and sadly retreated. With the benefit of hindsight, B16's megaphone approach was completely wrong. It is a basic technique of salesmanship that you don't start a conversation by describing your interlocutor's beliefs as evil, which Benedict did. Not the way to win friends and influence people.

The West is therefore faced with two options; expel the Muslims or attempt to moderate their beliefs. We can safely say that the first option is not going to work within a democratic society. Thus unless Western countries revert to military dictatorship we won't see expulsion. Of course the EU has laid the foundations for a return to facism, but as yet no result.

Moderating Islam therefore presents as the only viable hope. If the Christian West doesn't succeed in moderating Islam, Islam will modify
the West, and that process is likely to be extremely uncomfortable for remaining Westerners. We already face a situation in which Islamic terrorism is home-grown and conducted by franchised operators in small cells taking advice from other jihadis within the West. The Boston bombers were radicalised over the internet by an Australian imman, for heaven's sake!

Moderating Islam therefore requires an intelligent analysis of the social conditions in which Islam thrives. In the past fifty years the world has gone through a remarkable urbanisation so that now the majority of the world population lives in towns and cities. Prevoiusly the world was rural. In the West this urbanisation may be a cause of growing secularism. After all, if you live in a completely controlled, man-made and air-conditioned environment it is extremely easy to lose touch with nature. The sense of wonder that is so much a part of religion becomes superfluous.

Empirically, unemployed young men in urban environments seem to find Islam very attractive, particularly if they are currently part of an ethnic minority with feelings of insecurity and alienation. Islam does not so much do anger management but tips petrol on the fire. The macho nature of Islam may be an added appeal in feminised Western societies.

This communicant can see a role for some very gifted academics with a deep understanding of comparative religion. The task is to try and align Islam with Christianity so that the toxic elements of Islam are cauterised and neutered without offending the Muslims. The worst thing to do is tell them they are wrong and that their beliefs are evil.

The politicians have to sort out the sociological aspects of the Muslim challenge. But its hard to be optimistic on that front.

28 April 2013 at 13:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog. The Inspector has been investigating the possibility (...probability ?...) of separate development of the races in this country. Not an altogether alien concept to this land as first the Irish and now the Scots ceded / are ceding. It seems to this man at the moment that integration of West and East will never happen here, as it has never happened anywhere else, at least not without extreme violence involved. Understandably, neither side will want to give ground. What happened in the North of Ireland is particularly poignant. There, the immigrant race rose above the indigenous Irish to control the area. Not just that, but they almost completely forgot they were the newcomers, or if they didn’t, it didn’t make a blind bit of difference, resulting in a quasi police state until fairly recently.

So, old faithful friend - What say you to partial autonomy granted to muslim areas in the UK. They can live under their customs, their religion, their law to an extent. The most important consideration of the plan is that the areas are defined. Real boundaries, that cannot be expanded at a later date. They would be CONTAINED.

Such a settlement would be on condition of peace from Islam. Failure to live up to their end would result in British troops entering a hotspot of insurgency to run the place by martial law. At least until the the guilty are delivered for trial and execution...


28 April 2013 at 13:40  
Blogger Albert said...

Bluedog,

I think it is worth saying that Muslims overwhelmingly are not terrorists. Nevertheless, if for some reason the West feels the need to make Muslims more moderate, the question arises as to the meaning of the word "moderate". I suspect that it means "Western". This is hopeless while the West is sospectacularly unattractive socially. The Christian West has succumbed to something approaching nihilism because it did not see it coming. Muslims (and all other immigrants) know exactly what they don't want to become because they see it all around them. We will not change them until we change ourselves. I think it easier to change Muslims than to change Western liberals to be honest. Western liberals are basically fundamentalist whose violence remains hidden only because they do not need to exercise it - for now.

28 April 2013 at 13:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Thomas,

Thank you for your responses. Firstly, nothign I have said was meant maliciously (thank you for the benefit of the doubt). Notice that the offending sentence I said "it just sounds as if", that means I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. The problem undoubtedly, is that our discussion has become so detailed and long that it is hard to recall the context etc. of each other, and this is causing us problems of understanding. So permit me to apologise once again for that.

Perhaps it might help to start from a different angle. I think the overall point I want to make is that we are looking at the question of revelation from the wrong starting point. Every Christian must make at least an implicit personal response to Jesus Christ. They cannot just rest on everyone around them. However, once we have responded to him, once we have made him our Lord, the task of exploring his revelation takes on an essentially ecclesial character. It's not a private or individual activity, but one one does as a member of the Church - the place where his glory abides. The question then, facing a Christian, is not so much how he interprets the Bible, but where the Church which is possessed by the Word of God is. That is really in outline what I am trying to say. It's one thing to recognise Jesus is Lord. It's quite another to expect to be able to work out the Holy Trinity or one of the more complicated elements of justification. I just don't think this is within the wit of man, nor even, as a human institution, of the Church. It is only by his abiding presence in the Spirit that this is possible.

Okay, where is your basis for that? XXXIX articles.

I meant basis in the sense that you claimed there was nonexistence basis for the papacy. Where in revelation does it say that the monarch can be the supreme governor of a local church?

You would still be begging the premise if you were an atheist, as it’s a premise I don’t share.

