Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Ukip will disestablish the Church of England


To all those Christians - including the many thousands who daily frequent His Grace's blog - who were considering voting Ukip in the imminent Euro elections (or next year's General Election), pause your fervour.

Nigel Farage has spent many years stroking your troubled forehead and luring you into believing that he and his party understand your concerns about the systematic erosion of our Judaeo-Christian heritage and the perpetual political diminution of Christian moral values. Indeed, he has said:
“We need a much more muscular defence of our Judaeo-Christian heritage. Yes, we’re open to different cultures but we have to defend our values. That’s the message I want to hear from the Archbishop of Canterbury and from our politicians. Anything less is appeasement of the worst kind.”
Cristina Odone herself was impressed:
Yet he speaks not as a defender of the faith — he ventures to church only four or five times a year — but of “our identity”.

..“We have,” he says, “some very mixed values”. These include the “betrayal” of the family. “This has been the most anti-family government we have ever seen. The very fact that they pushed for gay marriage, and thought that it was important at a time when not even Stonewall was campaigning for it, shows you their twisted sense of priorities.” He is “100 per cent” supportive of stay-at-home mothers.
And His Grace was attentive:
There are votes here. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of them. Very many Christians across the denominations feel betrayed by the main political parties: their "identity" is being systematically assaulted, and the occasional invitation to No10 for prominent vicars, bishops and leading Christian commentators no longer quite cuts it.

..While religion can play a role in promoting moral conduct, there is no longer agreement on which institutions are morally capable of implementing the rules of justice. Some secularising "modernisers" repudiate the idea that the Christian religion can any longer be a unifying force for Britain, but it must be observed that it has bequeathed to us our system of laws, administration of justice and our understanding of liberty. Only Ukip seems to understand and appreciate this.

Carry on, Nigel. You're doing God's work.
Or maybe he's not.

To the chagrin of some, His Grace has long been of the opinion that same-sex unions are a matter for the state and that religious groups ought to be free to decide for themselves whether to bless them or not. He is of the view that continuing opposition to this development is futile: that the battle is lost, and the development irreversible. Marriage is now ontologically distinct from Holy Matrimony, and we must get used to the new context and definition. His Grace therefore agrees with (and welcomes) Nigel Farage's "U-turn" on this: it is absurd for a mainstream party to pledge to dissolve thousands of legally-contracted unions. It is not only absurd; it would be a manifest injustice. There is a conservative argument to be made for such unions, and, indeed, a theological one. We may not all agree with either reasoning, but equality has become an immutable and infallible social doctrine, and Christians ought to adopt the vernacular lest they end up speaking Greek.

But Farage has now gone further. According to the Telegraph, he has announced that the traditional Christian wedding ceremony "should be stripped of its legal status". He suggests that "couples who want to wed in church should have to undertake two ceremonies, one recognised by the state and one a religious ceremony."

As the Telegraph notes, this would be a "French-style reform", and follows a similar demand from LibDem Justice Minister Simon Hughes. Both make an appeal for what would effectively be the disestablishment of the Church of England. Farage said: "We propose an augmentation of the civil partnership awarding it equal status to marriage and enabling it to be available to all. We would rather the legal and religious endorsements of wedlock are separate.”

This is, of course, the policy throughout most of the secular European Union. Indeed, Farage is harmonising Ukip policy to the EU norm. It is the essence of the French ‘laïcité’, which has no easy translation into English: it is not quite ‘secularism’ - as frequently defined by the clericalism it opposes - but more a term for the separation of church and state. Intrinsic to it are various Enlightenment notions of liberté, including freedom of thought, conscience, expression and religion. And it is predicated upon the post-Enlightenment settlement of the division between the private realm of spiritual belief and the public realm of political policy. Laïcité is a founding principle of the French Constitution, which states in its First Article: ‘La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale.

Far from offering a "muscular defence of our Judaeo-Christian heritage", Ukip now offers a notion of ‘positive secularism’, and Farage is going much further along the route toward disestablishment than any other political leader, including self-declared atheists Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. Ukip, which was wont to parade itself as Defender of the Faith, now seeks the separation of church and state while generously and condescendingly creating space within the public realm for religion. Under their benevolent aegis, one may be married in a castle, golf club or hot-air balloon. But if you wish to marry in a church, your service of Holy Matrimony must be followed (or preceded) by a 'neutral' secular ceremony of égalité for légalité.

Thus does Nigel Farage and Ukip embrace EU enlightened secularism, to the manifest detriment of our Judaeo-Christian tradition and heritage.

There were votes here. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of them. This announcement will do Ukip far, far more damage than one eccentric councillor who blamed the floods on gay marriage.

237 Comments:

Blogger Jonathan said...

I'm all in favour of this - now that gay marriage has been introduced, the argument for the legal recognition of marriage is rather confused - it's no longer about creating stability for the raising of children, but rather some dubious status conferral on certain relationships. Reducing it's legal status to a convenient set of assorted property and administrative rights seems rather sensible, for more than some sycophantic legal recognition of romance.

From a purely administrative point of view, I see no reason why a church cannot do the paper work for the civil union (nothing more than a notarised contract) at the same time as the religious marriage ceremony, much as the country house, hotel or registry office does such paperwork accompanied by no doubt some sort of ceremony.

19 March 2014 at 10:21  
Blogger The Explorer said...

"My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kind of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp..."

'Mere Christianity': 1952. (Or 1942 in the spoken version)

19 March 2014 at 10:29  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Thank you, Explorer. I was just about to look for that quote and you beat me to it :) Saved me a frustrating 20 minutes with my Kindle :)

19 March 2014 at 10:36  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Compositionally, that is a quite superb photo.

19 March 2014 at 10:37  
Blogger Len said...

What we see happening to Farage and UKIP has become pretty much universal.
Compromise...
This' World system 'puts incredible pressure upon the person ,the Institution,the Religion to conform.
We see this pressure exerted through deception, through brute force,through finances in fact by any means at the disposal of this present World system.
To stand firm and to resist all these forces is impossible without the ongoing support of the holy Spirit.
When Jesus said "Will I find faith when I return?"
He was saying who will remain true despite this incredible pressure to conform.
Who indeed?.

19 March 2014 at 10:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Len @ 10:43

There's compromise; and there's a realistic recognition of inevitability.

'John' 15:18: "They will hate you because they hated me first."

Is Christ compromising here: or realistically stating that there are those who will never accept him?

19 March 2014 at 11:04  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

The homosexual gay community is not bound by matters of sexual monogamy. Eventually people will realise this. Because it is very promiscuous what is likely to happen is that man A dies leaving all his wealth to man B, who then takes up with man C. When man B dies he will leave it to man C who leaves it all to man D who leaves it to man E who leaves it to man F ad infinitum until heterosexual married couples with children are all pretty poor and the rules are made by a grossly affluent homosexual male elite. Anyone who has failed to realise that this is the likely outcome, and had already started to happen anyway is living in cloud cuckoo land.

And so far very many are.

A country which so downgrades heterosexual bonding, pregnancy motherhood particularly, but responsible fatherhood as well is destined to become a prison hellhole, unless it changes course.

19 March 2014 at 11:25  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Lucy @ 11:25

Parag 1. A bit like primogeniture versus the Napoleonic Code in the heterosexual world.

Parag 2. The West wanted child-free sex, and so it downplayed motherhood and responsible fatherhood. With child-free sex, a major argument against homosexuality collapsed. I think it happened that way round.

19 March 2014 at 11:56  
Blogger Albert said...

There may be more in what Farage is arguing for than meets the eye. Because of changes in the marriage law, arguably state marriage isn't marriage now anyway.

But that does not alter the fact that this proclamation is politically, an own-goal from Nige.

19 March 2014 at 11:59  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert:

Financial implications? Common law spouses? Inheritance rights etc for all civil partnerships, whatever the sexuality involved? That sort of thing?

19 March 2014 at 12:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This is a good thing. Christian churches should already be refusing to act as agents if the state. It is a way to differentiate between the two definitions of marriage.

And quite frankly the CoE should be disestablished. It would be good for the Church in England to be done with the Church of England - especially since the CoE will within a generation be no more recognizably Christian than TEC. A church has no business sending its leaders to sit in gov't as representatives of the church.

carl

19 March 2014 at 12:23  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I don't see why disestablishment is viewed by Anglicans as such a bad alternative to the present shambolic charade of relevance to 21st Century Britain. It has no ecclesiastic authority outside England, the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. It is outdated and privileged beyond reason, in what claims to be a democratic nation.

There are probably more practising Musilms and other faith-groups than Anglicans in this land today. They were welcomed here by Anglican Christians on the basis that all religions should have equal respect status, never thinking for once that they were undermining their own privileged status. Even the next in line to Succession has declared his intention to defend more than one Faith as monarch, even though in his private life he has broken more than just a few holy taboos:its just farcical.

The bibles, korans and no doubt many other holy books are held by believers to be the foundation rules for marriage. Some, including the Christian Bible contain the most heinous instructions for non-compliance within marriage as they define it in their different belief systems. Society and the rule of law has neutered them but still they remain, in print and untouched in books revered and demanding of respect of everyone whether they believe in them or not - that is not acceptable in an open and free democracy

I can't see why we don't appreciate the validity of a written constitution such as in the United States and start making moves to compose our own. Religion especially the Christian religion in various guises, flourishes there because it is divorced from State, politics and education. It is democracy in action between individuals and the belief of their choice; we need the same.

19 March 2014 at 12:28  
Blogger Martin said...

I'll add my vote for disestablishment. But why should marriage be a function of the state?

19 March 2014 at 12:48  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well what does anyone expect from a man who insists on frogulacious pronunciation of his name --- even as he purports to 'represent' the British among his continental cronies? His licentiousness, too, manifests foreign principles (though that's really lack of principles).

Like all the rest of the pols - he's about enforcing franco-german rule on us; and this generation is just lying down and lapping it up. Or doing as the yanks tell them, as well.*

__________
*Since they make such a to-do about being separate, they have no business turning round now and telling us what to do about our religion and constitution. They need to mind their own business and let other people be who they are: sauce for the goose, and all that. But no - they've picked up with the froggish preferences, just as they did at revolution time. But I'm blowed if I'm going along with either of them now, over this or over the Crimea/Ukraine.

19 March 2014 at 12:52  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Has Farage said anything about the inevitable next stage of the equality agenda – a legal challenge to a church, by a gay couple, who will claim that their human rights are denied because they do not have equal access to it for the purpose of marriage?

If his proposal in some way makes such a challenge impossible, leaving those of us who still have a religious faith in peace, then good for him.

As for the disestablishment of the CofE, this would be a great shame for historic reasons as much as anything else, as it holds within its own history the history of modern England. Such a shame that the people whose culture it forged know it not, and that the CofE finds it impossible to take its own side in an argument (as has been said many times before).

19 March 2014 at 12:58  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Good morning, Albert. Just spotted you here again. Allow me to correct a mistake I made yesterday about Müller v. Maradiaga. It wasn’t really an argument conducted in print, it was just an interview that Maradiaga gave to a Cologne paper, in the course of which he criticised Müller for the line he’d taken in an earlier article of his. People who can read German (not me) complained at the time that there was something nasty and sneering in the tone of Maradiaga’s comments.

http://www.ksta.de/politik/-papst-vertrauter--tebartz--kommt-nicht-zurueck-,15187246,25935270.htmly

19 March 2014 at 13:04  
Blogger Peter Simpson said...

I agree with Cranmer that this could alienate many potential UKIP Christian voters.

I would also argue courteously that Christians must avoid shrugging their shoulders at inevitable social developments, and say, We just have to live with it.

We have to contend for the faith and fight against militant secularism, primarily by preaching the gospel of repentance from sin and faith in Christ, but also by contending for righteousness in the public sphere.

Therefore we should not give up the fight on what marriage actually is in our society, any more than we should become relaxed about adultery or the commercialisation of the Lord’s Day.

When the Queen took her coronation oath in 1953, she was handed a Bible, as the following words were addressed to her : 

“To keep your Majesty ever mindful of the law and Gospel of God as the rule for the whole life and government of Christian princes, we present you with this Book, the most valuable thing that this world affords. Here is wisdom; this is the royal law; these are the lively oracles of God” . 



This proves beyond any doubt that the British constitution and Biblical teaching cannot be divorced from one another. Homosexuality is stated to be a breach of God’s moral law in Leviticus 18:22, 1 Kings 14:24, Romans 1:22-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

Therefore, the same-sex marriage legislation, not only ignores, but actually breaks the coronation oath, and represents a public repudiation of the Bible and of nation’s Christian identity. Let us not be resigned to this, but oppose it with all of our hearts.

The British constitution is not just about the establishment of the national church. it is about the identity of the nation with the faith of Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. Rev. Peter Simpson.

19 March 2014 at 13:12  
Blogger IanCad said...

The advantages of disestablishment can be seen in the USA.

