Friday, December 14, 2012

Cameron treats the Church of England with contempt


The revelation that neither the Church of England nor the Church of Wales were informed in advance of the Government's decision to outlaw their officiation over same-sex weddings is absolutely astonishing. Lambeth Palace might expect such terse treatment from the Bishop of Rome, but not from the British Government, especially when it is led by a Conservative prime minister.

Heeding the pleas of the Unitarians, Quakers and Liberal Jews, we are now in the absurd situation where the law will permit each religion and every denomination to opt-in to hosting same-sex weddings, but Anglicans will be specifically prohibited by legal statute. It will require an amendment to Canon Law and further primary legislation to permit Anglican clerics to preside over a gay nuptial mass.

There are some who might say that the Church of England has brought this upon itself: in its response to the Government's 'consultation' on gay marriage in June, they stressed that 'the canons of the Church of England define marriage, in accordance with Christ's teaching and the doctrine of the Church, as being between a man and a woman'. Since Canon Law and the Prayer Book are also acts of parliament, we would have been in the situation of Parliament enacting and sustaining two mutually-exclusive acts with conflicting definitions of marriage.

And so we have the ‘quadruple lock’, intended to ensure that religions or specific denominations that remain opposed to same-sex marriage on theological grounds cannot be compelled to host gay weddings against their consciences and traditions. But the Anglican lock is one that invites allegations of 'bigotry' and 'homophobia'; indeed, it specifically limits its ability to 'get with the programme'. There are those who might say that Parliament is also limiting by statute the Church's mission to love its gay neighbour, and that impinges upon Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of thought conscience and religion.

It is not now the Church of England (or Wales) which is vulnerable to legal challenge, but the British Government. For any cleric in either church who decides to preside over a gay wedding will be in breach not only of Canon Law but Statute Law, and his or her only remedy will be through the ECtHR. If secular law recognises same-sex civil marriages, it is difficult to see how a law specifically prohibiting Anglicans to recognise and conduct same-sex weddings can be sustained.

We are no longer talking about compulsion: there is no question of (say) the Roman Catholic Church being forced against its theological traditions to host or bless such unions. The Equality Act 2010 is to be amended to ensure that religious organisations are not vulnerable to discrimination claims for refusing to marry a same-sex couple (or allowing their premises to be used for this purpose). But the Church of England is established, and so legally obliged to bury the dead and conduct weddings for anyone in the parish who makes the request (subject, of course, to Canon Law). The personal religious beliefs of those parishioners are irelevant: if a Muslim and a Moonie wish to marry under the aegis of and in accordance with the rites of the Church of England, the Church is obliged by statute to perform the ceremony (the only exemption being certain grounds of divorce).

So, the Government found itself between a rock and a hard place, and the Church of England hoist by its own petard: either Parliament legislated for a specific exemption for the Established Church in accordance with Canon Law (ie Statute Law upholds that it remains unlawful for ministers of the Church of England to preside over same-sex union), or it must amend the Constitution by repealing the legal requirement upon the Church of England to marry any heterosexual couple who makes the request.

This would have constituted ten bold steps along the path of disestablishment: the easier political option by far (though in many respects the least satisfactory), was to 'lock' Canon Law into the proposed legislation for same-sex marriage.

It is somewhat ironic that Cameron has effectively averted Anglican schism by reinforcing Canon Law on marriage, and not even having the courtesy to inform the Archbishop of Canterbury (or the Archbishop designate) of his decision. This isn't merely rudeness; it is constitutional ignorance and political crassness. Cameron is all for gender equality when it comes to women bishops, but his commitment to the 'fundamental human right' of gay marriage is nothing but superficial posturing. Noting how long it has taken (..is taking...) the Church of England to 'get with the programme' on gender equality, we must be looking at 50 years or so before the General Synod is likely to amend Canon Law to redefine marriage.

His Grace prophesied earlier this year that gay marriage would turn out to be Cameron's Poll Tax. He was wrong: it is the Poll Tax, hunting ban, Clause IV and the Iraq War all rolled into one. It is a disaster for both the country and the Conservative Party: Cameron has pitched the State against the Church and started a culture war of which there will be no end, there will be no end, there will be no end.