I'm not asking you to share it though, on the strength of my own judgement. I'm just saying that if one spends any time with the Medieval Church, one finds it is truly that - a place of the Holy Spirit. Yes, it's mucked up by human sinfulness - but so are all Christian communities. I believe it is a place of deeply Christian faith and devotion. The picture which English people have believed since the Tudors is a caricature. History falsifies it.

But truth is static.

I would prefer to say unchanging or eternal. But yes, I agree. Doctrine develops as we deepen our understanding of what has been given once for all to the saints. I do not see Catholicism as having done anything more than reflect deeply on the revelation. For example, you speak of Aristotelian libertarian free will and the attendant soteriology. I'm not going to decide on this without being clear exactly what you mean, but I suspect you would find yourself far closer to St Thomas Aquinas than you realise. I don't think you could describe his free will doctrine as libertarian.

whilst N. T. Wright is an eminent scholar, that does not give him automatic kudos on every issue.

I agree, but on an issue touching the NT I tend to assume he is likely to have a better scholarly grasp than I do. Yes, I think his views on women's ordination are wrong, but I have to take them very seriously and, without another authority, I would have to be rather muted in my judgement against him.

28 April 2013 at 14:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert. Not very good at this, are you. Remove the blinkers that man. We have a muslim population of around 4%. Just look at the amount of trouble that causes. So, if you can’t contribute sensibly on the subject, DON’T !

28 April 2013 at 14:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Thomas,

I don’t think the NT is talking in epistemological terms when it talks of certainty- that there is no Cartesian doubt.

That sounds like you are speaking psychologically or philosophically. I am speaking of the proposition itself. Is a particular proposition of faith itself certain? If it is the deliverance of my own reasoning and judgement then even the proposition is doubtful. But faith cannot begin from such a weak point. It is, as Hebrews says, the substance of things hoped for. In faith we have the reality itself - we do not have it in the way in which we have the reality of a correct mathematical answer or it wouldn't be faith. But it is the very substance. That cannot come of my own judgement, but only of His.

Yes, I believe sola scriptura and sola fide are certain.

You see, I genuinely don't. When I read the Bible they seem to me to be everywhere contradicted and arguments in favour seem to me to be anachronistic. Paul is not discussing the 16th century debate of faith and works (hence Luther has to falsify his translation). He is discussing nature versus grace. What man can do under his own strength (nothing Jesus says) and what man can do under grace received through faith ("all things" Paul proclaims. It's not faith versus works, but faith versus works of the Law.

Now am I evil or "superimposing a tradition or other source of authority foreign to scripture onto Holy Writ"? It looks to me that that is what Evangelicals do! And when I read the early Church I don't find there the Protestant doctrine, but the doctrine I think is in scripture. When I read Luther I find even Protestant scholars admitting he is saying something new.

I don’t know why you think that Nominalism requires a denial of the existence of human nature, it would simply consider human nature to be a collection of common characteristics rather than an abstract object, not to mention that God works in individual men and women, not on some ideal, disembodied nature.

This is the sentence I am struggling over. I don’t know why you think that Nominalism requires a denial of the existence of human nature. As far as I am aware that is just what nominalism is! it would simply consider human nature to be a collection of common characteristics rather than an abstract object. As it stands this just looks contradictory to me, I'm afraid, though perhaps it turns on what you mean by "abstract object". Aristotle and Aquinas accept nature, but they do not think it exists as an abstract object in the sense that Plato would recognise.

not to mention that God works in individual men and women, not on some ideal, disembodied nature

I'm not saying that he does. I'm saying that where there is no nature, all that is left is will. Thus God and man come into conflict at the level of will, instead of God working on the nature to change his will, not against his will but with his will. It's a difficult area I admit, and I'm not a specialist here by any means. But that pushes me back to a wider point. How can this dispute about justification possibly be resolved by an individual - especially one with little education or intelligence? It just isn't that kind of question. It must be resolved ecclesially.

28 April 2013 at 14:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Thomas,

How can you judge from the revelation of God in Christ Jesus that the truth will be preserved for you to find it? That seems to require an awful lot of private judgement, not least: working out what scripture is, finding a relevant text and exegeting it correctly to find out that truth will be preserved for you to find it.

I'm not talking specifically about being able to appeal to particular texts. I am simply saying that faith encounters Christ as light, a light which the darkness cannot overcome, and yet, when I attempt to understand him, I find "such knowledge is too wonderful for me, so high I cannot attain it" therefore as I have said, "I do not occupy myself with things
too great and too marvellous for me.
[2] But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a child quieted at its mother's [i.e. the Church!] breast;
like a child that is quieted is my soul."

I don’t know how you get to the papacy from there actually, as there are plenty of other candidates and to decide between them you’d have to exercise private judgement.

I'm not sure what you mean by other candidates, so rather then venture an answer in the wrong direction, I'll leave you to explain.

Good for you on divorce and remarriage. But it is evident that your position contrasts not only with the practice of your own CofE, but also with (as I understand it) normal Protestant teaching.

I don't have a link to the debate, I'm afraid. I just remember it because I listened to part of it, and I found one of the speaks used a very vivid image to express Newman's thought. Granted he was showing how Newman's thought counts against women's ordination, but he deployed Newman to counter a point already made.