Vigorous, relatively unrestrained by the state, except in respect of certain constrictions as required to comply with their 501(c) tax-exempt status.
In other words--no politicing-- unless no tax exemptions are sought by the organisation.

Now, there will be much spilling of tea, glares, huffing and puffing, and, where then will the monarchy stand??

Quite the constitutional crisis.
However, Jesus Christ, the head of our church, has already spoken:

"---,Render therefore to unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's---" Matthew 25:21

19 March 2014 at 13:18  
Blogger Flossie said...

I think His Grace's post must have ruffled some feathers, because there is a certain amount of back-pedalling going on in UKIP HQ today:

https://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1257-statement-by-ukip-leader-nigel-farage-on-the-issue-of-the-party-s-approach-to-same-sex-marriage

19 March 2014 at 13:21  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Ars

"As for the disestablishment of the CofE, this would be a great shame for historic reasons as much as anything else, as it holds within its own history the history of modern England. Such a shame that the people whose culture it forged know it not, and that the CofE finds it impossible to take its own side in an argument (as has been said many times before)."

I agree with this and would add that distestablishment would also reinforce secular notions "predicated upon the post-Enlightenment settlement of the division between the private realm of spiritual belief and the public realm of political policy". An unwholesome prospect that makes me think that I would rather have an Anglican approach to the relevance of religious/spiritual beliefs in political policy than a secular one which would ban them from the state apparatus altogether.

19 March 2014 at 13:25  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 March 2014 at 13:42  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Right Ed Miliband is now on the TV, so it can be switched off.

Well for me UKIP is a protest vote. I'll vote for them in May, but come next year, who knows. They are apparently 'reviewing' all of their policies, so that will deserve a great deal of scrutiny, as with the other political parties.

As for gay marriage, if people look up UKIP, you will find they are right-wing libertarian and not social conservatives. That they want to gain votes from anyone is why the decided on the volte face on gay marriage to begin with, that and a lot of their backers are ex-social conservative tories, so why is everyone here so 'shocked' that they are now going back to form? [I believe one of their leadership candidates was an open lesbian?].

19 March 2014 at 13:47  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Peter Simpson said ...keep your Majesty ever mindful of the law and Gospel of God as the rule for the whole life and government of Christian princes... This proves beyond any doubt that the British constitution and Biblical teaching cannot be divorced from one another.

Deuteronomy 22:13-2
King James Version (KJV)
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,[because she is not a virgin]

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Yes, I am aware that Jesus is supposed to have said something like: 'let said he without sin cast the first stone' etc, but why would he not more directly have said that such actions were wrong? Even more so, why keep such barbarous contradictions in a book of such compulsory reverence anyway?

19 March 2014 at 13:52  
Blogger Owl said...

YG, I would agree with you if there was any noticible opposition from the CofE to Camerons disastrous decisions.

Getting the State out of religion may not be a bad idea under the present circumstances.

This would put the "State marriage" on the level of a legal contract which has nothing to do with "Holy Matrimony".

The distinction would be glaringly obvious.

I don't think we should blame Nigel for his comments, we should curse Cameron for getting us into this stupid situation in the first place.

Nigel will definitely get my vote.

19 March 2014 at 14:02  
Blogger Preacher said...

Next year there will be an election. For decades we have witnessed the lies & corruption of successive political leaders & parties of all shades. Most manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on & the smear campaigns are already in full swing.
Despite all of this, we the people will have to elect a government.
We must decide who we wish to lead us for possibly the next five years.
Whether the CofE will be forced to separate itself from the position it has held for so long is not yet clear. Personally I would prefer it to independently represent the Christian faith & declare openly the teaching & gospel of the same, rather than be forced into a weak squalid conformity, even in the face of political pressure & opposition.

The E.U is beginning to show us how it views its future, namely as a United States of Europe with the power & authority of a Nation to threaten sanctions in its own right.
Ironic really when this unelected juggernaut makes its own laws to allow it to annexe European people without allowing them the choice of a referendum by working through our own political leaders. Then tells a community that allegedly voted to become part of Russia that international law has been violated.
The vote we have is to elect a POLITICAL party that we feel will listen to the wishes of the electorate & act according to the majorities choice. Possibly UKIP & Nigel Farage will be just one more group of cheats, liars & chancers, but only time will tell. What is a fact is that we have the records of the 'Big Three' which are all, to put it mildly unimpressive.

The Church has existed for over two thousand years & it will continue to do so until the return of its King, no matter what the would be Kings of Earthly empires plot & plan. History proves they will eventually fail & be dust.

The Church of Jesus Christ is not a denomination, it's a mighty army of Holy Spirit led believers whose names are known only to God.
Through war martyrdom, murder & persecution the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ will prevail, whether or not Bishops sit in the House of Lords.

The choice in 2015 is ours.

19 March 2014 at 14:27  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Owl @ 14:02

Surely the problems for marriage pre-date Cameron? Cameron has simply followed through the logic of the already-existing situation.

Gay marriage isn't that big a deal: there aren't that many gays.

But, for significant numbers: co-habitation, no-fault divorce, women who have kids without ever getting married in the first place...

It wasn't the offspring of gays on the streets in the London riots.

19 March 2014 at 14:40  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

I wonder how many would choose a church marriage without a state marriage if that were so. Certainly widows and widowers with pre-existent children, in order to preserve inheritance.

But the whole issue of inheritance has become a botched mess from separating it from the natural inclination of married couples to pass onto their children anyway. We are now in the unholy situation where homosexuals can provide tax free for their bed partners but parents are taxed if they wish to pass on to their children. Absolutely immoral and ridiculous. How previous generations would scoff at us and disown us as their descendants, and rightly so.

In Oxbridge politics it was sometimes said to be an advantage to be bisexual as you could garner more votes that way; in such a way many of the most balanced and honourable may have been sidelined from the political sphere, and the ghastly outcome has been a House of Commons in which those who are bisexual or homosexual number 100 and upwards; grossly disproportionate to the country as a whole and thus both influencing society and passing laws that make no sense on this issue, and are deeply bigotted in that they do not recognise that no man can take the biological part of a woman EQUALLY nor any woman that of a man EQUALLY. That such a comment as my last can be disputed at all shows how deeply into the area of newspeak we have gone, and chills the marrow.

However long term these laws though accepted by many now, will have such repercussions that they will make for a potentially violent string of protests once traditional male-female households realise how they have been left with the lion's share of the work and a pauper's share at the feast, for whereas in the past those who brought up children were honoured by the tribe, and their work deemed useful, the gay man typically underestimates the amount of work and pain in childbirth and child-rearing, and speaks as if the single mother abandoned by her mate is on a cushy number. I have been to a Mothering Day service taken by a man I later discovered to be gay. The women were given fairly nice bouquets, but not as nice as the pristine single red roses given to the fathers (I kid you not) and we were told that men were as much mothers as women, and women who had no children were the same as women who had children, and more important than all that was Mother Church as human mothers were so fallible. I felt like asking who he thought changed all the nappies and gave up their careers by and large.

The present state is so stupid that it simply cannot last.

19 March 2014 at 14:40  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Lucy @ 14:40

Next step: abolish the right of inheritance. The State, after all, needs money to fund its dreams.

19 March 2014 at 14:44  
Blogger The Explorer said...

The primary problem is not that gays want to get married; the problem is that heteros DON'T want to.

19 March 2014 at 14:45  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

I'm inclined to agree with those above who say that disestablishment might be CofE's salvation. Given that the CofE is now so heavily polluted by the ways of the world, it is hard for many like myself to even call ourselves Anglican.

But if we get rid of the career clergy and the apostate bishops we may well be able to dust ourselves down and start afresh. This is not why Nigel Farage is doing it of course. Like most politicians he finds the gravitational pull of the secular black hole to be irresistable.

What with the sacking of David Sylvester, Farages alleged affair, and now this, I see less of a pro-Chrsitian advocate and more of just another politician.

Will I be sending my UKIP membership card back? Not yet, but if things carry on like this...

19 March 2014 at 14:48  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Compositionally, that is a quite superb photo. (Gentlemind)

Excellent point! Nearly missed that one. The soft directional lighting from his right side, the mix of formal and casual and the off-center, classic "golden mean" position of the sitter. Most of all, the absence of the ubiquitous and inane "photo-grin" (say, "cheeeeese!").

19 March 2014 at 14:50  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

I say to the politicians what I say to Mr. Slope, 'Stop fiddling with things!'

19 March 2014 at 14:53  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Deuteronomy 22:13-2
King James Version (KJV)
13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,[because she is not a virgin]

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."


Our resident atheist critics of the Bible, that ensconce here, must be careful not to impose their present day loose and dubious moral system upon that of an ancient culture found in Scripture and then judge Scripture as though it is inferior to their own self cuddling subjective morality after 3000 years or so.

Sexual purity was very highly valued, unlike today, and when a man would marry a woman, her virginity was critical. In ancient times a dowry was paid to the father of the bride and the rightful expectation was that the bride would be a virgin.

In the culture of the time it was the father who was charged with the covering, care, and well-being of his daughter. Her sexual purity was representative of the father's ability to raise her according to the laws of God.

Therefore, in that culture, a man's reputation, as well as the family's reputation in the community, could be adversely affected by the fornication of his daughter.

If his daughter had been promised to a man to be married, and a dowry had been paid, there was every expectation from the bridegroom that she would be a virgin. If the contrary was discovered after the marriage, then the implication is that there had been a deception in which the father could be implicated, or it would mean that he was unaware of her sin and this would bring great shame to the family and the community, not to mention it being a display of outright rebellion against God's law.

In this case, to insure the integrity of the family, and to remove the evil of adulterous/fornication from the community, stoning was advocated. If you are NOT a virgin, then do not marry under the pretense you are?

Finally, she was not stoned for not being a virgin, but for carrying out a DECEPTION in trying to appear as one.

Of course, Christians do not advocate any type of honor killing, Dreadnaught old chap. Ernst is simply stating what the cultural context was over 3000 years ago, but of course our mass murderous generation is much better and loving, hmmm.

It has to with honesty and standards, however far fetched that seems in this generation. If you cannot read that part of Deuternonomy except pick and chose what suits your 'informed and rational morality' and not see that, then you shouldn't be permitted to post anywhere on a Christian blog, you old charlatan. *Giggles*

Blofeld

19 March 2014 at 15:00  
Blogger IanCad said...

Lucy Mullen,

Two very informative posts today.
There is, no doubt, all-out warfare aimed at the traditional family. I had no idea that so many sodomite sympathizers were in the ranks of our representatives.

This will not last.

When a Conservative government can sign off on a budget that penalises stay at home mums--the true heroes of our day--then it's time for action.

One possible solution; I know, I keep harping on about it, but there is nothing in the law to stop parents from home-schooling their children.

Take your kids out of school. Get together with other mums. Cut the cord. There are enough of you to make a huge difference.

Women have far more balls than men. Come on Ladies, our future depends on you.

19 March 2014 at 15:04  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Dreadnaught:

What's the likelihood that the Berlin Wall will come down one day? Or that East Germany will be reunited with the West?

19 March 2014 at 15:06  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Avi, it is a remarkable photo for more reasons than its composition.

Where is the English beer, replaced here with a Francophile glass of vin rouge? Where are Farage's ubiquitous fags (that's cigarettes, in case anyone wondered).

Why two sets of cutlery? Who is the missing guest – wife, mistress, transgender former UKIP member?

It is an enigma wrapped up in a riddle and enclosed in a shiny suit…

19 March 2014 at 15:21  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Gentlemind and Avi Barzel

Nevertheless, certain questions may be asked.

Is the blurred white object beside the subject’s left elbow a packet of cigarettes with a lighter lying across it? If so, how did the censors give the picture their okay?

Why is he drinking out of two wine glasses at once?

Why are the salt and pepper on the table, since there’s no food there? Does N. Farage really put salt and pepper in his wine?

And, most pertinent of all:

The elaborate carving on the side of the table facing the camera suggests Counter-Reformation Spain rather than Heppelwhite, Sheraton, or Chippendale. Could this be a coded message to certain individuals, such as, for instance, the president of the European Commission, that N. Farage really harbours quite friendly feelings towards his fellow Europeans?

19 March 2014 at 15:21  
Blogger Kilsally said...

Am conflicted about this. I actually don't think the state should have to give you permission or a licence to get married but I can see the logic behind separating legal contracts of marriage/civil partnerships & Holy matrimony before God.

19 March 2014 at 15:22  
Blogger IanCad said...

You made my points for me Uncle Brian although I didn't pick upp on the carving.
I'm sorry, but he seems to have all the charisma of a turnip.

19 March 2014 at 15:27  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 March 2014 at 15:39  
Blogger The Explorer said...

1. If you love each other, you don't need a piece of paper to prove it. The piece of paper probably prove you DON'T love each other...

2. A watertight alimony contract in place before the wedding to make the divorce settlement easier.

Both attitudes say much about how marriage is viewed in Western culture.

