Saturday, July 27, 2013

Exporting gay marriage - the Gospel of St Dave


From Mr Alexander Boot:

Many have risen in anger upon hearing how Dave wishes to improve our trade balance. Rather than exporting manufactured products, he decrees that we must be exporting the same-sex marriage Bill instead.

“Many countries are going to want to copy this,” spoke Dave to a select LGBT group. “I talk about how we’ve got to export more, so I’m going to export the Bill team. I think they can take it around the world.”

At first glance, this method of boosting Britain’s exports looks foolish if not downright mad. Foolish it is, but it is holy foolishness. Likewise it is mad also, but the madness is divine.

For he’s guided in his works by a little-known apocryphal text known to experts as The Gospel of St Dave. By what has to be divine dispensation I found a copy of the Gospel, which I’m happy, nay obliged, to share with you:
“Seeing the multitudes, Dave went up into the Minster which is in the west: and when he was set, his multitudes came upon him: men born as women, women born as men, men who lie with men and women who lie with women.

“And Dave opened his mouth and taught them, saying,

“Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith in the Bill?

“Let the Bill’s light so shine before men that they may see its good works, and glorify Him which is in Downing Street, and his number is ten.

“Think not that I am come to destroy marriage: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

“For verily I say unto you that marriage is in no wise righteous save for marriage betwixt two men, and two women also.

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them shall be praised.

“Blessed are the women who did change their use into that which is against nature no longer.

“Blessed are likewise also the men, leaving the use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is good.

“Blessed are the poor in morals for they shall inherit the Street which is Downing.

“Blessed are the poor in mind for they shall inherit the Minster which is in the west.

“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst for the pleasures of the flesh as they shall be filled to the brim.

“For thy Bill knoweth what pleasures ye have need of, and what ye have no need of.

“It is good for a man to touch a man, and for a woman to touch a woman also.

“There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in the Bill.

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for fornication’s sake: for theirs is the kingdom in the Minster which is in the west.

“Ye are the salt of the earth and many other substances also.

“The Bill is the light of the world, and it giveth light unto all that are on earth.

“Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is thy reward from the Bill.

“It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife shalt be smitten. But I say unto you that whosoever then taketh a man can be my servant.

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour. But I say unto you, a man shalt love a man, and a woman a woman also.

“That ye may be the children of thy Bill, for it decideth what is good for you and samewise what is bad.

“Be ye therefore perfect, even as thy Bill is perfect.

“Be not deceived: only fornicators, and adulterers, and effeminate shall inherit the Kingdom of the Bill.

“To do fornication, let every man have his own husband, and let every woman have her own wife.

“Let marriage be held in honour among all, men and men, and women and women also, for the Bill will judge the moral and faithful.

“Go ye therefore and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever the Bill has commanded you.

“And as ye go, preach, saying The kingdom of the Bill is at hand.

“The Bill is the way, the truth, and the life.

“Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Bill which is in you: therefore glorify the Bill in thy body.

“Therefore if any man be in the Bill, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

“Ye cannot serve the Bill and God.

“I am the Bill, thy God.”

Amen to that.
Alexander Boot is a writer on political, cultural and religious themes.

133 Comments:

Blogger ukFred said...

Methinks St. Dave needs the Old Bill... to feel his collar. Not a dog collar, but maybe he should be muzzled and kept on a leash.

27 July 2013 at 10:36  
Blogger Admiral J Sparrow said...


There are 50 odd countries in the Commonwealth nations which can be loosely known as the Anglosphere.These are the people that the eurosceptics in the UK wish to trade with rather than been shackled to the EU and all they represent.
Mr Cameron needs to cause discourse amongst these nations to prevent UK leaving the eu and what a better way to do this than exporting his infamous bill.

27 July 2013 at 10:48  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

May I suggest some traditionalist African countries for them to start in. I am sure they will receive a unique welcome to their cobbled together theories stitched together with a fig leaf of fourth rate academic "research", manipulated statistics, and the encouragement of those infamous amazingly rich tax exempt foundations of the USA who have been peddling these filthy rags for ages

27 July 2013 at 10:56  
Blogger graham wood said...

Mr Boot. Your cynical comment is fully justified.
The position taken by Dave must be a matter which raises a profound question, namely, how can apparently intelligent men and women members of HM government hold to such an outlandish, bizarre, and perverted view of marriage?
Even one Michal Gove, supposedly brighter than the common run of MPs has endorsed the "gay" marriage idiocy.
What is the explanation whereby normally rational, informed people abandon centuries of accumulated wisdom about the nature of marriage and relationships, for a rancid mess of pottage which is SSM?

I think the answer lies in the spiritual deception which is the essence of the godless SSM ideology.
Paul explains this process of thinking:
"Because they received not the love of the truth (as it is in Christ) that they might be saved. . .And for THIS cause God shall send them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie. . . . "

27 July 2013 at 10:57  
Blogger Martin said...

I think the answer to 'Dave' lies, as has already been implied in the blog, in Romans chapter 1:

“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” (Romans 1:24-25 NKJV)

I weep for my land, so much more so that the clarion call that should have been sounded by its so called religious leaders was little more than a squeak.

“‘But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’” (Ezekiel 33:6 NKJV)

What a judgement is coming!

27 July 2013 at 11:48  
Blogger The Explorer said...

One assumes 'around the world' will include taking the message to, say, Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia?

27 July 2013 at 12:00  
Blogger Nick said...

I have got to the point that I expect nothing but idiocy from this man and his followers, so I am not shocked or surprised by the fact he now wants to export British immorality.

He clearly has no grasp of how to govern the country so instead he is grandstanding with the things he can actually "cope" with.

Of course he is digging a very deep hole for himself that he will fall into one day along with all his followers. One should feel no pity for him when it happens.

My advice to anyone who opposes SSM is to turn your back on Cameron now. Leave the party, resign the whip, whatever. Just distance yourself from the sinking ship.


"1Do not fret because of those who are evil
or be envious of those who do wrong;
2for like the grass they will soon wither,
like green plants they will soon die away.
" Psalm 37

27 July 2013 at 12:23  
Blogger Gary said...

I have never known a British prime minister to promote evil with such enthusiasm. The devil is amok.

27 July 2013 at 12:30  
Blogger Gary said...

Further to my comment that "the devil is amok":

The fact that the ABC and the Queen don't see this and speak out about it is clear proof, in my eyes, that this country is looking directly into the abyss.

27 July 2013 at 12:33  
Blogger ardenjm said...

I have no idea why Alexander Boot is given space on this website.
He's on youtube making the crassest of jokes about the Norwegian mass murderer Breivik:

"it has made my day - that nasty piece of work in Norway...actually quotes from my books.. Like I said, it makes my day - at least somebody does."

He's not approving Breivik, obviously.
He's just being utterly narcissistic: relativising Breivik in function of himself (!) That takes some chutzpah, I'll grant him that.
Thankfully the Libertarian students at Warwick don't laugh at his faux self-deprecation.

He makes the gag within the first 40 seconds of the video. So you don't have to watch the remaining 140 minutes...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVvRGx3rVz4

On second thoughts, that kind of world-weary absolute conviction that he and a select few only have understood what is wrong with the world corresponds perfectly to this blog. Boot brings the Russian soul - with its hedonistic nihilism - to his libertarianism.
Quite how that squares with Cranmer's version of Christianity is beyond me.