As a start on how development of doctrine works in the CofE regarding women's ordination you could look at this:

http://www.churchofengland.org/media/38523/gs1557.pdf

I think it's quite a good document which might have made the debate a little more theological. Perhaps that's why the CofE has done al most nothing with it!

28 April 2013 at 14:36  
Blogger Albert said...

I don't know what you are getting at Inspector. I simply said that Muslims are overwhelmingly not terrorists. How can anyone dispute that? I have known many Muslims. None have been terrorists. Does not justice and charity demand that we speak truly of other people?

28 April 2013 at 14:38  
Blogger michael north said...


Dan Jo @ 16.56 yesterday

My remarks were not about same-sex attraction per se, but about the proliferation of "gay rights" in a self-obsessed culture. Homosexuals, being human, have the full range of human rights, including privacy. That is not the same as "gay rights", which are a sentimental invention, originating in the headquarters of the global sentimentality industry, the US west coast.

28 April 2013 at 14:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert. You are a goodly man and sensitive soul. Of course, muslims are mainly peaceful, but the world weary amongst us are looking for ways of ensuring those that aren't don’t persecute and kill us when the population reaches 20%.

You say “We will not change them until we change ourselves.”. Do you know how Islam has changed in a thousand years ? There has been one change. They have abandoned their curved swords for IEDs and rifles. That’s it. Everything else is as it was. What consistency. If you don’t believe this man, walk along the streets of Gloucester. You will see them in their white desert smocks, as their ancestors wore fifteen hundred years ago !

Impressed at such continuation and devotion to the cause ? The Inspector is !

28 April 2013 at 14:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

I'm not sure if your account quite describes any Muslim I have ever known or worked with (to put it mildly!). Obviously, there are elements of Islam that I don't like, but I'd sooner live in a Muslim country than an atheist one. I'm more likely to keep my most basic human rights in the former than the latter. So actually, I'm not at all sure I want to convert Muslims into secularists (nor am I arguing for the opposite). I am just saying the debate is naive and hopeless until we start to see ourselves as we are seen. Not a pretty sight, I guess.

28 April 2013 at 14:55  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Albert you obviously have not lived in a Muslim country . You are a Christian. You will have no basic rights when it comes to the crunch. Muslims are not tolerant of other faiths or non Muslims.

They despise westerners and for a lot of the right reasons unfortunately.You are the one being naive if you think that being a goody Christian two shoes is going to impress a Muslim enough to respect you or care about your rights. They don't and they wont.They don't have to. They are not Christian.

28 April 2013 at 15:47  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

“What say you to partial autonomy granted to muslim areas in the UK. They can live under their customs, their religion, their law to an extent. The most important consideration of the plan is that the areas are defined. Real boundaries, that cannot be expanded at a later date. They would be CONTAINED.”

Been on the malt for lunch Inspector?! Go and sleep it off and come back when you have sobered up.

28 April 2013 at 15:53  
Blogger Albert said...

I would say Cressida that it depends on the Muslim country. They're not all the same. But I wonder why you think the picture you describe is worse than living in an atheist country.

28 April 2013 at 16:00  
Blogger michael north said...


I am sure that the majority of Muslims in this country are like the "self-identifying" Catholics of the USA, wearing a culural label as an assertion of identity, but not significantly different in behaviour from the wider society. They probably have no deeper grasp of their religion than the majority of Italians or Irish have of Catholicism, though the social pressures from their community are probably stronger.

The problem is not Muslims; it is Islam, which is simply incompatible with the freedoms those reading this take for granted. The mega-mosques being built in cities all over Europe are not the result of local congregations holding coffee mornings and jumble sales to raise funds; they are part of a campaign of cultural imperialism being waged by the most obscurantist and brutal elements in Islamic theocracy and funded by absolutist states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

For all I know, there may be many Muslims who do not support these developments (they know what the mullahs are like, better than anyone), but are as cowed by community pressure as non-Muslims are by the tyranny of political correctness.

28 April 2013 at 16:07  
Blogger Peter D said...

I agree with Micheal North. The implication being we should show little, if any, cultural deference to Islam but respect individual Muslims and their right to coexist amongst us according to our civil and criminal laws.

Marie 1797, one agrees with your assessment and advice.

Albert, indeed, the main threat to Christianity surely lies in the decandent, self-obessesed behaviours of Western people.

28 April 2013 at 16:35  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Nailed it in one Mr North but don't forget the Shia-vs-Sunni component such as is prolonging the Syrian conflict as it did in Iraq.

28 April 2013 at 16:46  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Our resident doctor of divinity, Dreadnaught said :

"The same insane logic that fuels Judaism, Christianity"

Not in the same league of the logic that people here think will bring the "end of the world" or at any rate western civilisation to a halt - an alliance of gays, atheists and Muslims, with possible assistance from the Catholic Church.... A strange 'unholy alliance' if ever there was one...

28 April 2013 at 16:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Oh dear Albert, your saintliness isn’t going to save you come jihad time. You see, you insult Allah by allocating divinity to their prophet Jesus. Which is a real problem, an extremely serious one for them to come to terms with. Well, we all know they can’t come to terms with it, it’s why they kill you for it. They may smile at you in polite company, that man, but for the Islamic devout, you were never more than an infidel dog to them.

After all the bridges you would construct to meet them, it hurts, don’t it ?