19 March 2014 at 15:40  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

Financial implications? Common law spouses? Inheritance rights etc for all civil partnerships, whatever the sexuality involved? That sort of thing?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are getting at there.

19 March 2014 at 15:46  
Blogger Kosta said...

What is this "JudeoChristian" nonsense?
You mean like JudeoIslam?
The Book most Jews follow today is the Talmud; ie. the teachings of their "sages". The ones Jesus referred to as the "Synagogue of Satan".

Which "Christian" sage brought this phrase (JudeoChristian) into the Christian narrative.

Christians worship the God of Abraham and God's Son, and not Judaism.
In fact, even the Muslims revere Jesus also, whereas today's Jews have an extreme and opposite view.
Instead they associate Jesus with something involving "Boiling Excrement".

Let us not be confused by false witnesses, open your eyes folks.

19 March 2014 at 15:57  
Blogger RetiredPaul said...

Several people have suggested making those who want a religious marriage to go through two ceremonies. But I have a question about this.

If two people are married in church, "in the sight of God and this congregation", why would they want to sign up to another 'marriage' conducted by the state? After all, it is not as though the state is actively encouraging anyone else to get married!

19 March 2014 at 15:57  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert @ 15:46

Just musing. Couples who simply live together don't have the same rights and responsibilities as those who marry or who register for civil partnerships, but I vaguely remember talk about extending such rights to co-habitees.

Some sort of partnership contract might be more attractive if stripped of any religious connotation? (Which it still partly has at present.) A way of addressing concerns about lack of social cohesion? That sort of thing.

19 March 2014 at 16:01  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Kosta @ 15:57

The Christ whom Muslims revere was never crucified. He will return to abolish the Cross and establish Islam.

19 March 2014 at 16:05  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Uncle Brian

Like you thoughts, but just wanted to point out that Mr Farage's 2nd wife and current spouse is a German. Nothing wrong with that btw, but it does say how much of a myth Euro skeptick = nationalist/racist loon.

19 March 2014 at 16:10  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Uncle Brian
Maybe Nigel is going to use this picture on his Nowruz greeting card.The other politicians will be sending their greetings soon.

19 March 2014 at 16:54  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Explorer 15:06
What is the likelihood that Germany and Austria will be reunited one day?

19 March 2014 at 17:14  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

A U turn??? Mr Farage???? UKIP???? NOOOOOOOOOOOO?
But Mr Farage and UKIP are the BRITISH common sense party!
He's been knob-bled by some militant LGBT groups then? Or the French?

HG
“To the chagrin of some, His Grace has long been of the opinion that same-sex unions are a matter for the state and that religious groups ought to be free to decide for themselves whether to bless them or not. He is of the view that continuing opposition to this development is futile: that the battle is lost, and the development irreversible.”

Nothing is irreversible.

“Marriage is now ontologically distinct from Holy Matrimony, and we must get used to the new context and definition.”

No it isn't, and no we don't have to. On whose say so?

His Grace therefore agrees with (and welcomes) Nigel Farage's "U-turn" on this: “
His Grace is a weak defeatist.

“ It is absurd for a mainstream party to pledge to dissolve thousands of legally-contracted unions. It is not only absurd; it would be a manifest injustice.”

Oh! That's rich coming from a government who are dissolving a centuries old tradition and destroying the family unit which is the backbone of civilisation!
They can all be transferred to Civil Partnership status which is equal to marriage.

“There is a conservative argument to be made for such unions, and, indeed, a theological one.”
No doubt, but there is an argument to be made about almost everything in life. It doesn't mean that it should actually be implemented.

“We may not all agree with either reasoning, but equality has become an immutable and infallible social doctrine, and Christians ought to adopt the vernacular lest they end up speaking Greek.”

Beware, equality is the new extremism and is spiralling out of control.


19 March 2014 at 17:19  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert:

Or something like this.

1. Marriage is good for social cohesion, but not enough people get get married nowadays because they still associate marriage with religion.

2. Divorce marriage (so to speak) officially from religion, and more people might get married.

I'm not saying that such is Farage's position, but it's the sort of line that might be taken by a secular politician concerned about social disintegration (if there is such a being).

19 March 2014 at 17:23  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Manfarang @ 15:14

The problem with your question is that it GENUINELY relates to the future, whereas mine was anachronistic.

What I was getting at to Dredders:

1. Treating dead issues as if they are still current. (In Biblical terms, treating the Old Covenant as if it has not been superseded by the New.)

2. Why remember the Berlin Wall, now it's gone? For that matter, why do we need the record of the past at all?

19 March 2014 at 17:32  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Kosta said

"Kosta, any relation to the coffee? Extremely bitter?


Romans 9:27

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved,

and

Matthew 21:42-44

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”

further

Malachi 3:6

“For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

No other group of people has been so persecuted, so dispersed to the far corners of the globe and yet remain so true to their heritage.

The fact that the descendants of Jacob even exist at all is a testimony to God's faithfulness. (So many other peoples and nations have come and gone.) The Lord promised that He would regather His people in the Last Days and that Israel will never be
conquered again and will remain forever. The Jewish people will remain in that land forever.

But the regathering that has taken place in the past 100 years is not a fulfillment of the prophecy.

Israel has not yet recognized her Messiah and the Old Testament as well as the New Testament speaks of a time called "Jacob's
Trouble" or Daniel's 70th Week or as some have said "The Great Tribulation" which will be a terrible time for Israel but in the end, the Jewish remnant will cry out to the LORD and He will rescue them. Jesus (with His nail prints in His hands and feet)...the Messiah that they rejected 2000 years ago will come to save His people in that day which the Bible calls "the Day of the Lord."
Jesus is Jewish and someday He will avenge His people of ALL her enemies and Jesus the Messiah will rule and reign from Jerusalem.

and

Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

Zechariah 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall
look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

to go further still

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of
him. Even so, Amen.

Rom 11:25 "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part UNTIL the full number of the Gentiles has come in."

and

"If the casting away of them (the Jews) be the reconciling of the world (in that Gentiles can be reconciled to God through Christ), what shall the (restoration) of them be, but life from the dead' (Romans 11:15).


"I'm just a common man, trying to exercise common sense.". so you say Kosta lad..Do try to, at least know your subject, THEN post..That's a nice young man.

Blofeld

ps

The Lord Jesus Christ taught a Gentile: "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22). This statement must be an embarrassment to some silly religionists who come here and who claim that God has no future for the Jewish nation.

19 March 2014 at 17:44  
Blogger Kosta said...

The Explorer @ 16:05
And yet, that doesn't negate what I wrote.
It also remains that worshipful Jews today are taught that Christians and all gentiles are animals little more than cattle. Merely in the the form of humans, so as not to offend Jewish sensibilities.
and just in case some think their disdain is reserved for us men folk; the term for a non-Jewish woman "shiksa" means an unclean woman, a term etymological rooted in the word for "whore".
How can we possibly be called "JudeoChristian". who makes up these catchphrases?

How many among you yearn for the "rebuilding" of Solomon's Temple, as Jews do; so we can fulfill the biblical prophesy of Satan ruling there for 3 &1/2 years?
Britain has done a dandy job of ensuring that comes about, and continues to.

Now, instead of sitting around pontificating on minor issues; how about handing out some whips and marching onto evil's lair; ie The City Of London: instead of hoping for their shekels..

Why doesn't Queen Liz take the lead, if she's such a Defender Of The Faith. Or perhaps she's more concerned with losing all that she has from when her great nana was a smack dealer (see Opium Wars).
Now stand back for a moment, look at our leaders, and tell me we are on the side of righteousness.

Who cares who's copulating with whom, when the whole world is evidently going to hell.

Has anyone read the bible.
Hand out the whips.

19 March 2014 at 17:47  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Blowfelt

she was not stoned for not being a virgin, but for carrying out a DECEPTION in trying to appear as one.

Ha Ok, - like that makes all the difference - not.

I understand all that contextual tommy-rot quite well, but I would argue that in the Britain or world of today, a State sponsored Christian splinter-sect has little to commend it's continued position of privilege.

19 March 2014 at 17:49  
Blogger Len said...

Where is the spirit that lived in the early Christians?.

The disciples (all but one)died cruel deaths rather than deny the truth of the Gospel
'They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated'--(Hebrews11:37)


Where is the spirit of the Reformation!.

Where are the Cranmer's and the Latimers the Ridley's and the Luthers the Tyndales and all those who went to the stake were tortured and were killed because God`s Truth meant more to them than living a lie?.
It is under persecution that the wolves will be separated from the sheep.Those shepherds who are 'hirelings' will desert the flock and only those who are true will stay to guard the sheep.
A time of testing indeed.

19 March 2014 at 17:57  
Blogger Anglican said...

This might be a good thing. It is obvious that the state has no interest in upholding traditional religious marriage (and does not understand it). But couples need their marriage (or partnership) to be recognised by the state for various legal benefits. The Equal Marriage Act has done away with all traditional ideas about marriage – all the barriers defining it have been knocked down. So let all couples have a ‘civil marriage’ contract (which will be in fact no more than a civil partnership agreement, but is very confusingly still called ‘marriage’). Then, afterwards, couples wanting to have an authentic religious marriage will have the ceremony in church – which they will regard as the only true marriage ceremony.

19 March 2014 at 17:57  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

It’s one of the oldest tricks in politics. Here’s how it goes. You accept an open lunch date from a respectable journalist from a respectable newspaper, at a top notch restaurant, of course. This is going to cost them, but they couldn’t be happier about it. You spend half an hour on small talk, the restaurants reputation, for example, or perhaps notable people you’ve come across lately…etc

Meal over, more wine, and now’s the time. You, the politician, floats his ideas. You do it by musing, of course, as in “it’s not quite finalised but here’s the gist.” Every revelation will be eagerly swallowed, more intensely than the food was. You then move onto, “here’s something I’ve been thinking about, which the party has never issued a position on”. If you’ve really got the hack hanging on your every word, you might even try the prefix “keep this under your hat”. Best not use that one too indiscriminately, if she’s young and tense, she might just faint at this stage.

Step three. The scoop is published. But did the journalist gather in everything needed for the story ? Not to worry if not, some ‘creative’ reporting will fill in the gaps…

Step four. Bloggers publish

Step five. At his leisure, the politician sits back and observes. Which of his ideas has taken off, and which are duds. He notes the reactions avidly, for party policy is in formation. Of that we can be sure…



19 March 2014 at 17:58  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Kosta @ 17:47

I think it negates that part of what you wrote. Christians and Muslims are not revering the same thing.

(I do, however, have great respect for the Muslim reverence for the sacred: something sadly lacking in Western culture.)

19 March 2014 at 18:04  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

Oh, well, the debate is now open. Let battle be joined.

Never having needed to be consummated, civil partnerships ought not to be confined to unrelated same-sex couples, or even to unrelated couples generally.

Furthermore, any marrying couple should be entitled to register their marriage as bound by the law prior to 1969 with regard to grounds and procedures for divorce, and any religious organisation should be enabled to specify that any marriage which it conducted should be so bound, requiring it to counsel couples accordingly.

Statute should specify that the Church of England and the Church in Wales each be such a body unless, respectively, the General Synod and the Governing Body specifically resolved the contrary by a two-thirds majority in all three Houses.

There should be similar provision relating to the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, which also exist pursuant to Acts of Parliament, as well as by amendment to the legislation relating to the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy.

Entitlement upon divorce should be fixed by Statute at one per cent of the other party's estate for each year of marriage, up to 50 per cent, with no entitlement for the petitioning party unless the other party’s fault be proved.

That would be a start, anyway.

19 March 2014 at 18:10  
Blogger Nick said...

Here we are again. I find myself at completely opposite poles with YG over the irreversibility of the whole sodo-marriage fiasco. Whatever happened to the faith that can move mountains!!?

In the wake of the October revolution, I am sure many Russians could not conceive of a world without communism, but now they have it. The Third Reich was supposed to last 1000 years. I haven't counted but I think it lasted a couple of thousand days.

It is the spirit of this dark age that wants us (Christians) to lose hope, give up, and give in.

Not on your Nellie!

19 March 2014 at 18:37  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 March 2014 at 18:48  
Blogger The Explorer said...

The State does the legal/financial bit. For most, that's all that's needed. Then there can be the Church bit for those who want it. Simples.

Or is it?

Will the State bit be just non-related one-to-one of whatever sexual combination?

Why non-related? (Now children can be safely prevented.)

Why one-to-one? What about Muslims? What about non-Muslims who want some form of polyandry/polygamy/polyamory? If the State refuses, what will be the State's basis for insisting on one-to-one?

19 March 2014 at 18:48  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Kosta,

1."What is this "JudeoChristian" nonsense? You mean like JudeoIslam?"

I believe that the phrase originated in America's cultural wars to describe the apparent common moral ethic in Judaism and Christianity.

2a."The Book most Jews follow today is the Talmud; ie. the teachings of their "sages".