150 Comments:

Blogger Jae Kay said...

The Church of England's official statement says the Government's proposals are necessary. Maybe you need to start by convincing them that they are wrong?

http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/marriage,-family-and-sexuality-issues/same-sex-marriage/same-same-marriage-and-the-church-of-england-an-explanatory-note.aspx

14 December 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

"Canon Law and the Prayer Book are also acts of parliament"

This seems a very peculiar arrangement for any Church whose authority must surely come from God. I didn't realise this was what constituted 'Establishment'.

14 December 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Church in Wales

14 December 2012 at 13:24  
Blogger Roy said...

In fairness to David Cameron he does have some other problems on his mind at the moment, two of which involve his "equality" minister, Maria Miller; did she fiddle her expenses and did her spin doctor try to suppress the story by threatening the Daily Telegraph with legislation to control the press?

14 December 2012 at 13:27  
Blogger graham wood said...

Roy said:
"did she fiddle her expenses".

Like the BBC's reporting, this is to trivialise. Re phrased it should read: Did Mrs Miller engage in the criminal offence of fraud at the expense of the British taxpayer to the tune of £90,000?

14 December 2012 at 13:42  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

"there will be no end, there will be no end, there will be no end."

No, maybe a bit of fiery persecution will refine the CofE and we will once more here the word of the Lord preached from the pulpits across the nation.

14 December 2012 at 13:44  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The concept of redefining marriage while giving churches the ability to 'opt out' is a subtle trap. What has always mattered is the nature of the institution in law, and not the ceremony practiced in a church. If marriage is redefined, then churches should refuse to perform legal marriages as a testimony against the new definition.

carl

14 December 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

I note that Your Grace states "we must be looking at 50 years or so before the General Synod is likely to amend Canon Law to redefine marriage".

Does this mean that Your Grace believes that the Church of England will, eventually, become so depressingly liberal that it will decide that God was wrong and that man is right over this issue?

14 December 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Also, following on from what Carl has suggested, I am led again to question whether Bible-believing Christians should, if this goes ahead, seek to ignore the civil aspect of the marriage and simply put themselves before God and His people. After all, there is no law that says you MUST be legally married to have a wedding service in a non-CofE church, as far as I am aware.
Obviously, with the fact that we are all human and subject to erring from time to time, some form of legal contract should be drawn up but I would be highly inclined to have it without any reference to marriage (still assuming that SSM comes into existence) so as to show that I was in no way having anything to do with the state-sponsored idiocy that this clearly is.

14 December 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger Anglican said...

Cameron is no Conservative and no Christian, though he may delude himself that he is. He is in reality a very liberal Liberal – so why doesn’t he challenge Nick Clegg for the leadership of the Lib Dems?

14 December 2012 at 14:24  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
How sad this all is. Who started this all and why. That is the question that should be constantly asked. Equality? With what? A Civil ceremony is effectively marriage in all but name and there’s the rub. They want the name without the conditions.
Give them a fancier civil service if they want but let the Government be real, get with the programme, same sex relationships are NOT THE SAME as heterosexual relationships, period.

14 December 2012 at 14:28  
Blogger Alex Ross-Shaw said...

Come on, this is slightly hysterical.

It's not going to be Cameron's anything, frankly.

The difference with this and Clause IV is that Clause IV demonstrated that the Labour Party had 'changed' to the electorate, what the gay marriage issue has done is show the electorate how many Tory MPs are actually unchanged.

As for Iraq etc, I simply don't see Cameron being hounded over gay marriage in the same way Blair is over Iraq.

It will come in, the world will continue to turn, and that will be that.

14 December 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Mr Integrity

A definition of marriage that encompasses both heterosexuals and homosexuals will declare that a homosexual relationship is equivalent to heterosexual relationship in every way; that homosexuality may constitute just as valid a foundation of civilization as heterosexuality. The equality they crave is the the equality of legitimacy.

carl

14 December 2012 at 14:41  
Blogger Enemyof the State said...

Cameron is spiritually blind. The only hope is to pray for him as he is truly in total darkness.

14 December 2012 at 14:54  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Carl,
Legitimacy? They have established that under Blair. This is all to do with destroying traditional lifestyles, nothing else.