28 April 2013 at 16:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I chatted to one of my Muslim colleagues recently and he said one of those large mosques was being built in Exeter for his local Muslim community, funded by someone in Saudi to the tune of about £2 million quid. I haven't had a chance to look it up yet. I looked at him a bit sideways and asked whether it came with a requirement to teach a Salafi interpretation. He said not but there must be some payback for the donation I'd expect.

28 April 2013 at 17:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's curious that some people here don't think the UK is socially attractive. I think it's brilliant and I've been all over the world. This is a great place to live, especially now religious hegemony has been reduced and freedom increased as a result.

28 April 2013 at 17:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

By the way, Inspector, my 'mentor' was on The Big Questions this morning. I was only half listening as I was busy doing something else but I'm sure I heard him say that the letter you talked about was a fake created online. I must watch it again on iPlayer when I get my broadband back

28 April 2013 at 17:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

We need contingency plans in place for the future Marie.

It all depends what future demands are made of us. At 4%, we hardly know they were around really, apart from the regular trials of would be terrorists. Our police and security services do a sterling job in bringing these people to justice, but there seems to be no end to it. And that is at 4% !

So, what happens when we get to 10%. 15%, 20% of the population. And just like Hovis, Islam is as good then as it’s always been. What happens when those aforementioned agencies are infiltrated by jihad sympathisers, like MI6 was with Marxists in the 1950s,60s,70s, and a few bomb plots come to fruition ? Do we still have the Churchillian spirit of ‘we can take it’ ?

We await those future demands, and we await the inevitable carnage of when those demands are not acted on immediately. Can you now see how giving them their own homeland areas with limited autonomy is a price we’d all pay to stop the car bombing ?


28 April 2013 at 17:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. An on line fake, and you’ve swallowed that ? Do remind this yourself of the time gap (in years and decimals of) between this incident first seeing the light of day and his rebuttal that it was by his hand. Then ask yourself why it’s taken this long for him to get around to denying it.

Even half the LGBT on Pink News loathe him for it. Of course, the other half see him as a gay god who if he wants to sing the praises of the sexually active extreme underage, that’s up to him...


28 April 2013 at 17:28  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Inspector you're only inviting them to do more bombing and encouraging them to increase demands for more of our land as their population grows and spreads like knot weed. We can't seem to police the national boundaries now let alone new regional boundaries.

WE need a strong politician to uphold our culture and values and the one law for all. The pushy middle eastern temperament is far different from that of the Irish.

Future demands should be met with a firm NO. It's got nothing to do with being intolerant rather than the preservation of our lifestyle and laws. Deportation awaits if they don't like it, afterall didn't they come here for a better life than that in their own lands?

28 April 2013 at 18:27  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Well chaps I am with Danjo on this one. I for one AM PROUD to be British.

God save the Queen!

28 April 2013 at 18:28  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Albert,

My dear chap, I had no intention of stopping you from your discourse on theology, I merely note that we got onto two topics done to death here - homosexuality and Catholic vs Protestant.

But as for theology, I am no academic, so mine is quite simple. The ebb and flow of life, the beauty of the countryside, our crystal clear rivers... one can see God in that more than some dry academic theology text.

28 April 2013 at 18:33  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Blue Dog,

Yes Asia is the new flashpoint. The linking with the pre-great war situation can be added to, by noting that China could well be the largest economic power in Asia (as Germany in Europe) without the recourse to a bloody war. Indeed I think some chaps suggest Germany felt 'encircled' in 1914; China does so now?

28 April 2013 at 18:36  
Blogger len said...

'Albert has obviously not lived in a Muslim country'remarked Cressida.
If Albert had he would(probably) have noticed an extremely heavy oppressive spiritual force pressing down upon him.It would be a very brave Christian who announced himself as a follower of Christ in a Muslim dominated Country.

Inspector in reply to your question(28 April 2013 12:28)

Religion attempts to change a man, to retrain him, to re- educate him to make him conform to what the 'Church' surmises a Christian should be(as Jesus put it religion cleans the outside of the cup but what is inside the cup remains unclean)
God crucifies the man and gives him a new heart and a new spirit.

This is basically the difference between 'practicing religion' and being one Spirit with Christ.IF we are one spirit with Christ His Spirit is our teacher(in fact His Spirit becomes our Spirit and becomes not only' our teacher' but our Life.






28 April 2013 at 18:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, it wouldn't take too much for someone to find out for sure by digging out the newspaper at source. I need to rewatch the programme to check what he actually said.

28 April 2013 at 18:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marie. No invites or encouragement required that girl. You know that. They will do anything and everything their god allows them to spread his domination. Lie, cheat, bomb and kill. And it’s all grass roots too. Little in the way of leadership, and what leadership they do have in their terrorist movements in their own lands is laughable in it's inability to be effective. That’s the coldest part of it. No one to negotiate with. Just an ad hoc assembly at best, and a different one at that the week after.

The good news is we WILL get that politician. He will come from amongst us in our hour of need. He will know what will need to be done...


28 April 2013 at 18:59  
Blogger Peter D said...

Lord Lavendon

Greeks were once proud to be Greek; and Romans to be Roman. Civilisations reach greatest and decline unless they renew and reinvigorate themselves.