The Book we follow is called The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), with special emphasis on the Torah, it's written and oral transmission as handed to our teacher Moses by G-d on Siani. The Talmud contains the Oral Torah and the discussions on this and the written Torah (by theme) by our Sages and later Rabbis. Get the basic facts right before critcising another's religion.


2b)The ones Jesus referred to as the "Synagogue of Satan"."

Well hello there, just one of the Synagogue of Satan popping over to say 'hi'. I've made sure my hoofs are clean, that my tail won't knock off any vases & my horns have been especially polished.

3. "Which "Christian" sage brought this phrase (JudeoChristian) into the Christian narrative".

I can't see the question mark there, so assume it is a rhetorical question and you are dying to tell us the 'real' answer.

4) "Christians worship the God of Abraham and God's Son, and not Judaism."

You don't say. That's a statement of the bloom'n obvious.


5 a) "In fact, even the Muslims revere Jesus also, whereas today's Jews have an extreme and opposite view."
At least Jews don't misrepresent another faith's founder as a Muslim would. And why would you expect a Jew to believe in Jesus? They wouldn't be a Jew if they did, but a Christian.

5B) "Instead they associate Jesus with something involving "Boiling Excrement"".

A subjective reading of the Talmud, as used by anti-Semites and Jew haters throughout history.

6) "Let us not be confused by false witnesses, open your eyes folks"

Take a look at yourself in the mirror my friend.

19 March 2014 at 18:50  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Kosta,

19 March 2014 17:47

Ignoring most of the anti-semitic drivel you are now feel compelled to write, I'd ask you when you say 'has anyone read the Bible'. Well have you?

19 March 2014 at 18:55  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 March 2014 at 19:57  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Eplorer said
What I was getting at to Dredders:
1. Treating dead issues as if they are still current. (In Biblical terms, treating the Old Covenant as if it has not been superseded by the New.)


Dead issues? Not until very late in the day!

They are not acted upon in the prescribed biblical manner today it's true and just as well,(except for those that still set the mood music for attitudes towards sexual matters for one) but I doubt that it was the original intention at the time. Jesus did not apparently dump on the Old Testament or suggest it should not be held to be factual, quite the contrary it seems:

Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Or -

5:18
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.


It was enshrined in law at one stage:-
'All blasphemies against God, including denying his being or providence, all contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, and exposing any part thereof to contempt or ridicule, were punishable by the temporal courts with death, imprisonment, corporal punishment and fine'.

Just as well Blasphemy was removed from the statute books in 200

19 March 2014 at 20:05  
Blogger IanCad said...

Len wrote:

Where is the spirit of the Reformation?"

Don't you know? Anglican bishop, Tony Palmer, has announced it.
There are no Protestants now, we are all Catholic.
Get with it.

19 March 2014 at 20:08  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Probably of absolutely no interest to anyone, and hardly keeping to the thread but ‘boiling excrement’ was part of the process in tanning leather. For some reason best not looked into too closely, dog mess was the muck of choice, if enough could be sourced, that is. Of course, we have synthetics to do the job now, at least in the West, but the old ways continue in the less developed regions of the earth.

Gentlemen, you will now be able view your wives’ Moroccan handbag in a new light...

{AHEM}

19 March 2014 at 20:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nick: "I find myself at completely opposite poles with YG over the irreversibility of the whole sodo-marriage fiasco."

Do you have a homophobic word for a same-sex marriage between women too?

19 March 2014 at 20:18  
Blogger IanCad said...

IGIO FWIW,

The folks who gathered dog poop on the streets of old London were called Pure Finders
A lost trade I'm afraid; at least, in this country.

19 March 2014 at 20:23  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...


Indeed IanCad, and their descendants are around today on the streets of London, with their plaintive cry “Big Issue, Big Issue”

19 March 2014 at 20:46  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Dreadnaught@ 20:05

Remember that at one time you could be hanged for stealing an apple. That had less to do with religion than with the absence of a police force, and with deterrence by savage example.

Why KJV? A punk, for Shakespeare, was not what was found in 1980's London. Meaning changes. With Shakespeare, we have footnotes. With the Bible, written in languages foreign to us, we have updated translations to reflect semantic change.

5:17. Christ's enemies had accused him of trying to abolish the law. 'Fulfil' carries the sense (this is a translation, remember) of 'to complete' or 'to transcend': to be understood in conjunction with Christ as the replacement for the Temple, or the declaration in 'Mark' that all foods are now clean.

The ceremonial law is dispensed with; the moral law remains.

Why is alcohol illegal when you are 14, but legal when you are 24? Why is heroin an issue whatever age you are?

Strictures that apply when building work is underway can be relaxed when construction is finished.

In Christian terms, only one phase of the work has been completed. D Day has happened, but V Day still lies at some stage in the future: just as it did for those on the beaches.

Hope that's an answer of sorts. I've tried to pack in as much as possible as briefly as possible. Clarity may have suffered as a result.

19 March 2014 at 21:04  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ RetiredPaul

As you suggest, I also cannot see why a couple who had married in church would want a state marriage unless to protect spouse/child/children in case of death.

I think though that sometimes politicians imagine, even the more libertarian ones, that the state may be more important to us than it in fact is.

In the sight of God matters supremely to me, in the sight of the people of God, a lot, in the sight of the state, well, frankly a bit of a yawn, though maybe a necessary yawn.

All a bit theoretical, except at one remove for my children, as have been married for ages!!

19 March 2014 at 21:11  
Blogger IanCad said...

IGIO

Got to give it to you; that was very clever.

19 March 2014 at 21:14  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The misfiring Atheist said


" Blowfelt

she was not stoned for not being a virgin, but for carrying out a DECEPTION in trying to appear as one.

Ha Ok, - like that makes all the difference - not."

You show your complete lack of grasp regarding ancient history and constitutions in the ancient world, when the world was ruled by mindless violence, immorality and the lack of social justice for poor, widows and orphans, minorities and aliens/foreigners and law to the polity in general and forms of governance.

I understand all that contextual tommy-rot quite well (Ernst severely donuts you do as you shown a truly poor understanding of morals that they are not to descend to the lowest common denominator as a deciding factor, as you do), but I would argue that in the Britain or world of today, a State sponsored Christian splinter-sect has little to commend it's continued position of privilege

(Dear fellow, your atheist horde are allowed far too much sway of privilege against a larger group that believe in God? and you abuse this misapplication of hearing and therefore our suffering from the minority groups that whinge continually wherever you find them and in the least expected places, such as here).


Off now and compare the majesty of the Torah compared to other ancient constitution and gasp in awe at it's splendour, IF YOU DARE!!!

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/aristotle-athcon.txt -Ancient constitution of Athens

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/aristotle-carthage.asp- Ancient constitution of Carthage

Ps

There are no favourites in Jehovah's constitution, unlike the others listed.

Now be off with you numpty, a poorly educated atheist INDEED.

Blofeld

19 March 2014 at 21:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Typo alert!

"donuts" means Doubts!!

Believe it's a dreadnaught thing? *Chortles crazily*

Blofeld

19 March 2014 at 21:27  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

I wasn't so much thinking of the state benefits of marriage, I was thinking that as marriage increasingly ceases to be marriage, it might be better for Christians to unshackle marriage from the state.

The trouble is of course, that marriage very often isn't in anyone's interest, given the oddness of our taxation system.

19 March 2014 at 21:39  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert:

This sort of thing. A married couple would qualify for one set of mortgage relief, but an unmarried couple cohabiting would qualify for two sets. It would thus make sense for a young couple to live together without marrying if they wanted to afford a house.

On discussion programmes you hear even some secularists arguing that children brought up by two biological parents turn out more stable etc. Some secularists see marriage as desirable on a purely pragmatic basis, and are worried about its decline.

You see it in Cameron's line of argument. Social stability is a good thing. Marriage enhances social stability; so marriage is a good thing. So gay marriage is also a good thing.

19 March 2014 at 22:03  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Blofart sounds pissed and clearly incapable of writing anything coherent - not sure what Explorers excuse is.

19 March 2014 at 22:49  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Dreadnaught:

If we're going to talk coherence, let's start with an apostrophe for Explorer's.

A complex topic does not lend itself well to the brevity of the blog format. It was a point David B often made.

However, if you care to pinpoint the areas of incoherence I can try to clarify them.

Point 1, that ALL laws, not just blasphemy laws were severe in the past and Point 2, that King James is not a good version to use when meaning is at stake presumably need no expansion.

19 March 2014 at 23:03  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Explorer 17:32
Someone may rebuild the Temple.

19 March 2014 at 23:15  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Manfarang:

And restart the system of sacrifices?

Anyway, before that happened a suicide bomber would reduce it to rubble.

19 March 2014 at 23:21  
Blogger Bridgeblox said...

I've often wondered in discussions about disestablishment about the implications for Voluntary Aided and Voluntary Controlled schools. Am I right in assuming that they largely sit on church owned land? And when/if they pass into local or national governments hands, who would pay for the church land on which many of these schools sit? Would it be a compulsory lease, or just some form of land grab?

19 March 2014 at 23:30  
Blogger Integrity said...

Your Grace,
As it is said above, do not give up on God's righteousness. There are a few days left before the first SSM's. I shall be emailing all the MP's tomorrow who voted against the bill asking them to pray for some miraculous last minute intervention. It is our fault as Christians that society has fallen so much into sin that such a law could be passed.
In the same way the CofE can blame no one but themselves if they lose their special status as the established church of England.
They have failed in their duty to preach the Gospel and it's leaders are engrossed in unseemly maladministration.

20 March 2014 at 00:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dreadnaught the big pea shooter for Atheists- Flaaaarrtthpt-ed...

" Blofart sounds pissed and clearly incapable of writing anything coherent - not sure what Explorers excuse is."

Dear Numpty of the Empty Noggin

Having all the eloquence of a whoopee cushion when sat on, your pathetic written response displays all the classic hallmarks of insincere flatulence.*Pprrpffrrppfff*

Blofeld

20 March 2014 at 01:21  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Arriving late here, having just finished driving bus loads of people around Sunderland, I'm just wondering - has anyone noticed that the religious and legal registration of marriage have always been separate? Anglican clergy are granted legal status as registrars by virtue of their ordination, but so are ministers of various other mainstream religions. Anglican clergy and other approved ministers wear two hats when performing marriages: ministers of religion and registrars, just like the ones found in registry offices up and down the country.

In any case for Christian weddings the role of the priest has always been that of an official witness. The celebrants of the sacrament in a marriage are the couple themselves, not the priest/vicar. A man and woman can solemnise their own religious marriage without the aid of a priest; the role of the priest is to make everything official and above board, and most importantly to stop young men swearing marriage vows, having their wicked way, and then denying ever having done so. That is why the marriage service developed.

20 March 2014 at 02:39  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ars Hendrick and Uncle Brian, that's quite an advanced and detailed anaylis of Farage's photo. Along with you folks and Gentlemind we might start a Sgt Pepper-like viral craze over it. I suspect that it's talk like this, though, that attracts such wackadoodle nutters like Kosta to this site. Speaking of the site's upgrade, perhaps His Grace can build a virtual back door or even a digital barn for such characters to keep them off the rugs and away from the silver...we'll all be moving up in style soon.

Ah, Inspector, funny that you speak of doggie doo-doos for leather curing. It is said that when King David honoured the dog in the Psalms, Rabbi Yeshayahu was offended by this inclusion, but an angel descended to remind him that the Almighty had decreed that dog's dung be used in the curing and treatment of the most sacred scrolls, as of the Torah, mezuzas and tefillin. And so, the lowly dog too is honoured in our prayers and the Perek Shirah (The Chapter of Song) ends with the Song of the Dog to the Creator.

20 March 2014 at 03:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Where is Happy Jack btw? I did promise him protection and friendship as penance for insulting him when he first appeared.

20 March 2014 at 03:54  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Explorer 23:21
In the special Mussaf Amidah prayer said on Shabbat and Jewish holidays, the Hebrew phrase na'ase ve'nakriv (we will present and sacrifice) is modified to read to asu ve'hikrivu (they presented and sacrificed), implying that sacrifices are a thing of the past.

20 March 2014 at 04:50  
Blogger Nick said...

Danj0

The word "sodomy" is a general word referring to many kinds of non-procreational sexual activity and does not appear to discriminate between male and female, so that easily includes lesbians too.

20 March 2014 at 06:39  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

"Gay marriage is a matter for the state and the blessing thereof a matter for the different religions" I agree wholeheartedly. By what logic is a heterosexual marriage different in principle? This principle separates church weddings from state weddings as in France.

I rather suspect that you cannot have a state religion and a democracy at the same time.

20 March 2014 at 07:10  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Manfarang @ 04:50

The new Temple is the one in the heavenly New Jerusalem. Sacrifice is no longer needed because of Christ as the sacrificial lamb. (Also the Temple not made with hands.)

That's the Christian explanation for the cessation of sacrifice. What's the Jewish one?