14 December 2012 at 15:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Mr Cameron relying on the brute force of a Parliamentary majority.

Opinions which had been unchallenged for two millennia and which had commanded the adherence of the greatest Christian intellects, the noblest Christian souls, not to mention hundreds of millions of ordinary, decent people - were suddenly treated as if they were rancid and loathsome survivals from the Old Stone Age.

There is a lesson in all this. If, as a Tory, you are ever tempted to agree with Harriet Harman, you should first ensure that the tempter is not wearing two horns and a tail. Downing Street was taken aback by the extent of the dismay. Other Tories were taken aback by the extent of Downing Street's naïveté.

There is a price to pay. In the opinion of almost all wise Tories. Homosexual marriage is a disaster in the making. The tactical miscalculation has spread alarm and despondency: has undermined trust and faith. Memo to No.10; for God's sake avoid this foolishnesses.

14 December 2012 at 15:22  
Blogger Galant said...

I read this today - seems pertinent - also seems to suggest that one of the causes of the current situation is the 'death' of Natural Law:

"Under liberalism, liberty is widely regarded as the freedom to pursue one’s individual desires—short of compromising other people’s rights—though liberals disagree about whether and to what extent government should or must be a partner in assisting in that pursuit. In an extreme variant (much in evidence today), the government’s role needs to be extensive in making possible the varied pursuits of individuals. While this argument appears cloaked in the language of collectivism, its aim is government-sponsored-and-supported pursuit of individual appetite."

Taken from - http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/12/7411/

14 December 2012 at 15:26  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

The Archbishop of the disestablished Church in Wales Dr Barry Morgan was exceedingly miffed that it would be made illegal for the Church in Wales to offer same-sex marriages.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20687531
Dr Morgan likes to champion minority causes however divisive they may be. He was very keen to appoint the first gay bishop and now the first woman bishop but he made a hash of that by treating with contempt a minority in his own church just as the Church of England has done by not securing an honoured place for traditionalists as promised. If they want to further their liberal cause and are sincere in the desire to make provision for those who are unable to accept this departure from the teaching and tradition of the Apostolic church, why do they not make provision in the first instance? The reason is clear. They just want rid of traditionalists.

14 December 2012 at 15:33  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Homosexuals crave to have their behaviour sanctified by the Church, something God cannot do because he abhors such conduct.

The homosexual lifestyle is expressly forbidden in Scripture. There are several references underlining this in both the Old and the New Testaments (eg Leviticus 18:22; Romans1:26-32).

No amount of reinterpretation of the Holy Scripture in the light of social or cultural considerations can so moderate the implications of the Word of God on these issues as to convince even the most liberal of theologians that the Holy Scripture says anything but that in the eyes of God homosexuality and lesbianism are wrong.

14 December 2012 at 15:58  
Blogger Naomi King said...



David Cameron has taken himself out of God's protection (Maria Miller also) and he is going to be eaten alive.

Psalm 2 ia apposite

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

14 December 2012 at 16:11  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

The government are making this up as they go along. I am sure they are reading various blogs and getting their ideas. Watching the Miller woman answering questions she was fudging. You could see she didn't really know what the hell she was on about a lot of the time.

I must say this is a very destructive government we have now. From their HoL attack to legalising drugs and same sex “marriage” they are tearing the heart out of our society and wreaking havoc.

14 December 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



The Inspector is also astonished. He very much doubts he’s ever seen a potential piece of legislation dragged kicking and screaming into the chamber before being considered by the house, as it lies there bleeding on the floor. This kind of conduct reminds one of the way scheming Johnny European operated in those artificial states created after the Great War, often at gun point. Extraordinary business to see it happen in what used to be the mother of all parliaments, don’t you think !

One thinks we can all forget about disestablishment in our lifetimes. The CoE is far too handy a government tool to be put out to grass. And once the place is feminised by women bishops, all resistance will cease. Toady acquiescence will be the order of the day. The (lady) ++Canterbury will be merely ranked with a junior minister in the Home Office, when the time comes.

Rome anyone ?