Perhaps someone could clarify.



27 July 2013 at 12:39  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

ardenjm,

You appear to be under the mistaken illusion that Anglicans must all agree on matters of theology and conform to a particular worldview. This blog is not Roman Catholic: there is no Magisterium dictating doctrine to which all contributors must submit. This is not a new departure: His Grace has hosted many diverse guest posts over the years which are contrary to his personal beliefs and convictions. If that plurality of expression somehow offends you, feel free to leave.

27 July 2013 at 12:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well, let’s have the FULL LGBT package then.

The gay pornography. Gets a couple of fellows in the mood, or more likely three or four.

The drugs. Needed to perform hour after hour.

The disease. Mother Nature has something to say about gay sex. In fact, so abhorrent does she find it, she has blessed participants with a disease which will kill them if the stop taking the pills.

The predatory nature. The younger the better. Young flesh is highly prized.

The rejections. Gay and old, no thanks. When you’ve lost your youth, you are out. You will be told to eff off out the gay club.

The infidelity. Some gays say faithfulness is possible. Others reject it as totally incompatible with the condition. A typically phrase used is “I know there are others, I just hope he’s careful”

The mental health issues. You didn’t think this lifestyle allows you to live happily ever after did you ?

The paranoia. Swivel eyes are the order of the day. The straights' are after you. If a gay man is mugged in the street, it’s automatically a homophobic hate crime. If a Christian B+B owner turns down your custom, they must be punished, for their hate.

The evangelism. Wherever the union jack flies, then so must the rainbow flag. Wherever children are taught, they must be taught sodomy is good. Whenever there is a televised debate, one of the panellists must be LGBT. Remember, Big Gay does not do compromise. Why should they, they haven’t had to compromise yet. What Big Gay wants, Big Gay gets...



27 July 2013 at 12:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This is also a watershed moment for Tory MPs, as Nick rightly points out. Resign the whip or go over to UKIP. There you go, who says you don’t have choice in the matter...

Or is it the case that today’s MP really is a self serving career minded soul compromising nothing ?

27 July 2013 at 12:58  
Blogger ardenjm said...

@Cranmer,
if you're happy to have him on here to your own discredit I'm fine with him hanging around.
It's your blog, after all.

The more the merrier.

Who do you have lined up next as a demonstration of your pluralistic tolerance?
Tariq Ramadan?

But hey, media via and all that - let's celebrate diversity!

(Meanwhile, in that brow-beaten Catholic universe of magisterial dictatorship, 1.5 million young people from 157 countries are celebrating World Youth Day with the Pope on Copacabana Beach...)

27 July 2013 at 13:06  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

ardenjm,

His Grace knows Tariq Ramadan very well. You'll find he's Sunni Muslim; not Anglican Christian.

You don't mention how many of the 1.5m youth gathered in Rio submit to the Magisterium on contraception, homosexuality and other matters of sexual ethics. You yourself belong to a via media, but none dare call it so.

27 July 2013 at 13:11  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Well parodied Mr Boot.

27 July 2013 at 13:48  
Blogger Naomi King said...


The homosexuals now obviously run the Country given Mr Cameron's votes of thanks to everybody at the No 10 annual Homosexual Garden Party. A parody of the Queen no doubt.

27 July 2013 at 13:50  
Blogger ardenjm said...

@Cranmer

I've never denied that the Catholic Church is Catholic.
But I'm not the one with problems of coherency when it comes to the Catholic Church (nor the deep-seated "je 'aime - moi non plus" conflict concerning her).
You are.

You can't, on the one hand say this:

"This blog is not Roman Catholic: there is no Magisterium dictating doctrine to which all contributors must submit."

And then say this:

"You don't mention how many of the 1.5m youth gathered in Rio submit to the Magisterium on contraception, homosexuality and other matters of sexual ethics. You yourself belong to a via media, but none dare call it so."

This dialectical opposition which you perceive in the Catholic Church exists in your (siege mentality) mind.

The Church's teaching is the Church's teaching. You'll find that Pope Francis doesn't change it simply to please his flock. (Unlike, ahem, other 'ecclesial communions' nearer to home...)
That even swathes of the Faithful refuse to follow that teaching demonstrates both their freedom of will (hmmm, let's not go down the Lutheran inheritance within Anglicanism on that one) and also, unfortunately for you, that there is clearly very little coerced submission going on...

Now, I appreciate that for an Anglican, the notion that the Magisterium as exercised by a johnny foreigner Pope in Eyetie Land must, by definition be an imposition that curtails little-englander liberties.
For a Catholic, however, it's all part of that body of the Church that St Paul speaks of: heads, hands, different members. For sure, there are times of tension, dispute even quarrel - as in all families - but for you the Pope in Rome is simply a larger version of Reverend Moon who famously said to his Moonies "I am your brain."

I'm sure that you, like me, would therefore find it inconceivable that ANY self-respecting Anglican should take Holy Communion in such an authoritarian sect-like place....

You can't say that the Catholic Church is both too authoritarian AND too lax without coming dangerously close to violating the principle of non-contradiction.
Which, whilst I admire the Anglican Church for its sacrosanct principle of being all things to all men and cultivating the art of doublethink, is probably, nevertheless, a contradiction too far even for such an august caeseropapist national monument/mausoleum....

These contradictory caricatures of the Catholic Church are your own invention. You seem to switch between them depending on your humour, your interlocutor or perhaps the side of the bed you get out of in the morning.
Like the original Thomas Cranmer in all things, I see...

27 July 2013 at 13:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Homosexuals do not run the country. A different religion has been established, and that religion justifies homosexuality in the name of human autonomy. It is a religion of deified man.

carl

27 July 2013 at 14:01  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Mr Boots blog the other day I thought a little trite but having visited his Blog and read this post, my view is changed and I now welcome his contributions.

I have said it before but others are also now also saying it, the Conservatives who voted against the bill can bring this monster Cameron down by resigning the Whip.

The Act has yet to be implemented yet so it can still be stopped.

The Act has yet to be implemented yet so it can still be stopped.

27 July 2013 at 14:02  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Carl:

Absolutely. SSM is simply part of a much bigger picture: sexual and otherwise. It should not be seen in isolation.

27 July 2013 at 14:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

ardenjm

The Church's teaching is the Church's teaching. You'll find that Pope Francis doesn't change it simply to please his flock.

That's absolutely correct. The Magisterium changes its teaching to please itself and demands the laity follow wherever the Magisterium might lead.

*Cough* Two Swords doctrine *Cough* Indulgences and the
The Albighensians *Cough* EENS
*Cough* The functional deification of Mary *Cough* Vatican II *Cough

The Magisterium declares "We say it is the moon that shines so bright." And the laity is bound to respond "Be it moon, or sun, or what you please. An if you please to call it a rush-candle, henceforth I vow it shall be so for me."

Anyways, it's not technically 'change.' It's more like growth. Development, that is. Have I told you about the acorn and how it grows into a huge oak tree?

carl

27 July 2013 at 15:11  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Call me Dave's needs to be committed for examination as his state of mind is now questionable.

As if other countries will be flocking to spend good money on such a useless, contradictory, ill conceived piece of cobbled together on the back of a fag packet legislation.

Nick said “He clearly has no grasp of how to govern the country so instead he is grandstanding with the things he can actually "cope" with. “

You're right. He's just not up to the job of PM, off to the clinic with him!