20 March 2014 at 07:11  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hear, hear to Avi's question @ 3:54.

Where's Happy Jack?

20 March 2014 at 07:56  
Blogger Len said...

Well in the light of the way things are going I think we need a re- Reformation.

I propose Cranmer to write it and nail it (figuratively ) on the door of the World wide apostate Churches (will need a shedload of copies) and anyone interested in promoting Biblical Truth will be welcome to come on board...
The rest carry on as usual until their religious system is totally adsorbed into the corrupt political system described as 'the beast' in the bible....

As the man said "I`m out"of this political/ religious system and looking for the rest of that 'remnant' who will not be conformed to this' World System'

20 March 2014 at 08:00  
Blogger Len said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 March 2014 at 08:02  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Dear Mark,

Traditional marriage, heterosexual marriage, is based upon the potential for procreation and the parents forming a permanent union acknowledged by society for the raising of their children.
Ironically, and hurtfully, the law for marriage between a man and a woman is still based upon the potential for procreation irrespective of whether the couple are fertile or not. The law still says that a woman cannot marry her sister's son, no matter how much they love each other. It is a legal principle based upon avoiding inbreeding. Claims that marriage isn't about children because not all married couples have children fall completely flat on their face because the law about whom you may and may not marry still applies irrespective of your fertility.
Therefore the law already has two forms of marriage and they are not the same.
I have been married for 34 years and have brought up 2 children. I have fulfilled my obligation but the government is sending me a clear message that I have wasted my time and society considers the contract and obligation worthless.

20 March 2014 at 08:20  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Manfarang @ 04:50

Thinking more about the rebuilt Temple.

1. What about the Dome of the Rock?

2. 2 Thessalonians speaks of the Antichrist reigning in the Temple. Literal temple? Don't know.

20 March 2014 at 09:24  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

The Explorer

“In the Temple of God”, 2 Thess 2:4. Would it be legitimate to read this as “In the place where the Temple of God stands today” (i.e. when Paul was writing)? If so . . .

20 March 2014 at 09:51  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Dreadnaught the big pea shooter for Atheists- Flaaaarrtthpt-ed...

QED

20 March 2014 at 10:03  
Blogger John Wrake said...

What a palaver! How easily the father of lies finds it to distract people of faith and of no faith from the essentials of an argument in order to squabble.

Did he say it? Didn't he say it? In no time, we are into inter-faith name-calling, political theory, personal integrity.

This nation and its institutions are founded on Christian truth. Despite the idiocies of Church leaders who are undisciplined, State leaders who are inexperienced, or treasonous, or perverted, and large numbers of citizens who are complacent and careless, Church and State are indivisible. The present state of folly and wickedness will pass.
Just do what you can to help speed it on its way.

Jon Wrake

20 March 2014 at 10:13  
Blogger John Wrake said...

What a palaver! How easily the father of lies finds it to distract people of faith and of no faith from the essentials of an argument in order to squabble.

Did he say it? Didn't he say it? In no time, we are into inter-faith name-calling, political theory, personal integrity.

This nation and its institutions are founded on Christian truth. Despite the idiocies of Church leaders who are undisciplined, State leaders who are inexperienced, or treasonous, or perverted, and large numbers of citizens who are complacent and careless, Church and State are indivisible. The present state of folly and wickedness will pass.
Just do what you can to help speed it on its way.

Jon Wrake

20 March 2014 at 10:14  
Blogger John Wrake said...

What a palaver! How easily the father of lies finds it to distract people of faith and of no faith from the essentials of an argument in order to squabble.

Did he say it? Didn't he say it? In no time, we are into inter-faith name-calling, political theory, personal integrity.

This nation and its institutions are founded on Christian truth. Despite the idiocies of Church leaders who are undisciplined, State leaders who are inexperienced, or treasonous, or perverted, and large numbers of citizens who are complacent and careless, Church and State are indivisible. The present state of folly and wickedness will pass.
Just do what you can to help speed it on its way.

Jon Wrake

20 March 2014 at 10:14  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Darter Noster, you are absolutely right in saying that the priest (or minister) wears two hats in the marriage ceremony. There are the legal declarations and the signing of the register (the legal bit) usually takes place in the vestry to signal this is 'Caesar's bit rendered' and not God's. I find Mr Ferago's declaration most offensive to be honest, and so he will not get my vote. This puts me in a quandary, as I have no idea who to vote for at all.

20 March 2014 at 10:24  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Explorer, I think you will find that the Antichrist does indeed hold sway in the Temple - have you observed the state of our legal system recently? Lawyers...bah humbug!

20 March 2014 at 10:27  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Time for a new political movement to sweep out the rancid tribe of moneychangers and wotnot...how about calling it English Resurgence or Lions of England? Hmmm perhaps gentlemen and ladies of Cranmerworld, you can do better...anyway, as a former Price of Wales famously said, 'Something must be done...'

20 March 2014 at 10:33  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Uncle Brian @ 09:51

I think it would be legitimate. My own thoughts exactly.

However, as John Wrake reminds us, this is a side issue of a side issue. Let us not divert ourselves further from the topic at hand.

20 March 2014 at 10:48  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Avi,

Quite right, where is the old flavicomous coloured busker from Durham ?

20 March 2014 at 10:49  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

I think Blowers was alluding to a point suggested by some academics that Deuteronomy (or 'Devarim'-words- as we call it) is similar in format to ancient middle eastern treaties or constitutions (in this case between Israel and G-d) and can therefore be compared to other similar documents of the ancient world? It's not something I'm going to get into on this thread, but that's what I thought Blowers was -rather cleverly- alluding to there.

20 March 2014 at 10:53  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Explorer/Uncle Brian/Manfarang,

Appreciate you want to stick to the topic, as do I, but I felt a brief note to suggest not to get too concerned about rebuilding The Temple (for a third time one might add). If the Temple is to be rebuilt, I personally with leave it to the divine and not to the whims of men (other Jews would disagree, but hey ho, we're are an argumentative people). I remember debating this with 'Peter D' way back and looking back I still agree with those views.

20 March 2014 at 11:01  
Blogger Len said...

Mts Proudie
'Time for a radical Change',

But this will not be affected by our Politicians!.

The true Church cannot and never will be joined to 'the State'.
Constantine tried that and look what he 'achieved' a state corrupted 'Christianity'. A 'Universal religion' indeed paganized 'christianity' .

Our Christian church after having broken away from that abomination is now being' secularized' by our Government.Politicians are not to be trusted least of all with the Gospel (has no one learned that yet?)
So Christianity has gone full circle we are back to the beginnings and need to prise ourselves loose from the State before it drags us down with it in its downward spiral..






20 March 2014 at 11:05  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Other religions need to get their ministers separately licensed as registrars, or else the couple can pay for a registrar to attend the ceremony, or have a separate registration - RC couples, for example, need to check whether or not their priest is also a licensed registrar - whereas CoE vicars become registrars automatically upon ordination to the priesthood.

If this policy were implemented all that would happen is that Anglican clergy would be trained and licensed separately as other ministers already are. Unless they are proposing to ban all ministers of any religion from acting as registrars, in which case they would need to recruit large numbers of secular registrars to take over the enormous workload currently dealt with by the clergy of all stripes.

Someone at UKIP HQ has not thought this policy through properly; it seems to be based on a total misunderstanding of how religious marriage registration actually works.

20 March 2014 at 11:24  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Len:

Two possible futures for the C of E, I'd say.

1. The secular state disestablishes it.

2. The secular state quite likes a tame church as secular as itself, and retains it. The faithful remnant within the C of E breaks away.

20 March 2014 at 11:33  
Blogger richardhj said...

Due to the total unelectibility of the other political parties, I had allowed myself to forget an incident that happened possibly 12 months ago.
I had seen contradictory comments on the UKIP website about 'gay marriage' and had written to someone at UKIP to try to ascertain the real picture. I failed to get an answer so tried again and again. I then involved the leader of the local UKIP branch who I had known when we were Conservative councillors together. This did bring a response, of sorts, but not a straight answer to my question. I decided to ignore it and as I was unwilling to join their party anyway for other reasons I felt as though pushing it further would have ended up with me being "sweet talked" into joining.
Therefore this comment is really a reminder, rather than a shock.
Only earlier this week I had been perusing their website looking for a way to contact them locally, both to offer European Election help and also at the request of my local (name removed in case we are in breech of any new laws preventing campaigning by anyone not approved by the liberal elite) branch to find out who their candidate will be for the General Election.
I think I will do my duty to (local) branch but think it very unlikely I will be offering any help now.
I think it's now possibly time to commit to a Christian Party. That may be a hopeless cause, or it may not.
But it's certainly looking the right thing to do.

20 March 2014 at 11:49  
Blogger richardhj said...

PS. As someone who is not a member of the CoE I have less opinion on this. However I have to wonder whether it may be a good thing. Perhaps in ceasing to be an official part of the Establishment, it can again become a Church.

20 March 2014 at 11:51  
Blogger Integrity said...

Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...
Time for a new political movement to sweep out the rancid tribe of moneychangers

Ever since the Westminster expenses scandal I have wanted to see a political party of 'INTEGRITY'. Naturally using biblical principles as it's basis for thinking. I am planning to stand against a lying, deceiving Lib Dem councillor in my ward in May.
You are right that there is no party to vote for. All my life I have been conservative but not now, nor Labour and never Lib Dem. I would rather jump of a bridge than that.
Tony Blair said that Civil Ceremonies would never become marriages. They are all liers and can't be trusted.

20 March 2014 at 11:56  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Avi, Happy Jack is fine and dandy. Had a rather heavy cold and took to bed with a hot whiskey, lemon and honey. Honey was very sweet too and made Jack feel better in no time.

*chuckle*

20 March 2014 at 12:07  
Blogger IanCad said...

John Wrake @ 10:14 wrote (three times):

"--Church and State are indivisible--"


Yes! They most certainly are; In Muslim states Christians are being slaughtered for for straying from the laws of the land.

In Croatia how many hundred thousands of Serbs died for non-conformity?

The Virginia theocracy? You wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of those stern upholders of the cross now. Would you?

In the fair isle of Guernsey, Perotine Massey heeded not the dictates of the dreadful duo.
Nine months pregnant, whilst in the flames her child was born. Can't have that; thus, after due consideration, the infant was thrown back in.

Shall we also forget Smithfield? There is a Martyr's Memorial at the site. It is not very large, nor well tended. It is old and few remember. Some good coffee shops nearby though.

Huss, Jerome. Our own stout Cranmer. Latimer and Ridley. Didn't go along, did they?
Wycliffe, Luther. Both escaped by a whisker.
Sure got Tyndale. Mustn't spread heresy. They did strangle him first. How kind.

Calvin did his share. Servetus and he just couldn't see eye to eye.

How many countless souls have been burned, downed, pressed, broken on the wheel, torn by wild beasts and otherwise suffered for their faith.

Our Lord tells us about chuch and state.

"And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor." Matthew 27:2.

"---and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified." Matthew 27:26.


"Church and State are indivisible" Are you sure John? Quite sure?

20 March 2014 at 12:38  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Happy Jack, I hope you are feeling better. To speed you towards good health I am sending you some of my famous Hobnob Poultice...just slap it on and think nice thoughts. Mr Slope says he will pop up to the north country and give you a bed bath, just say the word. Throw open the windows and let in the fresh air. Just remember the words of the PM - 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant'- and who could doubt that Jesus wants you for a sunbeam..?

20 March 2014 at 12:49  
Blogger David Grey said...

The only argument against disestablishment is, as "his grace" notes: tradition. This is not even an argument at all.

Doing something or keeping something "because we always have" is no rational reason for anything. If we listened to that reasoning we would still be stoning witches and be ruled by the latest King or Queen.

Disestablishment is necessary for a fair society. Christians such as "his grace" don't like this because currently the established church of england accords with their own beliefs and thus that their particular branch of beliefs gets superior treatment than all others including those with other religious beliefs and those with none.
Is superior treatment for one strand of religious belief fair?

In the middle east it is Islam that is the established religion. As a result, the system favours muslims to the detriment of other believers and non believers.

It is also a fact of life that Britain is becoming less Christian and more Muslim. In X years, there will be more Muslims and Christians. Will Christians insist that the Church of England is replaced by the Mosque of England? Then stop being a hypocrite now whilst you have the majority.

Interestingly enough currently most of Britain is actually Atheist. And so am I. Do I want established atheism with privileges for atheists at the expense of believers? No. Because that simply isn't fair.

The state should not have any opinion or influence or place any privilege based on a persons beliefs. That is secularism. No matter how much religious lobbies try to misrepresent it.

20 March 2014 at 12:50  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ integrity

Well, I would vote for you. As for them all being liars, well, I wouldn't go that far, as some tell the truth as they see it but I don't agree it.