14 December 2012 at 17:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Another observation…

SSM is being patronised by the Prime Minister. Nothing wrong with patronage if the man genuinely feels it is the right thing to do. And if it is the right thing to do, then the PM will guide it carefully and nourish it as it makes it way through the legislature. Shouldn’t be difficult, after all it is the right thing to do. He might have doubts about the package as it develops and is adapted by the legislature, but these doubts can be countered in good time by his quiet intervention. You know, a word in the right ears - that is how these things are done. After all it shouldn’t be too difficult, it being the right thing to do.

So, why does SSM seem to the Inspector to be nothing more than a favour by Cameron to people unknown. A favour he has clearly tired of championing, and is now trying to shove its roundness through the square hole of what is achievable, with haste indecent. Surely it cannot be the suits in the background, the Conservative party governors, have finally announced their displeasure with the boy ? When you are truly the masters, you can afford to sit back over a long period and watch and bide your time. But when you finally rouse yourselves into action, the end is nigh…

heh heh ! He answers to the board, just like everyone else !





14 December 2012 at 17:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah there you are, good to see you at the club
Very good of you to invite me
Right ho, I’ll get straight down to it. We have every confidence in David you know, but we are rather concerned he might trip himself up on gay marriage
Indeed. Although he hasn’t admitted to it, we believe its part of the commitment to Clegg to keep him on board. The only mystery is why Clegg isn’t in there with him shouting about it
Indubitably old chap. The Liberals are riddled with queers, all wanting to play at happy families. But it’s a relatively small concession.
Concession ?
Very much so, holds for stable government you see. That’s always number one on the wish list of the international money men. It means they are not tempted to up sticks and stay here instead.
So you’re sounding me out for the leadership
That’s it, you and a handful of others. After all, we need to be prepared if the worst happens. And of course, this meeting didn’t happen, did it.
Quite
Excellent !

14 December 2012 at 17:36  
Blogger Tony B said...

Inspector, isn't the Conservative party also "riddled with queers", as you put it? Anyone would think homosexuality was pretty commonplace and normal...

14 December 2012 at 18:18  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Government unabashed in breaking commitment over same-­‐sex ‘marriage’

In March 2012, the Government published its consultation document in which it stressed repeatedly that there was no prospect of religious organisations being permitted to conduct same-­‐sex ‘marriage’ ceremonies.

Just nine months later, in its ‘response’ to the consultation, the Government announced its plans to allow same-­‐sex marriage ceremonies by religious groups.

What confidence does this give that the Government will keep its most recent ‘commitments’?

Consultation Document (March 2012)

“The Government aims to address the following issues as part of this work ... (ii) to make no changes to how religious organisations solemnize marriages i.e. marriages solemnized through a religious ceremony and on religious premises would still only be legally possible between a man and a woman. The Government is not seeking to change how religious organisations define religious marriage and any subsequent legislation would be clear that no religious organisation could conduct a religious marriage ceremony on religious premises for same-­‐sex couples.”

Equal civil marriage: a consultation Government Equalities Office, March 2012 Page 4 Emphasis added

Government’s Consultation Response (December 2012)

“...the response I am publishing today makes it clear that we will enable same-­‐sex couples to get married through a civil ceremony. We will also enable religious organisations that wish to conduct same-­‐sex marriages to do so ...”

Rt Hon. Maria Miller MP, Minister for Women and Equalities, House of Commons, 12th December 2012 Emphasis added

“The consultation proposed that religious organisations would be banned from conducting marriages for same-­‐sex couples ...The Government intends to allow those religious organisations that want to conduct marriages for same-­‐sex couples to ‘opt-­‐in’ while making clear that they are under no obligation to do so.”

Equal Marriage: The Government’s response, HM Government, December 2012 Page 7

14 December 2012 at 18:20  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Tony B

Homosexuals openly acknowledge that they represent about 1 % of the population. They openly acknowledge that they lied when a few years back when they said they were about 10 %, 'for effect'.

Well if they lied about that could they now be lying about the public support for this legislation, I wonder ?

14 December 2012 at 18:23  
Blogger Tony B said...

Is it only homosexuals that tell lies now?

14 December 2012 at 18:32  
Blogger Naomi King said...


No, but they certainly tell lots of them.

14 December 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

We're basically Other to some people. At least it gives Jews a bit of a break, I suppose.