Our own civilisation, founded on Christian principles, is eroding and before too long will not be recognisable. Our compassion and tolerance have allowed the seeds of destruction to be sown. We are dying from within and, like a dead oak tree, still show outward signs of life.

28 April 2013 at 19:05  
Blogger Albert said...

There seem to be a lot of people here who think I am some how pro-Islam. All I said was that Muslims are overwhelmingly terrorists, and that given the choice, I would prefer to live in a Muslim country than an atheist one. Of course, I might find it oppressive, I just think history shows it would be less oppressive.

28 April 2013 at 19:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

As you say - ‘overwhelmingly’

heh heh !

28 April 2013 at 19:11  
Blogger Albert said...

Oh dear! Overwhelmingly not terrorists, is what I meant (and previously said).

28 April 2013 at 19:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Freudian slip that man. Now off with you, skin saving defeatist !

28 April 2013 at 19:19  
Blogger Flossie said...

DanJo - The Inspector is quite correct about Peter Tatchell. In a letter to the Guardian on 26 June 1997 he wrote the following:

ROS Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.
The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.

Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.

The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful. (letter ends)

Peter Tatchell contributed to a book edited by paedophile Warren Middleton entitled 'The Betrayal of Youth: Radical Perspectives on Childhood Sexuality, Intergenerational Sex, and the Social Oppression of Children and Young People' in which he encourages his readers to re-examine fundamental assumptions and concepts about acceptable sexual behaviour for the young. His views on the age of consent are well known, and are there for all to see on his blog.

http://www.petertatchell.net/

28 April 2013 at 19:52  
Blogger Flossie said...

Actually, I have just looked on his site, and it has all gone!

28 April 2013 at 19:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A mystery indeed Flossie. A disappearing site and what DanJ0 has heard about a denial and a bogus explanation for the letter. We are witnessing history, to wit, an attempt to airbrush a particularly gruesome aspect of Tatchell’s mentality. Incidentally, on oft used nickname for the man on the Pink News site is that of ‘media whore’. And that comes from the LGBT who do have time for him...


28 April 2013 at 20:13  
Blogger Peter D said...

Peter Tatchell doesn't condone paedophilia, he just thinks that nine year olds can have consensual sex with adults.

Tatchell on the American forum website, Big Think, claimed that: “Despite what the puritans and sex-haters say, underage sex is mostly consenting, safe, and fun”. He said laws which put the age of consent at 16 are harmful to teenagers. “They signal that a young person is not capable of making a rational, moral choice about when to have sex”, he said.

He's also on record as saying:

“Some teens, and even young children, innocently and spontaneously explore and experiment at an early age. In most cases this causes them no harm at all.”

A rational, moral choice by children to succumb to the advances of predatory homosexuals. Sure.

Well, call me a sex-hating puritan!

28 April 2013 at 20:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie, I am well-aware of the letter. Indeed, I have already mentioned it and its context. I am not defending Tatchell, just pointing out what I may have heard this morning. As I said, I need to watch it on iPlayee to check.

28 April 2013 at 20:41  
Blogger William said...

Who's to say Tatchell is wrong? I mean if respected psychologists and anthropologists have said that sodomising boys can be mutually beneficial then so it must be. And once marriage is abolished then these benefits can be taught to all school children as part of the national curriculum.

28 April 2013 at 20:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. One wonders if homosexuality, at least in the male, is nothing more than a malfunctioning of an important, but not necessarily vital aspect of the human brain. To wit, reproduction issues. It does seem that for these poor unfortunates, the urge is so out of control that it runs their lives. It is their reason for existence. The only question left then is why the idea of sex with a woman so utterly repeals them, whereas the same with a teeny of the same sex or heterosexuals with a teeny of different sex doesn’t seem to, in extreme cases...

No point asking Tatchell. What does he know ?

28 April 2013 at 20:44  
Blogger michael north said...


Albert compares Islam favourably to atheism, as a basis for society. The only thoroughgoing atheist states have been communist and the two ideologies have a lot in common. Both justify anything in advancing the cause, whether jihad or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Those outside are infidels or reactionaries to be eliminated for opposing sharia or the revolution. Islam is the scourge of the 21st century, as communism was of the 20th, with the same class of useful idiots and fellow travellers in academia, politics and the media.

Belloc and Chesterton wrote about it a century ago.

28 April 2013 at 20:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Michael North. One is reassured that Islam, and the queue of home grown muslims waiting to be tried for terrorist offences have finally killed off the ‘multicultural is good’ dead duck.

The British are a lot more racist than people give them credit for. All on the quiet you understand. Not ones for screaming and shouting, what !

Has to be done subtly you know...

28 April 2013 at 21:15  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Who knows the source of the unnatural desire. We all have crosses to bear. The point is to control such perversity; not feed, excuse or justify it.

I repear what Saint Peter Damian wrote a millenium ago:

"Tell us, you unmanly and effeminate man, what do you seek in another male that you do not find in yourself? What difference in sex, what varied features of the body?

"For it is the function of the natural appetite that each should seek outside himself what he cannot find in his own capacity. Therefore, if the touch of masculine flesh delights you, lay your hands upon yourself and be assured that whatever you do not find in yourself, you seek in vain in the body of another."


One seriously wonders if Thatchell is now back-tracting because of police investigations into historical abuse. He is on record as saying he knows of children as young as nine abused by men, saying they reported enjoying the experience.