As for the x will never become y when they know full well that they are planning y sadly that has been around for a long time, and they are deceiving rat bags who use such underhand tactics. The same was said about the European Economic Community never ever becoming a political union or involving loss of sovereignty, dear me, how would a patriotic Briton ever imagine such a thing. And a few years later those who had been "insulted" at such a heinous suggestion were busy implementing it without so much as a blush of shame, but that had always been the blueprint for the club of Rome.

Just as the agenda is now the implementation of the Frankfurt school. Either that or it is absolutely incredible how closely the breakdown of the Nation State, the increase in drunkenness, the emptying of the Churches, the breaking down of marriage and family ties, the undermining of a properly functioning capitalism and the indoctrination and sexual commodification of children in education, together with scaremongering about unwinnable wars against terrorism and global weather changes exactly coincidentally mirrors that agenda.

Who really thinks these things are coincidental?

We have no option not to fight them.

20 March 2014 at 13:02  
Blogger IanCad said...

Good to see you back Happy Jack.

I sure hope you didn't give Honey your cold.
You should still take it easy for a while and stay out of draughts. Don't go outside without your hat and wait until summer before wearing a kilt.

20 March 2014 at 13:04  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Dear Mrs Proudie, Happy Jack thanks you for your kindness. Jack loves the fresh air too and already considers himself one of Jesus' sunbeams. Do keep Slope with you. Jack's temper is somewhat fraught at present and he cannot be answerable for the consequences of a visit from the likes of him.

20 March 2014 at 13:15  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

IanCad, Happy Jack thanks you for your sound advice. Jack never wears a kilt, Sir! Occasionally, depending on the weather, he wears cut down jeans. But skirts on men? Never!

20 March 2014 at 13:19  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Glad to hear all's well, Happy Jack. Not sure the sniffles is good enough reason to go AWOL like that, but we'll let this one slide this time. Might have to bring doctor's note in the future. Yes, honey makes one feel so much better and curiously enough works marvels with whisky mixed in.

20 March 2014 at 13:25  
Blogger Owl said...

Lucy,

I agree. The neat thing is that if you state the obvious, you get called a conspiracy nut.

A wonderful way of discrediting but not answering.

Glad you are not taken in.

20 March 2014 at 13:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Happy Jack:

Take Avi's advice @ 13:25.

Give Honey a whisky! It works marvels.

20 March 2014 at 14:06  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Manfarang said: In the special Mussaf Amidah prayer said on Shabbat and Jewish holidays, the Hebrew phrase na'ase ve'nakriv (we will present and sacrifice) is modified to read to asu ve'hikrivu (they presented and sacrificed), implying that sacrifices are a thing of the past.

That is a liberal "modification" by the Conservative movement and the Reform has gone further and even removed references to the ha mikdash, the Temple, although some are now reviewing this. My Orthodox siddur, prayer book, specifically calls for the restoration of the Temple and all of its sacrifices in their original forms, especially before the modim (thanksgiving) prayer in the mussaf service. There is some authoritative, although minority dissent in Orthodox Judaism on the matter of animal sacrifices: Maimonides (13th cent.) held that animal sacrifices were a temporary measure at a time when Pagans surrounded Israel and were a necessary political concession to an "international norm;" and more recently by Rav Kook, who opined that animals in the Messianic era will be more "humanlike" and that we will be returning to a vegetarian diet as in Eden. Nothing's ever simple with us; if it's not this, it's that or the other.

20 March 2014 at 14:10  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 March 2014 at 14:31  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Well it's good to see Happy Jack back, well and OK. I was beginning to think that he'd injured himself after too much GUINNESS on Patrick's day or had somehow gone all ecumenical and celebrated Purim with his Reform Judaism Lady Rabbi & congregation (I'm assume Reform still celebrate Jewish festivals?).

20 March 2014 at 14:31  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ avi

Well our dog is decidedly human like. A total expert in engendering guilt feelings, I would say. Sometimes I am baffled as to what I might possibly be guilty of. Thick human syndrome, maybe?

Fascinated by your "Song of the Dog". What does it say,(leaving aside the obvious!!)?

20 March 2014 at 14:38  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DK I understand that Reform still does something symbolic or commemorative for the major festivals...usually involving krafts for kids in the sanctuary, guitars and tambourines. They are liable to be cut short or interrupted by congregants for dire emergencies such as phone calls, work, a great date, karate lessons for the kids or the Super Bowl. Liquor is rarely offered or allowed as the ladies don't like to see that sort of stuff, as Happy Jack learned when he asked the whereabouts of the scotch and herring and was laughed at.

20 March 2014 at 14:47  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

"he asked the whereabouts of the scotch and herring and was laughed at."

WHAT?!?No Scotch or herring? Reason 145 why ,even I could flirt with Jewish mysticism, I couldn't become a liberal/Reform.

20 March 2014 at 14:55  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Miss Mullen, your dog should meet our cat, which has taken on the responsibility of running the household and expects respect, obedience, only a particular kind of cat food and undisturbed periods of rest throughout the day at times of her choosing.

The verses in Perek Shira (a.k.a., Nature's Song) are typically short and are taken from Psalms. The Song of the Dog is, "Come, let us prostrate ourselves and bow; let us kneel before the Compassionate One, our Maker." (Psalm 95:6) I don't recall the cat's song, but it's supposed to teach us humility and modesty. On the modesty bit, one must ignore the times they lift up a hind leg and begin to clean their nether regions with vigour and grave concentration.

There is of course quite a bit of commentary on the entire book, but I don't have my sources at hand now. But Wiki does give a competent but brief background at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perek_Shirah.

20 March 2014 at 15:00  
Blogger John Wrake said...

Ian Cad at 12:38

Took me to task for speaking of the inability to divide Church and State.

Perhaps Ian had not understood that I was not writing in general terms about any State and Church, but specifically about England and the Church as by law established in this country.

The relationship here is not a matter of Statute, but of a commonality of belief. Common Law, which is the foundation of our State, is the Law of Christ, as our Constitution recognises.

That we have people at all levels of our society who don't know it, or don't want it, or want to change it, does not make it any the less a fact.

There is nothing new about law-breaking, whether you call yourself HRH, or Sir, or Rev. or simply Mr., Mrs. or Ms.

John Wrake.

20 March 2014 at 15:01  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ David Grey.

Hope you aren't the singer.

What exactly is this superior treatment as I sure as sure cannot perceive it? Battered by the prevailing winds of unthinking secularism is how most of us feel on here. How are my hatred of child abuse, my dislike of the early sexualisation of children, my desires for stable traditional families, for a peaceful non aggressive foreign policy, for keeping Sunday special, for encouraging marital fidelity and monogamy, for imprisoning those who download pictures of pornographic torture of children, for encouraging intellectual inquisitiveness, for not scaring kids with apocalyptic threats (because the weather is changeable) that NEVER happen, for keeping Satanism, the dark side in check, and for making religious practice that is not totally transparent from the outset of its beliefs illegal given superior treatment exactly?

As I certainly do not see it, and that is a far from exhaustive list.

20 March 2014 at 15:06  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DJ, their numbers are dwindling rather rapidly, while Orthodox shuls are bursting at the seams. Various complex theories involving demographic shifts, changes in the economy, philosophical shifts and such crap. No mention of a sense of authenticity and genuine tradion or the after-services Kiddush with a good meal and quality liquors. Even though when people discuss different shuls, the next thing that comes up after the name of the rabbi is what kind of Kiddush they serve!

20 March 2014 at 15:12  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...


What is more important to Anglicans: Christianity in the global sense or Christianity in the English realm? It seems pretty clear to me that it is the latter.

It is no coincidence that Anglicanism was carried to the far reaches of ‘uncivilised’ multitudes to subsumed in to the British Empire from 15thC onwards. It gave the veneer of morality to immoral actions carried out under the cloak of British Christian righteousness, of the merits of exploitative commerce that benefitted all but a few political plunderers and hereditary landowners.

Where does that leave Anglicanism today? According to the Center[sic] for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. This statistic takes into consideration cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries, so there is overlapping of many denominations. Why should Anglicanism rate any higher in significance in this country to than the latest Happy-Clappy Church of Flan-flingers for Jesus?

The British Establishment, of which Anglicanism is prime-party to, clings to power, position and privilege and preserves an Upper-class that once married off their daughters for land and their sons to the military officer-ranks, and as a last resort, found status for their runts, by buying position in the Church of England and should have been consigned to the dustbin of history after WW1.

Good woman that she is, the Supreme Governor is nothing of the sort in its management. The Anglican hierarchy seems to be a small confused cackle of homophobic, mysogenistic throwbacks belonging to the 19thC, but still full of their own righteousness and self-serving posturing; the executive class of career Christians.

I am a loyal Englishman. I took the oath of loyalty to Her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors; I did not pledge the same towards maintaining the latter-day the pyramid of outdated authority that is passed off as wholesome British ‘Tradition’.
If we are to be approaching anything that resembles a 21C Democracy, this country needs to disestablish the role of State and Church; more especially, a Church that exists largely on funding by the majority of taxpayers who do not subscribe to its function, status or position in the broader context of society or for that matter, in world-wide Christianity: perhaps they could start their missionary work among the native English.

20 March 2014 at 15:16  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

John Wrake

There is nothing new about law-breaking, whether you call yourself HRH, or Sir, or Rev. or simply Mr., Mrs. or Ms.

I refrain from adding, out of courtesy to our host, "or whether you call yourself Henry Tudor or Thomas Cranmer" (with no reference, it goes without saying, to the present-day bearer of that illustrious name.)

20 March 2014 at 15:22  
Blogger William Lewis said...

David Grey

"Disestablishment is necessary for a fair society.

What evidence is there that disestablishment would create a fairer society?

"Christians such as "his grace" don't like this because currently the established church of england accords with their own beliefs and thus that their particular branch of beliefs gets superior treatment than all others including those with other religious beliefs and those with none."

Christians like me think that having Christian influences is good for society. The CoE isn't some team that I choose to support because it shares some of my beliefs. It is, in my view, often a force for good in this country.

"Will Christians insist that the Church of England is replaced by the Mosque of England? Then stop being a hypocrite now whilst you have the majority."

Typical comment from, yet another, secularist unable to distinguish one religion from another. It is not in the least hypocritical to support the Church of England and oppose a Mosque of England, except in the eyes of a secularist who can only divide the world between the religious and the non-religious.

"The state should not have any opinion or influence or place any privilege based on a persons beliefs. That is secularism."

The state has, is and will always have an opinion of, and try to influence, the beliefs of its citizens. A secular state would be no different.

20 March 2014 at 15:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

William Lewis, Happy Jack finds himself agreeing with what you said above.

Jack asks, is being established now hurting the Christianity of the Church of England? If it continues to move away from its traditional beliefs and practices, will it really be a Christian church or just be an instrument of the State?

Jack would like to see a strong Christian Church exercising influence in our country and advising government on how laws can best promote Christian ways of living. Ways that work for the good of all. At the moment the influence seems to be from the government on to the Church of England and this is not good.

20 March 2014 at 15:44  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Dreadanught

You are amazingly inaccurate and very insulting there. You seem strikingly unaware of the heights of academic ability that many clergy in the C. of E have had, and often in many fields other than theology, natural science, plant biology, music, poetry, social reforms, the list is endless... Gilbert White, Keble Martin, Venns, George Herbert, and so on.... Runts??? Unreality, insult and blind prejudice struggle to front run there.

You seem horribly confused if you think the pyramid relates to Christianity. Are you not aware of how ignorant you sound if you mix the primary motif of the mystery religions with Christian belief and practice? I have found the Upper classes a decidedly mixed phenomenon in relation to Christianity. "Not many of noble birth are called" as St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians and not a lot has changed, for there is a bias towards excess in the aristocracy that doesn't like being challenged. Probably the most represented in the C of E are well educated people from the middle and upper middle classes actually, neither "runts" as you cruelly put it, nor upper class!!

You appear to hate the charismatics. What on earth are "flan fingers"? Do you also hate the deaf who move their arms and hands to communicate? Do you hate them as and when they sign "alleluiah" which is "waving flags at shoulder level"? I find these anti arm movement comments highly bigoted. Deaf people signing have been beaten up because of some of these intolerant and bigoted attitudes.

But I am not asking for you to be arrested for them. That is what free speech is.

20 March 2014 at 15:46  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Happy Jack

"Jack asks, is being established now hurting the Christianity of the Church of England? If it continues to move away from its traditional beliefs and practices, will it really be a Christian church or just be an instrument of the State?"

Indeed HJ. These are far more pertinent questions as to whether the CoE should be disestablished or not.

20 March 2014 at 15:58  
Blogger Jon said...

Explorer what did you mean when you said "A married couple would qualify for one set of mortgage relief, but an unmarried couple cohabiting would qualify for two sets. It would thus make sense for a young couple to live together without marrying if they wanted to afford a house."

What mortgage relief are you referring to? MIRAS was abolished years ago. If you mean principle private residence exemption from capital gains, two people would have to claim to be living at different addresses, in which case they're not co-habiting, so I'm not sure what your point is?