14 December 2012 at 19:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tony B. One is going to stick ones head out now to be shot down by the usual suspect as he says this. Any conservative who is a homosexual is a worthwhile member of society and advocate of the status quo. His or her sexual leanings have nothing to do with their politics. In other words how damn refreshing – homosexuals who don’t want any special considerations, and actually want to live their lives in peace and who don’t want to draw attention to their private life.

Oh, if only they were ALL like that !


14 December 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger Bridget said...

@carl jacobs
"that homosexuality may constitute just as valid a foundation of civilization as heterosexuality" and so on....
My dear Mr. Jacobs, if it were left up to the fruit of homosexuality, there would be no civilization within a generation or so. 
Marriage as a relationship intrinsically open to procreation (the begetting and rearing of children within a family) is worth your consideration not just as social or civilizational convention but ontological reality. It's sad that those in homosexual relationships feel they can only legitimate them by viewing them as what they are not. 

14 December 2012 at 19:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well said Bridget. One might add that for children growing up into today’s morally decayed world, homosexualists are just one of the predatory dangers they face, along with the local drug dealer...


14 December 2012 at 19:31  
Blogger Jonathan Tallon said...

To Naomi:
1) There are plenty of not that liberal theologians who are convinced that the Bible says very little about modern, committed homosexual relationships, in the same way that biblical condemnation of usury doesn't stop us from taking out mortgages or having a bank account.

2) It was religious organisations, in the consultation, that asked for the right to marry same-sex couples. It was also religious organisations that pointed out that the government attempt to divide up 'civil' marriage from 'religious' marriage was a mistake.

To Office of Inspector General: your comment about homosexuals being predatory dangers for children says a lot about you and nothing about homosexuals.

14 December 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger bluedog said...

Very perceptive, Your Grace, and the analogy of the hunting ban is particularly apposite.

About the only time Cameron has spoken the truth to the electorate was when he said, 'I am the heir to Blair'. But nobody believed him because he was Conservative leader and looked and sounded that part. We now understand what Cameron meant, he wasn't bluffing and he's even worse than Blair.

Cameron proposes to enact yet more legislation which will prove to be completely unenforceable, like the hunting ban which the police sensibly prefer to ignore. The police rely on community support, and know when they are hopelessly outnumbered and cannot win due to lack of support.

One can imagine a situation developing in one of the new academies where there is parental input. Let us imagine that after a number of talks by apostles of the Terrence Higgins Trust, the parents revolt and say, No more'. The parents then refuse to accept an further homosexual propaganda on site. What to do? Well the police can't arrest all the parents, and they will not.

So the law of the land will continue to be flouted with impunity, because the law is written by fools like Cameron who care nothing for the electorate. Cameron is simply slave to ideas he does not understand and which are rejected by the British people.

14 December 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger Naomi King said...




What I have observed, however, is that amongst those who advocate such things as the "gay Christian movement" there is a marked aversion to respecting the authority of Holy Scripture on anything.

Once having declared that homosexual relationships are acceptable, one can do nothing else but adopt an equally selective view of the rest of Holy Scripture. There is then no longer any standard that can reasonably be upheld that is based on scriptural, or any other, truth.

14 December 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Why should anyone have been informed?

For ages, conservative Christians have been scaremongering to the effect that this is all a slippery slope towards the established church being forced to perform gay weddings. Well now it's going to be illegal.

Happy now?

No of course not. You want to keep the option open so you can carry on scaremongering. Cameron has given the church exactly what they wanted. A cast iron guarantee that they can remain stuck in the past for evermore.

14 December 2012 at 20:51  
Blogger St Bruno said...

In my humble opinion I have always thought that the
issue of gays marrying in churches especially Church of England
was a matter of changing the Constitution of England.

Surely their are bigger forces at play behind the thrones to let the matter
be resolved by mere commoners. Mr Cameron may think he has a private path
to the seat of divine power but he will soon find out that England and Britain has
a will of its own and an established Church of its own that should not be belittled for the sake of any minority!

14 December 2012 at 21:19  
Blogger Naomi King said...



Homosexual rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has questioned the legality of the government’s plans to make it illegal for the Church of England and Church in Wales to perform same-sex ‘marriages’.