So long as its safe, fun and consensual, eh?! Just how corrupt can one become?

Is it any wonder Islam is growing in strength with cultural icons such as this? A couple of generation ago he would have been imprisoned for peddling this smut.

28 April 2013 at 21:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good point Peter D. Until now, the Inspector has viewed the investigation into historic sex abuse as nothing more than a ‘nice little compo earner’ for then 14 year old precocious schoolgirls who are now fully hardened middle aged shameless bitches. After all, why didn’t they scream the place down there and then. Perhaps the man himself is expecting a hand on his shoulder. We wait in anticipation, what !

28 April 2013 at 21:51  
Blogger Flossie said...

Come off it, Peter D, you don't really think they will investigate homosexual men, do you?

28 April 2013 at 22:11  
Blogger bluedog said...

Inspector, I don't think your policy of containing Islamic populations in Bantustans would work; such a move would set up the conditions for open warfare between Christians and Muslims. Indeed, the Muslims are already waging low-level civil war across the West. As you suggest, the risks increase exponentially as the Muslim population rises and consequently they become more confident and assertive.

The problem now faced by the West is one not seen for 500 years or so. Agrarian Spain dealt with Islam by military conquest of Muslim ruled provinces, so that Madrid is a Christian city today. The Byzantines had an open trading society and had allowed mosques within Constantinople well before their final defeat by the Ottoman Turks in 1453. Today the West does not face a military threat from an Islamic state, except possibly in Israel.

The West is however being demographically claimed by Muslim settlers who are encroaching on our way of life without compromise. It would be a help if there were a few politicians in the UK who would publicly recognise that risk and declare themselves opposed to the prospect of Islamic dominance.

Preferably before it is too late.

28 April 2013 at 22:16  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

For goodness sake, don't ever judge the survivors of sex abuse!

Fear, shame, self-recrimination and doubts about being believed are all effective barriers to disclosure. Abusers choose their victims carefully and use a variety of techniques to silence them and avoid discovery.

These are the very same reasons abuse went undiscovered in the Church and within other institutions for so long.

28 April 2013 at 22:25  
Blogger Peter D said...

Flossie

One lives in hope.

28 April 2013 at 22:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D, why didn’t the victims of celebratory sex abuse run to the arms of the nearest friendly soul. Ask yourself that. Incidentally, this man received a telephone call the other week asking when the last time he had an accident. It’s time to reverse the relaxation of solicitors advertising, that’s for sure...

Bluedog. It bodes ill. We should be sending the convicted home grown Islamic would be bombers to the scaffold. One suspects that you and the Inspector are both united on this. If we fail to do that, how on earth do we discourage the up and coming generation of eager muslims from similar ?

28 April 2013 at 23:08  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Well, I hope you told the blighters of the time you fell down from a tree after hiding there from a bear ... what!

28 April 2013 at 23:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hi Jade. Met any personalities when you were young ?
Yeah Chelsea, met Rolf Harris and Max whatever.
Get on to the police, girl, there’s money to be made

28 April 2013 at 23:33  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

@Albert.
Thank you for providing the link.
Since you appreciate the BCP you might also like "Four Birds of Noah's Arke" a collection of prayers by the Elizabethan playwright, Thomas Dekker. It was edited by F.P. Wilson but it's a very rare book.
May I suggest that you don't feed the troll as it only makes it worse?
@ Flossie. Your information is all absolutely accurate. Tatchell has a long history of advocating paedophilia but then that is about par for the course among his sort. The Guardian was not online in 1992 so his lies are ridiculous.

28 April 2013 at 23:54  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Have you always been so cynical or was it an acquired trait?

29 April 2013 at 00:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Peter D, what can one say. Perhaps you can give some credit to them that know the ghastly truth, eh ?

29 April 2013 at 00:11  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

You don't work for a firm of solicitors, do you?

I walk on the other side of the street and deal with the victims of abuse. Very few that I have encountered have fabricated their accounts. Often, they are reluctant to share their stories years after the event.

29 April 2013 at 00:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Not sure you fully appreciate the difference between genuine abuse and a money making exercise Peter D. Don’t be surprised if the latest round of accusations come to nothing. Of course, one is aware of your professional involvement, but we find that your clients are referred to you, are they not ? You are spared life’s money making chancers...


29 April 2013 at 00:39  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Few things in life surprise me when it comes to sexual abuse. I have given independent evidence in Court and I agree there are some nowadays who maybe take advantage for monetary motives. This doesn't mean they were not abused.

However, and without prejudice, the likes of Saville and other public figures were in prime positions to take advantage of young men and women without fear of discovery at the time.

Times change and we now know more about these predators.

29 April 2013 at 01:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Julia: "The Guardian was not online in 1992 so his lies are ridiculous."

Firstly, we are talking about what I may have heard ... unless you have checked in the meantime, secondly, Flossie quoted 1997 not 1992, and thirdly, the interpretation is that someone has spoofed a scan of the letter in the Guardian and it is precisely because an online archive is not available that it may be an issue. Other than that, you've really got to the heart of it. Have you considered post-graduate study? You really seem to have the knack for this sort of thing.

29 April 2013 at 06:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"These are the very same reasons abuse went undiscovered in the Church and within other institutions for so long."