Carl said “Homosexuals do not run the country.”
I wouldn't bet on it.

27 July 2013 at 15:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 July 2013 at 16:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Marie

I wouldn't bet on it.

I think they are just being consistent. Christianity comes fully equipped with divinely-established boundaries and limits. The new religion says that there are no limits except those which man himself sets. Consent is the means by which limits are established. Christianity comes fully equipped with a created nature set in a created order. The new religion says that there is no order but randomness and no nature beyond what man defines for himself. If he declares himself homosexual, then he is homosexual. If he declares himself a woman trapped in a man's body, then he is a woman trapped in a man's body. The new religion says that man is his own creator. That is it's fundamental essence and that is why it cannot co-exist with Christianity. There cannot be two creators.

Homosexuality is not running the country. The new religion of man is running the country. And sexuality is going to be one of the foremost conflicts as the new religion seeks to displace the old.

carl

27 July 2013 at 16:05  
Blogger David B said...

I see that one of the more sensible and humane senior clerics of this world has had something to say about homophobia, as reported by the BBC.

Tutu is reported to have said -

"...I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place," Archbishop Tutu said at the launch of the Free and Equal campaign in Cape Town.

"I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this."

Archbishop Tutu said the campaign against homophobia was similar to the campaign waged against racism in South Africa.

"I am as passionate about this campaign as I ever was about apartheid. For me, it is at the same level," he added..."

Credit where credit is due.

How would the communicants here see the rights and wrongs of a marriage between two consenting homosexual adults measured against the heterosexual marriage of an elderly male with a young girl who has little choice in the business, I wonder.

I know which would offend me the most. I also see the one which most Christians seem to make the most fuss about, and I don't see that as to their credit.

David

27 July 2013 at 16:18  
Blogger ardenjm said...

@carl

Given the nature of this blog it seems appropriate to make mention of Oscar Wilde and his conversion to the Catholic Church on his death bed:

"He was conscious that people were in the room, and raised his hand when I asked him whether he understood. He pressed our hands. I then sent in search of a priest, and after great difficulty found Father Cuthbert Dunne ... who came with me at once and administered Baptism and Extreme Unction."

The Catholic Church, said Wilde was:
"for saints and sinners alone – for respectable people, the Anglican Church will do".

Let me reassure you, Carl that I'm sure the Anglican Church will find room for any Secularising Pharisees, too. After all - the only entry requirement is to be holier-than-thou and of that you certainly don't need the Church's magisterial authority to convince you - your own rectitude is, quite manifestly, sufficiently imperious all by itself.

Mind how you go.

27 July 2013 at 16:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

measured against the heterosexual marriage of an elderly male with a young girl who has little choice in the business, I wonder.

Why did you feel it necessary to add that qualification? Perhaps because the presence of consent would render your question null and void according to your own logic? How young is the young girl? Is she by necessity below the age of consent? She must be. If not, how does your example work. To be quite honest, I am not sure how the two can be compared at all. You are asking us to compare a consensual if unnatural relationship between two men with a non-consensual if (at least biologically) natural relationship between an old man and a young girl below the age of majority. The two don't fall into the same category.

This sounds like an outgrowth of polygamy which is the context in which one normally sees this kind of thing. There are fundamentalist Mormons in the US who still practice polygamy. (One wonders why polygamy is still illegal in this brave new world of consensual primacy.) Stories of a teenage girl being allocated to a fifty year-old man as his seventh wife are heart breaking - especially for one who has daughters. And I have daughters.

carl

27 July 2013 at 16:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

ardenjm

Nice bit of ad hominem there. Completely non-responsive, but still it was impressive.

Mind how you go.

Be assured that I do mind where I go. That is why I am not a Mormon. That is why I am not a Jehovah's Witness. That is why I am not a Roman Catholic.

carl

27 July 2013 at 16:48  
Blogger Old Blue Eyes said...

I am all for exporting the gay married, perhaps a good place for them to go would be Saudi Arabia.

27 July 2013 at 16:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

OBE: "I am all for exporting the gay married, perhaps a good place for them to go would be Saudi Arabia."

Perhaps that place would suit some of the more, erm, religiously intolerant instead.

27 July 2013 at 16:58  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B:

Is Tutu comparing like with like? Can you choose a) your race, b) your sexual orientation, c) your sexual behaviour?

Can you give your views on those, and why, before we go any further.

27 July 2013 at 17:06  
Blogger David B said...

Well you can't choose your parentage or sexual orientation. I know some ultra-determinists (I am not among them) who claim that choice is a bogus concept altogether. I'd say that one can chose sexual behaviour, but even then in a limited sort of way. I can't see myself ever choosing a homosexual encounter, for instance. My orientation limits my choice.

But the matter of choice is not only a matter of consideration, IMV, regarding whether Tutu is comparing like with like.

They have their similarities on grounds that both homosexuals and people of some races have been persecuted, after all.

David

27 July 2013 at 17:21  
Blogger Flossie said...

David B 'you can't change your ... sexual orientation' - oh, but you can. Peter Tatchell says so, and so does Matthew Parris. Neither believe in 'born that way'.


27 July 2013 at 17:30  
Blogger David B said...

@Carl

You make something of a point.

Ages of consent vary of course, and the age of consent in backwards theocracies tend to be lower than in more civilised, more secular and more mature democracies.

What is the age of consent in Yemen do you think?

Wiki says of Yemen 'In 1999, the minimum marriage age of fifteen for women, rarely enforced, was abolished; the onset of puberty, interpreted by conservatives to be at the age of nine, was set as a requirement for consummation of marriage.[86]'

Your point stands regarding consent where a reasonable age of consent applies, but not where one doesn't.

In such cases a child who I, and I trust you, would think unable to be considered unable to legally consent, can be considered to have consented as a result of pressure from parents or the more general culture.

It is not exactly comparing like with like, as you say, but then, when comparing choices of evils or goods, it so rarely is. Murder is not quite like theft, but most of us have little difficulty in seeing that generally the one is worse than the other.

So my question concerning which is worse, and my point about the girl having little choice in the matter, both stand, I think.

David

27 July 2013 at 17:37  
Blogger Martin said...

David B

You are not able to choose your parentage but homosexuality is most definitely something you choose. Indeed, to claim this notional oppression of homosexuals is akin to racism is itself to be racist.

As for Tutu, is there any evidence that he is a Christian, has he ever given testimony as to how God saved him from sin? I would question whether he is a Christian based on your report of what he has said. Such things are not the words of one who fears the living God, rather the words of the self important.

27 July 2013 at 17:39  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B:

Christianity does not call on people to change their race; but it does call on them to change their behaviour (and whatever their sexual orientation).

I don't have any problems with Tutu's objection to persecution; only with the nature of the comparison.

27 July 2013 at 17:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

...age of consent in backwards theocracies tend to be lower than in more civilised, more secular and more mature democracies.

Yes, it surely has been we backward theocrats who have relentlessly been lowering the "age of consent in the more more civilised, more secular and more mature democracies." I don't know the age of consent in Yemen. I don't know what it has to do with me since I am not a Muslim. What do you suppose the age of consent would be if I could fix it by fiat?

So my question concerning which is worse

According to what standard? I will say that enslaving a child to an adult as his sex toy and broodmare seems worse to me than a homosexual relationship. But that says nothing about the moral quality of a homosexual relationship.