That there is any tax recognition at all for marriage is an oddity, really. Surely you get married because you want to, rather than because the government might want to bung you a couple of hundred quid a year? If it really is a better way to raise kids, over simply cohabitation, surely people would marry for the benefit of their kids?

Dreadnaught - Amen!

20 March 2014 at 16:17  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Lucy Mullen

You judge me harshly madam. Insulting was not my intention; I'm on the receiving end of that here often enough. I try not to take that path except may be to retaliate.

Runts??? Figuratively - If they were so parachuted in to a 'respectable' position in the lower ranks of the clergy (as through their parents assessment of their abilities to make it elsewhere)

all his [Landowning Gentry] children and remoter male-line descendants also listed, each with full names and details of birth, marriage, death, and any matters tending to enhance their social prestige, such as school and university education, military rank and regiment, Church of England cures...

The pyramid to which I refer is the British Class System.

What on earth are "flan fingers" I meant to write 'flingers': a light-hearted 'throw-away' invention of mine of no importance.



20 March 2014 at 16:33  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Jon

"Dreadnaught- Amen!"

Does that mean you also have an irrational hatred of people who...who...wait for it...what is it? Is it strangling kittens? Is it tripping up old ladies on zebra crossings? Is it pulling the wings off butterflies? No it is raising their arms in worship...oh, horrors...

And isn't "Amen" rather hypocritical when said of an anti-religious diatribe from a hardened atheist. Do you wish both to disrespect the meaning of the word but also steal it? Or is it just the "right-handed path" that the Christian and Jewish people on this blog are on about that you despise? If so feel free to use its dark side equivalent. "So mote it be" is the usual phrase used there.

20 March 2014 at 16:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Jon: 16:17

It was said of Soviet Russia that the industrial wage was deliberately set at a level that required both parents to work. That left the State free to inculcate children with the right attitudes from an early age. The mechanics of social engineering.

I was wondering about whether the same sort of thing applied here. As I said, just musing. Note the tense implied by 'would': an example from the past of a social revolution underway since the 70's. My point in your paragraph 2: disincentive to marriage. Accidental, or deliberate? Gramsci in action?





20 March 2014 at 16:49  
Blogger Len said...

Imagine.
John Lennon wrote 'Imagine' about 'a perfect world' that exists without God.This must be every atheists dream?.
How wrong can you get... what I imagine Lennon was actually proposing was a World without 'religion'.


Imagine' a Church' that exists with no denominations,no mortal man claiming to be 'the head ', no body of men deciding what everyone should believe, no men in strange garb lording it over the others,no candles no incense, no rituals,no money making schemes,no fake healing`s,no con men.No religion.

Hard to believe? Even harder to find.
Well this 'church' exists!.

So where is 'this church?.

It exists in the heavenly Realms and it is the Body of Christ with One True Head the Lord Jesus Christ and you cannot join this 'Church' you have to be born(or should I say re born) into it.
The Churches (the Denominations) are coming to the end of their times and what is being created down here is the final last days abomination which will present itself with stained dirt spattered clothes as the 'unblemished bride'.


20 March 2014 at 16:53  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Dreadnaught.

Have just read your later response which is more reasonable. It is inescapably insulting to use the word "runt". Quite some time in the past it could be that younger children without an estate could take up a living. However it was not the lesser intelligent, who generally went into the Army, as being in the church has always, notwithstanding the odd abuse, required a degree of learning- things like Latin, Greek and Hebrew. Hence the great mass of learning forwarded by learned men of the cloth, younger brothers or not. Actually in those days anyone less than hardy generally didn't survive, and the lesser intelligent or co-ordinated unfortunately right up to Victorian times did things like fall down stairs (no stairguards), fall in ponds, tread on thin ice, or various other things rather than survive.

A list of all that clergy of the Church of England have contributed to culture and learning would be a very very long one so I would not even attempt it.

Re pyramids. They do very accurately describe the social structures of mystery religions of the time, the further up the more stages of initiation and the smaller the group. Such structures still exist in some religious groupings. If you look at the NT, esp. the Book of Acts there are a variety of leadership structures; the C of E operates within the social constructs which are pyramid-ish but these are not theologically hard-wired, and we have very limited influence upon them, and that has probably been so for a long time.

20 March 2014 at 17:05  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Lucy Mullen

Consider this* if you insist on venting you displeasure at me personally; the issue is not something new.

Congregationalist George Hadfield, writer of the following letter to the then Prime Minister Charles, Earl Grey (1764-1845), was an author and politician, later MP for Sheffield 1852-74:

*Sir,

It is a matter of the deepest regret and surprise that no steps are taking by the Dissenters in England, at this critical juncture, to assert their principles and claim their just rights, when it is generally understood that his Majesty's ministers, or at least the majority of them, will concede nothing to us which they can possibly avoid; and that they intend to bring forward, next session, their plan of church reform, the tendency of which will be decidedly unfavourable to our interests, and will consolidate the political power and influence of one dominant sect.…

If, then, we owed Earl Grey and his colleagues any debt of gratitude, for doing us an act of justice before they took office, in getting the Test Laws repealed, we have now paid it; and it is time to look to our own interests, in which are involved the best interests of the country.

We are required to submit to the domination of a corrupt state church; to be governed by bishops; to see £3,5000,000 at the least (but more likely £5,00,000) annually expended in the maintenance of a clergy, of whom a vast majority do not preach the gospel; to see the cure of souls bought and sold in open market; to have the Universities closed against us, and all the iniquities of those degraded places continued; to be taxed, tithed, and rated to the support of a system which we abjure; to be compelled to submit to objectionable rites and ceremonies at marriage, baptism, and burial; – in one word, to be left out of the social compact, and degraded.…

We have hitherto demanded too little; and, consequently, we have been refused everything worth caring about. The bill for relieving places of worship from the poor rates, which was the fruit of the labours of the last session of Parliament, is no boon to us. It applies to churches in the establishment more than to ourselves, and I doubt much whether it will save the Dissenters £50 a year. I fear we have even misled the Government itself by asking for trifles, when we ought to have been contending for great principles. What signifies a small church-rate, when we should be contending against a corrupt state church? What is the trifling amount of procreates levied upon a very few of our chapels, in comparison of millions of pounds annually expended on a secular and dominant clergy? - and all this is done in a country burdened with a debt which grinds all! The real points at issue between the Government and us are very few, and may soon be stated. They are chiefly as follow, viz: –

1st. A total disconnection between church and state, leaving the details consequent thereupon to be dealt with by Parliament.
2nd.The repeal of the Act of Charles II., which enables bishops to sit in the House of Lords.
3rd. The repeal of all laws, which grant compulsory powers to raise money for the support of any church whatever.
4th. The reformation of the Universities, the repeal of all religious tests, and a grant of equal rights in them.
5th. A reformation of the laws relating to marriage and registration with equal rights in places of public burial.

20 March 2014 at 17:10  
Blogger IanCad said...

John Wrake @ 15:01

A courteous rejoinder. Thank You.

However, citing the Common Law (if I understand you correctly) as some form of immunity from the predations of any overly enthusiastic ecclesiastical influences dosen't hold water.

Neither do I see where the Law of Christ can be equated in any way with the penalties and proscriptions, which, by that law, are provided.

Hanging, drawing and quartering. Piercings, gougings. Trial by ordeal. All, were perfectly permissible under the Common Law.
I wonder what input Christ would offer?

I will concede that we live under a most remarkable system.
An unwritten constitution, an established church and, currently, a benign legal system. Neither do I see. as yet, any cravings to change this happy condition.
I hope it stays this way.

20 March 2014 at 17:15  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Why, dear Dreadnaught, there is a Church of Flan-flingers for Jesus a few miles outside Barchester on the road to Pulham Downe near the turning for Nether Regis. It's very well-attended so I believe, by servants (mainly cooks and scullions) and ag. labs. I can't say I have ventured through their portals, preferring the calm serenity of the Cathedral and the medieval loveliness of St Ursula-inside-the-Wardrobe where surplices are always well-starched and the curate rows for Oxford. As for your wild, no doubt-sherry inflamed rant on runts, I'll have you know my Lord the Bishop is no such thing (and neither am I, typos notwithstanding) being both of sound English stock. Too much levelling creates a flood plain and that's when the Bolsheviks sweep in with their five o'clock shadows and sweaty armpits. Urgh!

20 March 2014 at 17:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

No sherry at this hour dear lady, I have foolishly allowed my adc the afternoon orf to attend the foot-clinic. I am amused by you flight countenance I do confess!

20 March 2014 at 17:36  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ dreadnaught

In order to do justice to the historical context of that I would have to spend several hours of study which I do not have. Most of those issues are ancient, and set within a vastly different historical age.

I would advise against getting very excited about Bishops being present in the House of Lords too. Which is equally the Establishment keeping tabs on the church. But again that needs to be understood within the context of the whole and realising that part of the raison d'etre of the House of Lords is for each member to contribute their special area of knowledge to the legislative whole. Tony Blair made a dreadful mess of reforming it to leave a more politicised less independent set of scrutineers, but that is another story. Like it or not we church people exist and have as much right to a voice as anyone else. But the fashion seems to be to scream us down and tell us we are idiots these days, which unsurprisingly we object strongly to.

20 March 2014 at 18:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Happy Jack: "Avi, Happy Jack is fine and dandy. Had a rather heavy cold and took to bed with a hot whiskey, lemon and honey."

There must be something going around at the moment as someone else we know seems to have been absent for exactly the same period.

20 March 2014 at 18:48  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Spill the beans dear DanJ0 - I love a mystery but I like to know what's at the bottom of things, as I guess you do.

20 March 2014 at 19:21  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Lucy Mullen, the Barchester diocese is currently looking to appoint an Anglican deaconess to our mission station in Debra Dowa...I wonder if you might be persuaded to look after the spiritual needs of all those black Cordelias sponsored by the Flyte girl? Just a thought...

20 March 2014 at 19:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo, well that's the very odd thing about a virus. More than one person can get them as they are contagious. Most peculiar.

*chuckle*

20 March 2014 at 19:37  
Blogger John Wrake said...

Ian Cad at 15.01

That the punishments you cite were inflicted in earlier ages by those in power who were acting contrary to Common Law has no more relevance than the actions of present-day State power when it acts contrary to Common Law.

As I was trying to explain, law-breaking, in whatever age it occurs, whatever form it takes and by whoever undertakes it, does not invalidate the Law being broken.

Incidentally, our Constitution IS a written Constitution, made up by a number of documents rather than just one, all of which can be read by any interested party. One such document which sets out the belief of the Establish Church in 39 Articles can be seen in every copy of the Book of Common Prayer 1662.

I would not agree that we live under a benign judicial system at present, since treasonous politicians have made our laws subservient to foreign judges operating a system of law which has no basis in Common Law. Read the first paragraph of Article 37 if you doubt this.

I, for one, do not wish this situation to continue.

John Wrake.

20 March 2014 at 19:45  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Dreadnaught yesterday...you quote scripture but you have not comprehended it. Re Jesus and OT versus NT the Law WAS fulfilled and accomplished when he cried It is finished!' on the cross. Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly and became a substitute for the redeemed-taking our blame and imputing his rightrousness to us. The Law was fulfilled and BTW we see thectrue heart of God in this sphere with Joseph and Mary's supposed illegitimate pregancy... ' beijlng a rightous man he planned to divorce her quietly' and the prodigal son and woman taken in adultery stories. Try attacking Christianity tor stuff its actually guilty of.

If you are going to hang around a Protestant Christian blog making snide comments please do a bit more homework.

But I agree with you on disestablishment although maybe not for the reasons you think.

20 March 2014 at 19:58  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

A Protestant Blog, dear Rambling Steve? Goodness, and here's me thinking it was Anglican...'chuckles'

20 March 2014 at 20:01  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

PS still voting UKIP to punish Cameron even if we get Labour.

What did 'SSM is my legacy' Dave say to Vlad...'there will be costs'? Not for Putin but for Dave, yes.

Agree SSM not reversible,,thereforectime for a clear separation of church and state.

Jump.

Before.

Pushed.

20 March 2014 at 20:03  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

And my dear Mrs Proudie, there's silly me reading the 39 articles in the BCP by my bed and thinking they were Anglican!!!

20 March 2014 at 20:06  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Oh Rambling Steve you are a card and no mistake. Do ramble along to The Palace when you have time on your hands and we will clink our sherry glasses and draw false moustaches on photographs of Mother Teresa...oh, no need as Mother Nature beat us to it.

20 March 2014 at 20:48  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Mrs Proudie, Happy Jack says that was a very unkind comment about Mother Teresa. Unlike your good self, she was not a lady of refinement or education.

Now, as far as Jack can tell, Anglicanism and Protestantism are different. His Grace has this on his sidebar:

"The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning."
(Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961)

Some commenters seem to overlook this when they launch attacks on the early Church. They claim the organised Church is down to empire building by Constantine and that it imported paganism. Then some say this is down to the Roman Catholic Church which actually really only came into being in the 11th Century after the row with the Eastern Church.