That and the self-serving and immoral behaviour of the Church hierarchy putting its own reputation above that of the welfare of the victims.

29 April 2013 at 07:01  
Blogger David B said...

I shall avoid commenting on the comments of other regulars for now, and just tell His Grace that I rather miss his generally well written blog entries.

I don't agree with everything he writes, but I have, as I have said in the past, been surprised at just how much agreement there has been between the Conservative Christian and the Liberal Atheist.

Particularly agreement concerning freedom of expression, tolerance of dissent, and a denial of freedom to not be offended. Apart from the personal pleasure I sometimes get from reading HG's pieces and sometimes commenting on them, given the claims that this blog is widely read and influential in Conservative quarters, it performs a valuable function, I suggest, in reminding influential Conservatives of the virtues of freedom of expression and the vices of attempting to over-govern.

I could go on, but I shall confine myself to expressing my home that HG will return to perform that valuable function, refreshed and eager for the fray.

David

29 April 2013 at 07:05  
Blogger David B said...

That would be 'hope' not 'home'

David

29 April 2013 at 07:10  
Blogger bluedog said...

David B @ 0705, you will be relieved to learn that this communicant remains uninhibited about commenting on the posts of others.

Recalling your past support for SSM, how will your own blog manage the restrictions of freedom of speech inherent in the SSM Bill now approaching its third reading?

The proposed prohibition of comment that marriage should be be between a man and a woman is pure totalitarianism and of course, pure Madsen & Kirk.

No wonder His Grace is in a quandary.

29 April 2013 at 09:58  
Blogger Albert said...

Bluedog,

The proposed prohibition of comment that marriage should be be between a man and a woman is pure totalitarianism

So Christianity and Islam and Judaism is outlawed. Have you got a reference for that?

29 April 2013 at 10:57  
Blogger bluedog said...

Albert @ 10.57, the comment is based on emails that I have recently received from Coalition for Marriage.

I'm trying to find the right one and will post a link if poss.

Regarding yours of 13.54 28th April, apologies for a dilatory reply (if sought or expected). My view would be that we need to segment the Muslim demographic and ensure that they are taught Civics at school with an emphasis on how Christian thought has influence British law and customs. First generation migrants are likely to be accepting of the West, after all they chose the West consciously. The problem arises in the second generation who find themselves in the West with that choice.

You won't want to hear this and nor will the Human Rights lobby. But given that the CofE is a state church, it could be drafted to educate the Muslims in Christianity, should a government so wish. Somehow highly unlikely.

29 April 2013 at 11:49  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you Bluedog,

That sounds like a good idea, and I would be quite happy for the CofE to take the lead on it. But of course it won't happen because being truthful about our culture will offend secular (not Muslim) sensibilities.

29 April 2013 at 12:08  
Blogger bluedog said...

Albert, here goes. The sender of the email was David Skinner: d.skinner1@talktalk.net

The specific comment is contained in a seven page Word attachment, with the relevant paragraph cut and pasted below.

'Canon Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream urges us to keep writing to our MPs and the Peers, regarding the same – sex marriage bill. (Remember the widow nagging the unjust judge). Also read Ezekiel 33 and be reminded that we will be raining coals down on the head of our MPs if they do no heed our warnings. At least we will have done our duty.
Chris says on the AM web site:
“The Third Reading of the Same-sex marriage bill is due to take place in the House of Commons around May 20. Following that, the bill will be debated in the House of Lords in June. Many people wrongly assume that there is nothing now to stop the bill becoming law. This is a false assumption. There is still a long way to go and the bill could be defeated……” Please read the rest [1]
He reminds that if same sex marriage is approved by the government, in a few months’ time, we will not be allowed to express the view at all in public that marriage is between a man and a woman.” it will be illegal to even discuss the issue or homosexuality. Overnight, we will lose freedoms of conscience, thought and speech that have taken centuries and the blood of our ancestors to win. Do you really want to know what it is like live in a tyranny?'

According to Skinner, Sugden is something of a firebrand. But the allegation is extremely serious and sets a most dangerous precedent, coming as it does in the wake of Cameron's flirtation with Press control.

If Sugden is correct, the SSM Bill paves the way to blog control.

29 April 2013 at 12:13  
Blogger bluedog said...

Albert, here's the Bill: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0126/2013126.pdf

29 April 2013 at 12:22  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0 said ...

"That and the self-serving and immoral behaviour of the Church hierarchy putting its own reputation above that of the welfare of the victims."

Agreed but it is not the Church qua Church that is the problem. There is now awareness and acceptance of the evidence that the Church hierarchy has been infested with homosexuals for decades (a 'homomafia', as some call it) that is self-promoting, self-seeking and self-protecting.

Pope Benedict recognised this but was ineffective in dismantling it. One hopes that Pope Francis will address this filth in the Church.

29 April 2013 at 12:32  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...


Albert
Check this out:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3654/ireland-mega-mosque

29 April 2013 at 12:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

There’s always a silver lining, if you look hard enough, and the one resulting from greater Islamic colonisation in the West is that it will turn Western types right wing. There is no way the present liberal social society is going to survive once it all kicks off in earnest. It won’t be long before the indigenous realise their very survival is at stake. That will have a hardening effect on the soul...