Well you can't choose your parentage or sexual orientation.

And what is your observable for determining this? Other than the self-reported desire of the homosexual, what in the whole of existence establishes that homosexuality is a natural part of human biology?

Because desire isn't sufficient to make you case. And you know it.

carl

27 July 2013 at 17:59  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B:

A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a woman who was appalled that Oscar Wilde had been imprisoned just for being a practising homosexual. One was entitled to give expression to one's sexual orientation.

If the sexual revolution continues unabated, will her equivalent in 2050 be appalled that in 2013 you could be imprisoned just for being a practising paedophile?

What do you think?

27 July 2013 at 18:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Regarding whether or not you chose your sexuality...

Big Gay wants to go into schools to apotheosise complete sexual freedom for children (...And there was you lot thinking it was just about telling the children not to be nasty to pansy types...). Big Gay wants children to leave their parental home as they do, and have a sexual relationship with a male OR a female. It matters not – both even. Big Gay sees us as basically androgynous beings. We are already seeing the groundwork prepared by the denial of gender.

What does Big Gay get out of it ? Well, permission to carry on their chosen way of life, without criticism, and by God, there is a lot to criticise. Yes, they could all revert to traditional male or female behaviour (,,,well, most of them could...), but where’s the fun in that ? Isn’t that what existence is all about ? Having a damn good time ?


27 July 2013 at 18:35  
Blogger ardenjm said...

@Carl

"Completely non-responsive, but still it was impressive."

Oh, I'm sorry. Were you expecting me to take up even more space and time on Cranmer's blog with Catholic Apologetics?

I mean, I could do - but I didn't think your litany of gratuitous accusations against the Catholic Church was actually looking for an authentic discussion in response.

You are quite clear, after all, in that second post of yours - which merely confirmed what I'd intuited from your first post: you made up your mind about the Catholic Church long ago and nothing any Catholic could say is going to change that.
As you say yourself:

"I do mind where I go. That is why I am not a Mormon. That is why I am not a Jehovah's Witness. That is why I am not a Roman Catholic."

So don't be disingenuous by accusing me of avoiding dialogue and discussion with you. What nonsense. You've already decided that the Catholic Church is like some 19th century American sect (both of which are issued from American Protestantism, I should add.)

Since you've already decided upon that - why on earth would I choose the role of patsy so that you can play to the gallery in order to manifest your self-satisfaction at not being a part of the Catholic Church?

Take me for a fool because I am a Catholic if that's what appeals to you - but, please, spare me the holier-than-thou posturing simply because I refuse to play your game and put on the three-cornered hat with its tingling bells and dance around for your entertainment.


27 July 2013 at 18:53  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Martin said @ 27 July 2013 17:39
2Is Bishop Tutu a Christian?" I too would seriously doubt it. He is more like many of the Bishops here. A man of for the people.

27 July 2013 at 19:04  
Blogger David B said...

Explorer, I think not, on the grounds that the sexual morality among the atheists and agnostics I know in real life and on line seems pretty united by the rule of thumb that for a sexual engagement to be moral a sine qua non is that it be between consenting people who are past a reasonable age of consent.

Carl, I am glad to see that we agree that enforced child marriage is the worst, by your own as well as by my standards.

But it is not only the self reporting of homosexuals that tells me that homosexuality is not a choice, it is my own experience that my heterosexual orientation is not a choice.

I imagine that the people who insist that it is a choice are those with bisexual inclinations - it is hard for me to envisage that someone wholly or of very much predominantly heterosexual orientation could see their own orientation as a choice.

As far as the naturalness of a homosexual orientation goes, then one could look at the origins of homosexuality in individual people. There is more scope for research here, but as I understand it there is strong evidence that the levels of natural hormones in utero are at least a major factor in determining such orientation.

One can also look at other animals, where it seems that homosexual
behaviour is not unknown.

David

27 July 2013 at 19:10  
Blogger David B said...

Flossie, could you please point me to what Tatchell and Pariss say about changing sexual orientation.

I was unaware that either held the view that it was a choice.

As I say above, though, I can certainly understand that people of bisexual orientation might believe that orientation is a choice, but my conversations with homosexuals and my own experience as a heterosexual leads me to the strong view that for people who are wholly or very largely one or the other then it is not a choice.

David

27 July 2013 at 19:17  
Blogger Nick said...

Desmond Tutu is renowned for his human rights works, not his understanding of the Scriptures. He calls God "homophobic" because he does not undertand either God or homophobia. To prevent somoeone doing something which you believe is damaging to society (SSM), and which was never asked for anyway, is not homophobia. It is simply the wish to preserve order and a senese of what is acceptable to society.

I suspect Desmond Tutu, (no longer a bishop thankfully) would be very much at home amongst the spiritual weaklings of the Synod who have also lost any sense of perspective on this issue.

He says he would choose not to enter a "homophobic heaven". He clearly has little idea of what Heaven is. It is probably a good thing he is retired.

27 July 2013 at 19:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Integrity. One suspects the forthcoming crop of woman bishops in the CoE will be uttering much the same as Tutu. And worse...

27 July 2013 at 19:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin:"You are not able to choose your parentage but homosexuality is most definitely something you choose."

Flat-earther ahoy!

27 July 2013 at 20:03  
Blogger Flossie said...

David B: To quote Peter Tatchell:

Much as I would love to go along with the emerging 'born gay' consensus, I can't. The evidence does not support the idea that sexuality is a fixed biological given.

http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/gay_gene/borngay.htm

As for Matthew Parris, he wrote a piece for The Times, behind a paywall, but you can get the gist from this:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/matthewparris/article3390885.ece

He says 'On one thing, though, these opinions all agree — people can change… I do believe that male sexual orientation is less fixed than we suppose. It may alter. We gays fought that idiotic “section 28” on dishonest grounds. Homosexuality can, as the statute implied, be “promoted”. So can heterosexuality.'

27 July 2013 at 20:42  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Carl Jacobs,

There is no point trying to even argue with this ardjm chap and as a Calvinist I'd except extra special attacks against you, but this chap justifies the Inquisition (of all things). He doesn't like the Reformation- Britain was happily Catholic for a 1,000 years- and the poor Catholic Church was nothing more than an innocent lamb- don't you know?


Ardenjm,'Take me for a fool'

As you wish...

27 July 2013 at 20:47  
Blogger Martin said...

David B

Heterosexuality is what you are designed to do, homosexuality requires a deliberate choice.

I recall discussing the origin of a homosexual's desire with him. He had been abused as a child by a male relative and claimed it must have been because the relative could tell he was that way inclined and that it could have had no effect on him. I think we can safely say that homosexuals self reporting can be designed to produce the result they desire.

Of course you could be of the type of heterosexual that considers any attractive female a potential conquest, would that make it a choice or an orientation?

There has been desperate efforts to explain homosexual behaviour in scientific terms over a number of years. But of course there has also been attempts to explain stealing and homicide in the same way. The Bible is very clear, it gives one explanation, sin.

Of course we live in a fallen world, a world where animal behaviour is not what it should be. We should expect to see abnormal behaviour in the animal kingdom.

27 July 2013 at 20:48  
Blogger Preacher said...

We are talking about the Cameron who a few days ago was speaking on the news about making sure that children were brought up in a moral way in a society that cares about the things they view on line aren't we?.
Puritan Dave who wants to live in a clean moral atmosphere, except where he re-defines the rules of morality to suit his own delusions.