As Christians, we all share in the wonderful achievements of the Church down the ages. We also share in the faults and mistakes of the Church.

20 March 2014 at 21:34  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Mrs Proudie,

Just so long as there are no digs at the lovely Signooa Neroni!

20 March 2014 at 21:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Signora, even.

20 March 2014 at 21:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

For the avoidance of doubt, it was typo: not a reference to the Signora's figure.

20 March 2014 at 21:52  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Explorer, are you now pursuing Signora Neroni? If so, you are a cad. A cad, I say, Sir!

20 March 2014 at 22:00  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

.... or a cod!

*chuckle*

20 March 2014 at 22:00  
Blogger The Explorer said...

And this from the man who was telling us about Honey!

20 March 2014 at 22:08  
Blogger IanCad said...

John Wrake,

I'm not sure exactly as to how much we are at odds here.

Your points are well taken. Particularly those pertaining to the malignant influence of foreign judges and our venal politicians.

I am a simple soul and recognize the merit of the US Bill of Rights (I know, we had one first) but it is there for all to see.

Perhaps we are headed for perilous times.

Ian.

20 March 2014 at 22:18  
Blogger guy montrose said...

I think Farage is looking at this through a Libertarian lens. The State should not really be involved in matters of religion and religion should be free to marry people depending on their faith. That's the point isn't it, it is the fact that two people are married in the eyes of their God not wether or not The State agrees to the marriage. Farage is not preaching State intolerance to religion in the way that The LEFT does. Farage is freeing relideon from the shackles of the State and that is extremely noble!

20 March 2014 at 22:26  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Explorer, should Happy Jack ever have more than one amorous interest, he would ensure the parties are unknown to one another. He attempts to maintain some standards.

20 March 2014 at 22:51  
Blogger Bunyip Bluegum said...

Happy Jack @ 20.34

"Then some say this is down to the Roman Catholic Church which actually really only came into being in the 11th Century after the row with the Eastern Church."

It depends what is meant by Roman Catholic. It is not exclusively the Latin rite, as in the west.

There are also Eastern rite Catholics in union with Rome who claim a lineage before the 11th century.

20 March 2014 at 22:57  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Happy Jack
"he would ensure the parties are known to one another"
- and then watch? Does Happy Jack enjoy female wrestling or something?

20 March 2014 at 23:12  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Steve Appleseed said:

If you are going to hang around a Protestant Christian blog making snide comments please do a bit more homework.

What's this if not snide? I'll take no lessons from you mister, about posting here: nor do I intend to try to fathom your own insights in to scripture. Either the text in the Bible is right or it's wrong. If it is wrong; fix it.

The only Christian worth reading here as far as I am concerned is Len - and look at how so the called Christians like to rip the piss out of him because he doesn't run with the pack!

Apart from this, as I understand the story, Jesus was a Jew and remained a Jew. He didn't set out to found a new religion - he was a revolutionary who wanted to reform the Judaism in which he was brought up. The rest is the product of continuous revision, repression and construct to extend the life of the crumbling western Roman Empire hundreds of years after his demise.

I hate quoting scripture too for the simple reason I don't believe in its provenance or the authority people who consume it as historical fact (when it clearly isn't) their entire lives, and can still fail to agree on any matter, when interpretation is endlessly introduced. I did so to point to contradictions that anyone can read and to elicit intelligent responses to my points - it is a futile pursuit, and that is the only truth I have found on offer.

The Bible, as is the Koran, a fudge to reason or clarity of meaning. They have both been proven to wreak havoc and injustice on humanity. I don't hate Christians or Muslims as people, but I reject their doctrines. I reject the intrusion and demands for privileged status in law as Lucy Mullen feels that her Anglican Rights should prevail over my democratic, atheist entitlement. The lady shudders at the thought that recorded historical evidence that even Christians themselves as I have shown, have sought to redress over many, many years. That particular injustice has prevailed too long. Christianity as I was introduced to it, was a matter of personal freedom of choice, unaffected by the weight of laws of the land or 'traditional' expectations..

20 March 2014 at 23:15  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

My dear Lucy, are you toying with Happy Jack? Jack said he would ensure said ladies were unknown to one another! And do ladies wrestle?

21 March 2014 at 00:25  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Dreadnaught
I'm free, I'm free
And freedom tastes of reality
I'm free, I'm free
And I'm waiting for you to follow me

If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high
You'd laugh and say, "Nothing's that simple"
But you've been told many times before
Messiahs pointed to the door
No one had the guts to leave the temple

I'm free, I'm free
And freedom tastes of reality

I'm free, I'm free
And I'm waiting for you to follow me

How can we follow?
How can we follow?



21 March 2014 at 03:27  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Pointless in trying to flirt with me Happy Jack. I only flirt with lovely Catholic boys and the only one on this blog was given the boot.

21 March 2014 at 04:40  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Dreadnaught @ 23 :15

Nice to have someone put in a word for Len.

"The rest is the product of continuous revision, repression and construct."

In your view, when was the earliest New-Testament book written, and when was the last? Two dates will do fine.

21 March 2014 at 07:24  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Lucy @ 23:12

All tongue-in-cheek stuff, relating to Mrs Proudie and Signora Neroni.

As Thomas More had it, "A man may live for the next world, and yet be merry."

21 March 2014 at 08:02  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Dreadnaught, I wasn't asking you to 'fathom my insights' I was asking you to comprehend rather than misrepresent what you criticise. Which your response failed to do.

I have no intention of apologising on God's behalf for the severity of parts of the Mosaic Law, but to constantly fling it like a stink bomb into discussions about contemporary Christianity is a boring and irrelevant distraction tactic.

The bible isn't broke, we are and its our repair manual. But as John 3:19 says we have to want to be fixed and some of us too in love with the vision of ourselves as enlightened paragons of reason ( having read The God Delusion) to see what's wrong.

Incidentally, I am in Birmingham for a conference this morning and listening to local Radio Unity 93.6 FM. Total Muslim radio with long whining prayers in Arabic, hard line sermons from the Quran, adverts for '100% halal' meat and emotional appeals tor aid to Palestine. Wonder who funds it?

Taste of things to come. Kick out good religion, get bad religion.

21 March 2014 at 08:10  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Coming late to this thread, although I have mixed feelings about this, I think that overall I favour the Ukip, "two marriages" proposal. That will challenge those who are serious about being married in front of God, forming a truly sincerely Christian marriage. To flourish once more as The Church of God in England, it needs to stop being the Church of England, following the trends of political leaders.
Cameron has so redefined State marriage that , for a Christian, it has little to no content in it now. State laws are swinging so far away from their original, approximately scriptural origins, that the deepening gulf can no longer be bridged with integrity. UKIP is just being more honest in its approach than the established parties and indeed, many in the present C of E. Most of my liberal Anglican friends seem to hate the idea of two marriages and possible disestablishment, but I see strengths. A Church that follows society will fail, whereas one that is distinctly different will attract new believers.
The nails have been driven into the coffin of close cooperation between Church and State by the socialist parties and the and pretend conservative party.
If a two marriage ceremony situation develops, part of me, my heart, will feel sad for another step that moves away from a Christian orientated wider society, but my thinking and spiritual parts will know that this is the more honest approach and one that by testing the unseen Church, the true followers, it will lead to new growth in genuine believers. The Church will then have to redefine its purpose of course, which should always have been about preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, not accommodating fashionable trends.

21 March 2014 at 08:17  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Steve A

As an atheist I have a special abhorrence of any religion that still uses violence, coercion and selective persecution to maintain its existence, as in the case of Islam.

Leaving out biblical contradictions for the moment, I can guarantee that if moves were afoot to remove Islam from our midst there would be howls of dissent from the heads of Churches who have made such encroachments acceptable.

As much as I dislike to say it - only another action from a united Christendom will contain its advance.

And just for the record, I pity your presence in 'the heart of darkness UK'

21 March 2014 at 09:32  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Happy Jack - I know, a momentary lapse of excessive mirth and yes, perhaps a little unkindness - I recant of course...

21 March 2014 at 09:54  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 March 2014 at 09:54  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Happy Jack

Sorry a genuine misread. And yes some ladies, or "ladies" do wrestle, and sometimes -ahem- I have been told, with mud. I have heard a rumour that Mrs. Proudie sells tickets under the counter of the Cathedral bookstall for such events. For the Church of course.

21 March 2014 at 10:23  
Blogger bluedog said...

David Hussell @ 08.17 says, 'A Church that follows society will fail, whereas one that is distinctly different will attract new believers.'

But who would pay for the upkeep of the churches if the CofE were to be privatised? Without question, the RCC stands in the wings ready to make the British government an offer it can't refuse.

21 March 2014 at 10:48  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Indeed I do dear Lucy, one has to rustle up funds for the steeple somehow in these straightened times. I usually book a troupe of Bulgarian nuns, known as the Big Sisters of Plovdiv, and set up an old paddling pool in the Cloisters. Such fun.

21 March 2014 at 10:53  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Explorer
"Anyway, before that happened a suicide bomber would reduce it to rubble.'
I remeber a security guard sniffing my water bottle at the Al-Aqsa mosque.The damage from D M Rohan's (a Christian fanatic) arson attempt was still visible.

21 March 2014 at 10:58  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Explorer

I don't and I don't think anyone could answer such a rather devious question.

You would know quite well, that the politically motivated and selectively compiled New testaments under Constantine, relies heavily on the equally dateless legacy of the Old. The multi-authorship of the NT anthology is usually accepted to hold in part at least, the 'attributed' testaments of certain identified authors and other obscure texts. Combined with with unbounded bias, they offer no specific dates for the claimed events themselves. Given the accepted truth that such astounding did take place, the lack of hard evidence was very remiss of the contributors. I can find no excuse for the translators and compilers other than to provide 'built-in' opacity.

For the most part, the entire Bible holds no historically accurate or verifiable primary source evidence: if it was being written today it would be regarded as evidence but as anecdote and hearsay.

21 March 2014 at 11:07  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Avi,

20 March 2014 15:12

Couldn't agree more with that post. I'd add my own theory, which is just off the top of my head, so won't spend hours defending it, but I think liberal faiths are on the wane because they are becoming echo chambers for the secular world in which it just becomes a 'social activity' and nothing else; i.e. something you don't actually need a religion or faith for. Which is sad, because a faith & religion can and should be much deeper than yoga classes in 'the temple' (as our reform brothers and sisters call Shuls)etc etc.

21 March 2014 at 11:11  
Blogger Anthony Smith said...

Worth reading Jonathan Chaplin on this issue, from 2012 at Fulcrum: A Time to Marry – Twice.

21 March 2014 at 11:33  
Blogger Kosta said...

@ E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles

There are no Jews mentioned in the bible.

There are Judeans, Judites, Hebrews, and others... No Jews.

You've been fooled.

21 March 2014 at 11:38  
Blogger IanCad said...

bluedog wrote:

"--Without question, the RCC stands in the wings ready to make the British government an offer it can't refuse."

I do not question any insights you may have. There are the many wise postings that attest to your sagacity.

I may be a bit dim but I just can't inagine what that "offer" could be.

21 March 2014 at 11:47  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ dreadnaught
Your historiography is way out. What you are doing is taking today's expectations and backdating them to the history of 2000 years ago. Just as you did with that earlier letter.

This would be severely marked down in the first year of A level in history.

What you need to be doing is comparing the texts to contemporary classical historical texts, not to contemporary ones. IF you do that you will be blown away. Incidentally the church is not bereft of high level classicists, papyrologists and early church historians. The evidence in the terms of that time is overwhelming.

You really do need to remember that they didn't have computers, search engines or even much in the way of windows in their houses, and they shared cramped dark spaces with candles. So the work of collecting and ordering data was very very different to now. Judge a period with criteria relevant to that period; it is harder work, but much more rewarding in its outcomes.

21 March 2014 at 11:53  
Blogger Kosta said...

@ E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles

your English translation has deceived you

21 March 2014 at 11:57  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Dreanaught @ 11:07.

Not a devious question. Absolutely basic as a starting point for New-Testament scholarship.

The NT contains a developed view of Christ's divinity. That's irritating for liberal theology's nice-guy-in-sandals-who-died perspective.

Solution. Christology was invented over centuries. The NT books were written long after the death of Christ, and not by the people whose names they bear.

The Christian view. Christology developed early because those who had experienced the risen Christ talked about it; and they, or those they talked to, wrote it down.

One further question. Do you consider carbon dating to be reliable?

21 March 2014 at 12:26  
Blogger IanCad said...

Kostas wrote:

"There are no Jews mentioned in the bible"

I'm sure Ernst ould address this but, as I understand, he is off on a job interview today so excuse me for jumping in.

"Jews" are mentioned well over two hundred times in the King James Version.

21 March 2014 at 13:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older