29 April 2013 at 13:38  
Blogger The Explorer said...

This post has taken on a life of its own. Following on from 'The Big Questions' and marriage, what about last Sunday's topic of heterosexual civil partnerships? What about the feminist who objected to any form of marriage because it implied ownership of the woman by the man?

Setting aside whether this is a fair analysis of marriage, do you escape the cited problem by non-marriage? What about the Scot a while back who set fire to his girl when she wanted to leave him; or the yob who broke his partner's jaw for looking at another man in a pub?

Marriage was not the problem here; sexual possession of a woman was. A control freak will still be controlling: regardless of the status of the relationship.

29 April 2013 at 14:28  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

That and the self-serving and immoral behaviour of the Church hierarchy putting its own reputation above that of the welfare of the victims.

According to the John Jay report there are examples of that, but they are the exception. For the most part, even the bishops did not know about the abuse until decades later. Often by that time it has passed the statute of limitations, the priest was dead, the matter was hard to tell if it was true etc. Cases in which the bishop did nothing do exist - disgracefully - but they are very much the exception. More usual responses from the bishops are in line with what other institutions were doing (like schools). People were sent for secular and ultimately useless forms of therapy. This was in violation of what Church Law actually requires. However, it needs to be remembered that the reason we understand you need something firmer than a trip to some kind of therapist is because we now have the experience bishops (and Head Masters etc.) did not have.

29 April 2013 at 14:29  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

In my opinion, a proper response to this whole question would have begun with the nature of marriage. Why do we have it? what function does it serve? can it or should it be changed or abolished? what would happen if we did change it? etc. Because the current change in the law is really a gimmick to make Dave look nicer, these vitally important questions have been avoided, and will be answered by default. In a time in which 1 in 10 children asked for a Dad for Christmas, I think that is morally reprehensible.

29 April 2013 at 14:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

One might have though the Church had made an effort to fix itself until, well, the Cardinal O'Brien scandal came to light.

29 April 2013 at 16:02  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert,

You have highlighted a problem with that particular episode of 'The Big Questions', and with the format of the programme as a whole. The questions ARE big, but the allocated time slots for answers are short; so nothing ever really gets resolved, or dealt with in depth. The occasional perceptive comment is the best one can hope for.

29 April 2013 at 16:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I have broadband again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01s9p4j/The_Big_Questions_Series_6_Episode_15/

20:40

The bit I heard was actually the end of Tatchell talking about a photoshopped image of him holding a placard for P.I.E. but he goes on to say (the bit I caught) that he has never endorsed adults having sex with children and never would.

29 April 2013 at 16:17  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0 said ...

"One might have though the Church had made an effort to fix itself until, well, the Cardinal O'Brien scandal came to light."

Without prejudging the situation, it would appear the Cardinal O'Brien affair demonstates just how morally bankrupt a cleric becomes when he indulges unnatural homosexual lusts.

It also illustrates how power can be used to promote some and to silence those lower down in the hierarchy. I was astonished by the revelations and for how long he seems to have been attempting to entice vulnerable junior seminarians and priests into sexual relationships. Scandalous.

The vice of homosexuality is all corrupting and malicious, indeed.

Peter Damian wrote of sodomy:

"Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind ... It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise ... It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity ... It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things ..."

The Church has a battle to fight to rid itself of this evil.

29 April 2013 at 16:26  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."
(Peter Thatchell)

What a depraved comment. Sounds like an endorsement to me of inter-generational sex and from the ages of nine years old too.

29 April 2013 at 16:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say, I say !

If you whisper ‘Tatchell’ to my dog, he’ll bark ‘anal’

Right then Spot, ‘Tatchell’ !

gruff

No, that’s not right. Try again. ‘Tatchell’

gruff

Look Spot, you’re embarrassing the Inspector and making a fool of yourself. ‘Tatchell’

gruff

You blasted animal. WC Fields was right. Don’t work with animals or children. Anyway, this man is off. You can stay here for all he cares...

29 April 2013 at 17:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

anal

29 April 2013 at 17:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Did you say something ?

gruff

29 April 2013 at 17:32  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

You have highlighted a problem with that particular episode of 'The Big Questions', and with the format of the programme as a whole.

Perhaps, but it is the wider political and legal debate that has been screwed up by trying to answer the gay question of gay 'marriage' before answering the question of marriage. If nothing else, there are good grounds for thinking this will cause problems for the churches.

29 April 2013 at 18:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Bluedog,

Thank you for taking the trouble to dig that out. I suspect that that is not the intention of the Bill, nor will it actually be in there. The problem will come if it combines with some other legislation. Of course, restriction on the freedom of speech is less worrying than the fact that gay 'marriage' may result in people being compelled to recognise something, or act as if they do, against their conscience.

29 April 2013 at 18:05  
Blogger Peter D said...

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.

There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

(Winston Churchill)

29 April 2013 at 18:47  
Blogger David B said...

@Bluedog 09.58

I don't have a blog as such, I am a co-founder and co-owner of a discussion board.

I would not censor people who propound the view that SSM is either wrong or not really a marriage, though I would argue against that view.

On a more personal note, I have been informed today that the result of my latest scan shows no sign of cancer, which I hope will be seen as good news.

Long may it remain so.

David

29 April 2013 at 18:52  
Blogger Albert said...

David,

I am delighted to hear your good news!

29 April 2013 at 19:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older