He man reminds me of the definition of the 'Post Tortoise':
When you walk along a Road & see a Tortoise on top of a fence post. You know he didn't get up there by himself.
He doesn't belong up there, is totally out of his element & hasn't a clue what to do while he's up there.
He's elevated beyond his ability to function & you wonder what dumb, cruel idiot put him up there in the first place.
The kindest thing to do is take the poor frightened creature down & put him in an enclosed dark box to get over the trauma before he does himself more damage.

27 July 2013 at 20:50  
Blogger Martin said...

Dan

It is interesting to note that the society that promotes the concept of a flat Earth also promotes Evolution. Neither concept sits easily with the Bible.

27 July 2013 at 20:50  
Blogger David B said...

Thanks for that, Flossie.

I think there might be some people for whom there is a degree of choice, but I still take the view that they are the exception rather than the rule.

David

27 July 2013 at 21:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A fellow has been patiently waiting for Conservative condemnation of Cameron’s desire to export gay abandon to the world.

Anyone seen anything, or is it now as this man fears - Conservatism is far too toxic for todays sensibilities to go public...


27 July 2013 at 21:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "Neither concept sits easily with the Bible."

If the bible is the source of your attempts to bend reality to suit your prejudices then you'd be better to ditch it and live fully in the real world, I'd say.

27 July 2013 at 21:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "There has been desperate efforts to explain homosexual behaviour in scientific terms over a number of years."

Desperate? Jesus. Listen up, if you're looking for signs of desperation then check out the ex-gay movement some of the more extreme or nutty religionists back.

27 July 2013 at 21:45  
Blogger Martin said...

Dan

It's because my source is the Bible that I am in the real world, whether on Creation or sexual morality.

27 July 2013 at 21:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin, I expect the Mormons say something very similar.

27 July 2013 at 21:54  
Blogger Martin said...

Dan

Well you certainly do.

27 July 2013 at 22:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Muslims, too.

27 July 2013 at 22:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

... only citing the Qur'an instead.

27 July 2013 at 22:04  
Blogger Matt A said...

Is God real? Did he send his only Son into the world to live, then die, then to be raised again to life? Did God give mankind the bible as His infallible Word?
Martin, you answer "yes" to these three questions (as I do).
DanJ0, you answer "no" to all three.
So, you will never agree.

27 July 2013 at 22:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The difference is that lots of people know gay people now that we're more in the open and can simply ask them about their sexual orientation and whether it's a choice for them or not. Moreover, rational people probably question why teenagers would put up with homophobic bullying and even commit suicide on occasion because of their orientation if they could simply choose to be heterosexual instead. Hence, there's the real world where gay, straight, and bisexual people live and where human sexuality is a complex thing, and then there's the world created by some religionists where sexual orientation is simply a choice because it's easier for them to deal with. I suppose I should really be thanking the orientation-is-a-choice people in the same way that I'm pleased that some religionists like to imagine humans and dinosaurs living side by side. Their positions on that undermine their religion in the minds of the general public.

27 July 2013 at 22:40  
Blogger bluedog said...

Flossie @ 20.42, a most important post.

27 July 2013 at 22:40  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Matt A:

They will never agree. Can they ever know which one of them is right? Only after death.

That's to say, if DanJ0's right he won't know that he was right and Martin won't know that he was wrong because they will both be extinct.

It will only be possible for them both to know if Martin's beliefs are right.

27 July 2013 at 22:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "It will only be possible for them both to know if Martin's beliefs are right."

Unfortunately, we'll both know if a Muslim's beliefs are right too when we die.

27 July 2013 at 22:50  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B/DanJ0:

I agree with you both re orientation. Whoever said that we discover, rather than choose, our sexuality in my view had it right.

The example I've used before of a white heterosexual rapist. Can't help being white; can't help being heterosexual; can he help being a rapist?

If not, then it's wrong for women to say he's wicked: he's just doing what he's gotta do.

He can be locked up to protect women, but that can be the only reason: why should he be blamed morally for what he can't help doing? But, by the same token, can a racist help being a racist?

Christinaity, of course, rejects this sort of determinism and insists that moral choices are a real possibility.

27 July 2013 at 23:00  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

Good point!

If Martin's right, you and he might be heading for different destinations.

If Islam's right, you'll both be headed in the same direction: and it won't be Paradise.

27 July 2013 at 23:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course, rapists significantly harm the people they rape by exercising their own desires. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, have consensual sex in the normal scheme of things. I expect people who are excited by the idea of rape to control themselves, or suffer the consequences of their actions. Why should homosexual non-religious people not have sex for their whole lives simply to make some religionists with off-beat beliefs comfortable? The idea is weird.

27 July 2013 at 23:07  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Danjo is quite right; gay people CANNOT choose their orientation.

I always love how every post about being gay gets lots and lots of comments. Are Christians *THAT* obsessed with gay people above and beyond everything else? (to the extent that they whine when our constitutional Monarch didn't refuse to sign the ssm bill into law).

27 July 2013 at 23:15  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

I agree: the rapist can choose to control himself. He can't choose to be white.

27 July 2013 at 23:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Why should homosexual non-religious people not have sex for their whole lives simply to make some religionists with off-beat beliefs comfortable?

And that, dear boy, is exactly what it’s all about. Nobody cares one iota whether you have gay sex yourself until prolapse happens. What we DO care about is when militant LGBT hijack society and incorporate THEIR values into OUR world.

If you want to know how WE feel now, remember how Turing felt when the full force of the then law was used against him...


27 July 2013 at 23:46  
Blogger David B said...

Inspector, are you being chemically castrated?

Exaggerate much?

Remember one crucial difference, too.

There is no reason why homosexuals or atheists (or both) should welcome persecution, but IIRC there is ample biblical reason for Christians to seek it out, to revel in it.

Rather like the Muslim suicide bombers seeking martyrdom, really - but did not lots of people within the early church actually feel good about persecution, seeing it as a sure gateway to pie in the sky?

Lots of people around the Catholic/Protestant wars, the terrorists like Guy Fawkes, too?

For you to compare Turing's persecution and subsequent suicide with anything that is happening to you is doubly stupid, for want of a better term.

What is happening to you is nothing like what happened to you, and if it were you should be welcoming it.

David

27 July 2013 at 23:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. imagine this. The gypsies arrive at Stonehenge and they are there to stay. They put down hard standing.

Indignation everywhere, unless you are a gypsy. Made worse by lawyers stating it could take two years to turf them out. Now, if you could imagine all that, you might have an idea of how the rest of us feel about SSM.

We’ve been had over, and we are bloody furious about it. The law has been changed so that a small part of society can indulge themselves in their ‘rights’.

Nobody forced Turing to undergo his treatment. The opinion at the time was there was something wrong with him, and here was a chance to do something about it. He must have felt the same way too.

28 July 2013 at 00:14  
Blogger LEN said...

Well Dave has succeeded in turning our Queen into an apostate, brainwashing our youth into thinking that being 'gay' is the way forward all this from the man that 'does god'. I wonder exactly what or rather who Dave`s 'god' is?.

Dave is a 'useful fool' who quite probably thinks he is doing the right thing but the motivating force behind him is a spiritual one which does not have the best interests of our Country, our Community or the family unit( the 'cement' which holds Society together) at heart.





28 July 2013 at 01:13  
Blogger Martin said...

Actually I know I am right because I know God exists, as we all do, and I have faith in Him. My faith is not in God's existence but in His truthfulness.

And God's truthfulness extends to what He has written in the Bible, all of it.

28 July 2013 at 08:19  
Blogger Flossie said...

David Cameron will one day be called to account for what he is doing - if not in this life, certainly in the next.

Surely everybody knows that homosexual practice is harmful and dangerous. But here we have Cameron not only bestowing approval on homosexuality but wishing to export it to other parts of the globe, who have problems of their own.

New diagnoses of HIV continue to soar in the UK, especially in London - read this new report in The Lancet - http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61609-8/fulltext. The annual cost of providing HIV treatment and care in the UK could be as high as £758 million by the end of the year. Cameron has to take some of the blame for this, yet he proposes to spread this elsewhere. I call this a crime against humanity, and I wouldn't like to be in his shoes on the Day of Judgment.



28 July 2013 at 10:21  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B:

With regard to your point about Tutu, I am trying an analogy of three ships: representing three belief systems.

The First Ship is on a journey to a destination. Once it arrives, there will be new destinations for the passengers. The Owner of the Ship has provided a book to guide conduct during the voyage. (For those who cannot read, the conduct book is within them.)

The Second Ship was built by chance. It is headed nowhere definite, for it is sinking. Entropy has condemned it. To stop it from being a floating hell before it disappears beneath the waves, those on board have devised their own set of rules for conduct.

The Third Ship still has the same Conduct Book as the First Ship, but those on board rewrite it, for they are unsure of the existence of the Author, The Owner. If the Owner should happen to exist, he will be a nice guy (a bit like themselves, and if there is a destination beyond port then it will be a nice one, and the same for everybody: regardless of everybody's conduct on the voyage.

This has the limitations of all analogies (there could be more ships, for a start) but the best I can do.

Regards.

28 July 2013 at 11:23  
Blogger LEN said...

I see it somewhat like the 'Titanic'.

No one would have got on board if they knew what the fate of the ship and many of the passengers would be.

The Captain wanted to 'make his mark' so he ploughed on straight ahead ignoring all the signs of impending disaster.The Captain(Cameron in this case)not only risked his own life but all those who trusted his judgment(or rather lack of it)

It is no fool who looks for the signs of the times and relates them to the warning signals from the Word of God.

28 July 2013 at 13:54  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Am enjoying your comments immensely ardenjm. It is about time someone took a swipe at that crashing bore Catholic basher Carl.I liked your reference to his imperious rectum.You can dance for me any time.

28 July 2013 at 14:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

From Pink News article “Christian Concern: Church should have condemned equal marriage as strongly as Wonga”

From the first comment: “This bunch of social misfits still don’t get the message. The church is losing influence *because* it has been on the wrong side of public opinion too often.”

That’s US being the social misfits would you believe. And apparently the only way for the church to survive is to get with it. This belief is widely held on that site. Perhaps our AoC might want to consider issuing a statement that Christianity and public opinion are not joined at the hip and never will be...

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


....another interesting element is that the militant queer will tell you the percentage of the population in favour of SSM is 60 to 70%. And then sit down quite smugly for informing you that.

When the Irish government announced that they are to put SSM to a referendum, there was much disquiet. The tune changed to “our ‘rights’ are not there to be put to the whims of democracy”

Personally, a fellow can’t get enough of that mad site !!



28 July 2013 at 14:15  
Blogger Martin said...

OoIG

Perhaps ABC thinks Christianity and public opinion are joined at the hip. Will he tell us?

28 July 2013 at 14:43  
Blogger Ditari said...

DanJO -

"I suppose I should really be thanking the orientation-is-a-choice people in the same way that I'm pleased that some religionists like to imagine humans and dinosaurs living side by side."

Reminds me of a certain scene from "Bruce Almighty"....

Cambodian dinosaur:

http://creation.com/angkor-saw-a-stegosaur

Medieval knowledge of sauropods:

http://creation.com/bishop-bells-brass-behemoths

And from ancient Uruk:

http://creation.com/mesopotamian-monsters-in-paris

From the Moche of Peru:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n4/dragons-peru

And much more in that line. Even more tellingly, the many samples of unfossilised soft dino tissue including preservation of unstable proteins:

http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-protein-even-more-confirmation

28 July 2013 at 15:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh lordy

28 July 2013 at 15:54  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Cressida:

Do 'rectitude' and 'rectum' mean the same thing? I thought the only point of similarity was the first three letters.

28 July 2013 at 15:57  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

When does it ever penetrate the brains of some of our politicians that being gay in the vast predominance of cases means REJECTING the biology, and often more than the biology, the perceived characteristics of the opposite gender, indeed in many gay clubs their comedians frequently make jokes about how gross they perceive female bodies to be.

Is it not foolish, ignorant and unacceptable to think that hating and disrespecting the biology of the opposite gender is disorderly, repugnant and shows clear psychological damage that needs healing and not encouraging?

These folk are deficient in love, appreciation, wonder, and moderation. Put simply the world is a better place than they think it to be, and, with the exception of a tiny minority who have hormonal imbalances whose difficulties are more complex, they are doing themselves out of this better world, and need to make this journey out of self towards the other.

28 July 2013 at 16:12  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Sorry, missed out a not in editing. it is foolish, ignorant and unacceptable to rejoice in something which is based on denigration and disrespect and lack of appreciation towards the different- in this case the opposite gender. If I wished to say I wanted only to live with white people, I was "born that way", and wished to keep all other races at a distance and for it to be acceptable for me to go to whites only clubs where they made jokes in bad taste about people of other races, and that I wished to parade my desire to reject other races with "proud to be white" marches, it would be seen rightly as spiteful, mean, vindictive and racist. I would end up in jail.

(For those who might miss the satire I like all races.)

And yet gay men do all these things regularly and it doesn't seem to register as "hate speech" or extreme sexism. But it is so nevertheless. And they talk of "leasing wombs" as if it were a hotel room. Where is the appreciation that babies in utero spend 9 months bonding with the mother. And so many other appreciations that are regarded as frankly disposable?

Oh and the mantra of gay women "Women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle" is also unacceptable hate speech, though you will never find anyone up in court for it. Search me why not.

One crazy world.

28 July 2013 at 16:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Martin, we don’t know if the AoC believes the church should be guided by perceived public opinion, but we do know the treacherous Judas priests that sit in the Lords do. For that, there is only one punishment – burning !

Or maybe sacking the lot, and barring them from the place. They have no further use there, if their use in the first place was to safeguard Christianity in the national consciousness.

They can NEVER be forgiven for what they have done. They’ve really let the side down, and they cannot be trusted not to do it again. Blighters, all but one...

28 July 2013 at 16:57  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

15:57

Yawwwwwwn! Another bore with a humour bypass.

28 July 2013 at 17:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy, we don't all live a single-sex bubble. I expect almost all of us have family, friends, and colleagues of both sexes, luv. Even on the Gay Scene, there are so-called Fag Hags. The idea of sex with a woman is a bit gross as far as I am concerned but that's about it.

28 July 2013 at 17:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Cressida:

Relieved to hear it wasn't a case of speed reading.

28 July 2013 at 17:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Heh heh !

Cressida has slipped her chain again and is biting flesh anew...

28 July 2013 at 17:55  
Blogger Martin said...

OoIG

I was under the impression that the ABC sat in the Lords.

28 July 2013 at 18:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

If he can spare the timeMartin, he can sit there alone from now on...

28 July 2013 at 18:07  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

17:55

Someone in a previous comment mentioned chemical castration with reference to you.You should consider it...would stop you from fixating on poofs, pink news and Danjo's bum!

28 July 2013 at 23:16  
Blogger Peter D said...

Cressida @ 23:16
Lol!

However, chemical castration is ineffective in removing sexual perversion. It just prevents the ability to act on it.

(You asked for that Inspector Haw-Haw)

29 July 2013 at 00:25  
Blogger Peter D said...

Archbishop Cranmer said ...
"You don't mention how many of the 1.5m youth gathered in Rio submit to the Magisterium on contraception, homosexuality and other matters of sexual ethics. You yourself belong to a via media, but none dare call it so."

Well no, this isn't so. There are Catholics who through human weakness break the teachings of the Church, and de facto excommunicate themselves, and there are Catholics who follow the teachings of the Church. Of course, there are false teachers encouraging rebellion against the Church but they are present in every generation.

A so called "via media" in the sexual morality of contraception, homosexuality and abortion in non-existent. The Church does not bend the rules to accommodate different views or to be popular.

And it isn't about "submission" to the Magisterium. Its about using our free will to follow our Creator's intentions as revealed through His Church.

29 July 2013 at 00:47  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0 said ...
"Hence, there's the real world where gay, straight, and bisexual people live and where human sexuality is a complex thing, and then there's the world created by some religionists where sexual orientation is simply a choice because it's easier for them to deal with."

Well, I accept human sexuality is complex and choice is constrained by a variety of factors.

However, just because the formation of the perversion of homosexuality is not fully understood, and resisting it may be difficult for some, doesn't mean acting on the disordered inclination is acceptable. Nor is making a 'fashionable' cult out of it is a good thing.

29 July 2013 at 01:08  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Peter D
"There are Catholics who through human weakness break the teachings of the Church"
And plenty of priests.

29 July 2013 at 04:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo:"However, just because the formation of the perversion of homosexuality is not fully understood, and resisting it may be difficult for some, doesn't mean acting on the disordered inclination is acceptable. Nor is making a 'fashionable' cult out of it is a good thing."

Who really cares what the Roman Catholic Church (or someone like you) thinks is acceptable when they have no power any more? Feel free to hold quirky, outdated and slightly creepy opinions about other people's sex lives if you like but don't expect the rest of us to respect them.

29 July 2013 at 06:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, it may be a political organisation at its heart and threaded with wickedness but I can't help liking the current leader so far. It's a little disturbing to be honest. I'm sure there are plenty of nice, normal, moral people with a good social attitude who attend Church but one doesn't expect to see people like that in the upper echelons.

29 July 2013 at 07:03  
Blogger LEN said...

Danjo... come away from that man.

29 July 2013 at 09:33  
Blogger LEN said...

Because sin has wreaked such havoc on man God had decided to finish with the 'old Adamic creation' and to start again so to speak.

God drew all that was corrupted by sin together and judged it at Calvary, the old creation was finished at Calvary.Nothing of the old creation can go forward into the new Creation.
Man tries to reform the old creation tries to teach it to be 'good' but God has condemned it.

Do not try to reform what God has condemned. Saul was was ordered to totally destroy Amalek but Saul kept what he(Saul) considered 'good' to offer to God.
Because of this disobedience it caused Saul his Kingship and ultimately his life.It was Amalek who killed Saul.

So we are either in the old condemned creation or we have died and been reborn into the new Creation in Christ Jesus.


29 July 2013 at 09:42  
Blogger LEN said...

Peter D. Does the 'D 'stand for deluded?.

29 July 2013 at 09:51  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0 said ...
"Who really cares what the Roman Catholic Church (or someone like you) thinks is acceptable when they have no power any more?"

Well its not what I think that counts, is it? And its not about the Church's earthly power. You've been hanging around here long enough to know this.

"Feel free to hold quirky, outdated and slightly creepy opinions about other people's sex lives if you like but don't expect the rest of us to respect them."

Lol .... so now heterosexual sex is "quirky, outdated and slightly creepy", is it? Well I never - how far you've fallen.

I don't really expect committed perverts to accept their acts are perverted. If they did they'd keep quiet and do something about it, not broadcast it. It's entirely up to you what you freely choose to believe and how you behave within the laws of this country.

I and others are equally entitled to express our views.

29 July 2013 at 19:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Well its not what I think that counts, is it? And its not about the Church's earthly power. You've been hanging around here long enough to know this."

The Church almost certainly has no power to draw on other than its earthy one. You've been around here long enough to know that I'm unimpressed by your speculations.

"Lol .... so now heterosexual sex is "quirky, outdated and slightly creepy", is it? Well I never - how far you've fallen."

Do you do this on purpose or are you too thick to be able to 'read for comprehension' as it used to be called?

29 July 2013 at 20:26  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0 said ...
"The Church almost certainly has no power to draw on other than its earthy one."

Not absolutely sure are you?

"You've been around here long enough to know that I'm unimpressed by your speculations."

Except they're not mine. The Judeo Christian beliefs about sexual morality are millennia old. Christian morality is 2000 years old.

And we were discussing the perversity of homosexuality and you described my views as "quirky, outdated and slightly creepy". What's not to comprehend?

29 July 2013 at 22:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Not absolutely sure are you?"

Of course not. I'm an atheist rather than someone with a religious-like belief.

"Except they're not mine. The Judeo Christian beliefs about sexual morality are millennia old. Christian morality is 2000 years old. "

Indeed. And you got them off the shelf because you were indoctrinated as a child. Had your parents been Muslim instead then you'd be just as dim and totalitarian and drone-like, only you'd be cutting and pasting quotes from Harun Yahya instead and insisting that Western women are a danger to society with their strappy tops and Timotea hair.

"What's not to comprehend?"

So, you've gone back and studied what I actually said now. Perhaps got some help too. Well, you got there in the end, which is the main thing I suppose.

30 July 2013 at 01:11  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0

You really are all over the place this morning.

You are an atheist and deny the existance of any deity. Correct? So why the qualification about the Catholic Church's power?

And I see we're back to the old theme that all religion is really indoctrination, blah, blah, blah. There's no God so all faiths and their requirements are fictional with nothing to distinguish between them.

Bit of a lazy argument that one. Yes I received a Christian upbringing; you probably did too. I choose to research and develop my faith; you didn't. As for the implications of my following Islam or Buddhism if raised in those cultures, who knows. It's not down to personality types as you imply.

Heterosexual sex is normal and natural; homosexual sex is perverse and unnatural. I think you'll find this view holds across all religious systems and cultures. Admittedly, some cultures are more tolerant than others towards homosexuality. None that I know of promote it as healthy and normal.

So really there's nothing "quirky, outdated and slightly creepy" about my position.

30 July 2013 at 11:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo:"You are an atheist and deny the existance of any deity. Correct? So why the qualification about the Catholic Church's power?"

Again? Does the alcohol subsequently kill off your brain cells each time this is answered? I'm an atheist. This means I am without a belief in a god or gods. Theism just looks like wishful thinking to me, especially given its anthropocentric detail. That said, I simply don't know whether there is a creator of our reality and I'm completely comfortable saying that. Most atheists are. Even Richard Dawkins allows for the possibility. You don't know either but you prefer to imagine that there is a creator anyway and build an enormous inverted pyramid of anthropocentric detail on top of the possibility. Or rather, you took on board the religion of your parents or upbringing and simply ran with it just like others who have take on board a different religion because of their parents or upbringing. The god of your religion may exist in all the detail you claim but, well, it seems so unlikely to me that it may as well be discounted as far as carrying on living is concerned but one can't rationally discount it completely. That would entail a religious-like belief. So, there we have it. Again. Now, make a note of it before you reach for the bottle again.

30 July 2013 at 14:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0
"I'm an atheist. This means I am without a belief in a god or gods."

Yes but are you denying God exists or just saying you have no belief that God exists?

"I simply don't know whether there is a creator of our reality and I'm completely comfortable saying that. Most atheists are. Even Richard Dawkins allows for the possibility."

Well if Dawkins allows for it .... Really, you're hedging your bets; what we Catholics used to call a "soft" atheist. In my opinion, any intelligent, rational person who gives our world a moments thought cannot help but conclude there is a Creator.

"You don't know either but you prefer to imagine that there is a creator anyway and build an enormous inverted pyramid of anthropocentric detail on top of the possibility."

And you know this because?

"Or rather, you took on board the religion of your parents or upbringing and simply ran with it just like others who have take on board a different religion because of their parents or upbringing."

Just waffle, DanJ0. Not an argument at all. So really you're a rebel against socialisation - or is it indoctrination? Maybe accepting your own Christian upbringing means confronting the sinful nature of your active homosexuality.

"The god of your religion may exist in all the detail you claim but, well, it seems so unlikely to me that it may as well be discounted as far as carrying on living is concerned but one can't rationally discount it completely. That would entail a religious-like belief. "

So a real atheist must have faith too in his lack of faith? Admittedly, Christianity does sound too good to be true. But, yet again, you're hedging your bets and your own responsibility. It requires an openness to faith. You wont be able to say to God: "It was your fault I didn't believe"; or: "You made me this way."

"So, there we have it. Again. Now, make a note of it before you reach for the bottle again."

You can't even be a committed atheist. How sad. Let's face it, even as an active homosexual you're not entirely committed. Soft atheist and soft homosexual - no pun intended. I'd say you're into avoidance and its you who constructs all these 'clever', 'rational' objections to the existence of God.

Are you planning to do an 'Oscar Wilde'? A risky strategy.

30 July 2013 at 15:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You really do have a problem with 'reading for comprehension' by the look of it. I couldn't be clearer yet you still wrote that first sentence and drifted on the rest of that load of wank. No wonder you've taken on board a Roman Catholic identity. You need to be spoon fed your beliefs and ideas lest you have to actually think for yourself.

30 July 2013 at 16:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

How disappointing the 'guru' of intellectual debate disapproved, you being an admirer of Dawkins and all. I thought it rather erudite myself.

Still off now to a more interesting thread. Wouldn't want a long rambling exchange with you on this one.

Do keep in touch, now.

30 July 2013 at 17:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, you probably need to go to confession now. If he exists then Jesus will know what you've been thinking and doing you know. ;)

30 July 2013 at 18:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Forgive me father for I have sinned. Again. The same thing, too. And by the way, I haven't actually been to confession for 50 years."

30 July 2013 at 18:10  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0
What a very odd couple of posts!

30 July 2013 at 19:00  
Blogger Martin said...

DanJD

Since you claim to be an Atheist you hold a religious position. You have, in fact a religion.

Trouble is that God has placed knowledge of Himself in the core being of every human being, just as He has other moral imperatives. We generally call it our conscience and labour to suppress those parts we deem inconvenient all our lives.

In your case you have hidden from yourself the knowledge that God exists. In other words, you pretend to be an Atheist. That is probably why you are here, trying to demonstrate that God does not exist to yourself by tearing apart the beliefs of those you reason disagree with you

30 July 2013 at 23:02  
Blogger Peter D said...

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty.

For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation.

The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

31 July 2013 at 02:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin:"Since you claim to be an Atheist you hold a religious position. You have, in fact a religion."

That old saw again. If it makes you feel more comfortable to imagine that then knock yourself out with it.

Your second paragraph is mere assertion, based on your religious wishful thinking.

The start of the third paragraph is more of the same. The pretending to be an atheist bit is risible. If anything then it is you who is trying to convince yourself of the solidity of your beliefs and trying to account for people who find your make-believe world quite childish. You're one of those young-earth creationists too, aren't you? If so then I ought to just point at that and chuckle, really.

As for my reasons for being here, they are many but one is to bear witness to some of the evil down here and to stand against it and be counted.

31 July 2013 at 04:38  
Blogger Peter D said...

Lol ....

The Cranmer Blog: the final frontier. These are the posts of DanJ0 Dangerous.

His mission: to explore religious indoctrination, to seek out homophobes, to boldly go where no homosexual has gone before."


Up, up and away ....

31 July 2013 at 11:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Still off now to a more interesting thread."

Well, that was never going to last was it?

Dodo, what is it that you're doing here yourself other than posting the Catechism and dead men prayers to cause trouble? Yet you're absolutely desperate to retain posting privileges here, to the point of prostrating yourself and quite literally begging to be allowed to remain. A man in your 60s too. I actually blushed with vicarious embarrassment at the time, and perhaps even a bit of sick came up into my mouth watching it. You're hardly in a position to "Lol", old boy.

31 July 2013 at 17:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

Lol ....

I know, I know, DanJ0 Dangerous. Temptation got the better of me after those whacky posts of yours. You know how it is sometimes.

It was just too good to let pass by. You the bold martyr standing all on your little own some whilst the nasty religious circle.

And I see you're back jumping at those grapes again.

31 July 2013 at 19:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Some more stuff for the confessional by the look of it. The poor priest must be mighty sick of your recidivism.

31 July 2013 at 20:03  
Blogger Peter D said...

Not at all; he has a sense of humour.

Do keep jumping and remember the grapes are sour.

31 July 2013 at 23:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You would be deluding yourself if you thought what you're doing is anything to do with humour down here. Of course, you know exactly what you're doing really and how little it has to do with the Christian idea of god.

1 August 2013 at 05:03  
Blogger Peter D said...

You must learn to laugh at yourself - I have!

1 August 2013 at 12:47  
Blogger Peter D said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 August 2013 at 14:46  
Blogger Peter D said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 August 2013 at 14:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The reality is almost certainly that you don't actually go to confession at all and probably don't giove a hoot about Roman Catholicism or indeed Christianity in real life. I expect you're just adopting 'team colours' to attack Anglicans and other Christians here and to indulge your homophobia online. When one look at Mark 12:28-34, it becomes apparent that you're pretty much devoid of all that spiritual stuff. That is, you're just a fake who parrots the Cathecism here and pastes intercessory prayers to dead people as weapons.

1 August 2013 at 17:20  
Blogger Peter D said...

Argumentum ad hominem, DanJ0.

1 August 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You haven't actually made an argument yourself for that fallacy to apply, you fecktard.

1 August 2013 at 18:49  
Blogger Peter D said...

Well there's no need to be quite so rude!

As I recall, we were discussing how disordered appetites lead people into deluding themselves that God does not exist.

Still, it is time to end this thread unless you have a reasoned comment to make.

1 August 2013 at 21:44  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older