Peter Tatchell says protections for churches open to legal challenge. Mr Tatchell said: "This faith-based discrimination could be open to legal challenge. The government is treating two churches differently from all other religions. Discriminating between faith groups is probably illegal under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights".

Mr Tatchell’s comments will most likely deepen the already existing unease about churches facing possible legal challenge.

14 December 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger AGustavoG said...

Jonathan Tallon,
In what way does the notion of "homosexualists" being "predatory" not say anything about homosexuals (who forward an homosexualist agenda)?
If an adult openly attempted to persuade a child of the acceptability of sexual activity between a child and an adult, say, would you regard that adult as being predatory? As being someone who was trying to instill a morally debased and spiritually debilitating worldview on unformed innocents?
Hard for you to accept, perhaps, but many believe that homosexual practice is morally debased and spiritually debilitating and that those who would force others to treat it otherwise are being predatory. As for Scripture having little to say about homosexuality, so what? Mother Church, whose witness Scripture is, has plenty to say. It's a pity you don't pay attention.
http://www.humanumreview.com/articles/view/mechanism-public-reason-and-the-anthropology-of-orientation

14 December 2012 at 21:49  
Blogger John Magee said...

Naomi

I deeply admire your devotion and loyality to the Church you love and respect. Your posts reflect your deep concern and they are wonderfuly written and researched. I share your grief because it should give no RC any cause to gloat and see one of it's children, the C of E, suffer because our turn is coming soon and we will face this sort of mess and possible schism. But where were you and other traditionalists in the past when the C of E began to unravel at a rapid speed as early as the 1970's?

The writing was on the wall back then when your Church embraced trendy liberal social causes. That's when the dam broke and there was no stopping the chaos you are watching unflod before your eyes today over this Gay marriage catastrophe.

The first step toward paving he way for Gay marriage eventually being sanctioned by the C of E was when it allowed women to be ordained priestesses. It was an obvious step guided by liberals on a step by step slow walk down the alse embracing every new trend until you got bishopettes and now this abomination called Gay "marriage". Why didn't you grasp this back in the 90's?

The great tragedy of all this is the loss of the C of E as the possible link with the union of the Roman Catholic Latin Church in the West and the Greek othodox Churches in the East. That issue is dead on arrival today.

It died due to terminal trendiness. A fatal disease for religion.

PAX VOBISCUM

14 December 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Jonathan Tallon said..

"There are plenty of not that liberal theologians who are convinced that the Bible says very little about modern, committed homosexual relationships"

How often does the Bible need to say it is a sin? Deep down they know it is wrong, hence the anger when confronted and the desire to enshrine in law the word insulting so that their lifestyle choice and detrimental effects on society (especially children) can never questioned.

Phil

14 December 2012 at 22:46  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Laurence Boyce said...

"No of course not. You want to keep the option open so you can carry on scaremongering. Cameron has given the church exactly what they wanted. A cast iron guarantee that they can remain stuck in the past for evermore."

Don't let me stand in the way of your liberal utopia Lawrence. You might just manage to make heaven on earth and so you would not even need God.

Oh hang on a min, you don't think you do, but if you feel the need you can always make up a god to your own liking.

But that is what you are doing....? That's alright then, The Lord our God will understand, not being a jealous God.

Hmmm

Phil

14 December 2012 at 22:54  
Blogger Electro-Kevin said...

Perhaps Mr Cameron has seen the economic and cultural cliff over which we teeter. He is unable to tell the British public of the sheer awfulness of it all - that this economic downturn is permanent.

He has decided to have himself defeated - by his own people - in 2015 by standing for 'nice' issues rather than suffering the ignomy of being thought incapable of saving our country.

Perhaps he is thinking of the 'after life' - how the ruling leftists will treat him post tenure.

14 December 2012 at 23:52  
Blogger len said...

God certainly works in mysterious ways.... the State has separated itself from the church not the reverse.
Perhaps the church can now get on with preaching the Gospel without the entanglements of the State.
A' persecuted Church ' is a far better proposition than a 'compromising church'.

Cameron`s claim to 'do God' is as empty as any of his other'cast iron ' promises ... the man is a total sham..and he should quite rightly step out of the way and let the Church get on with God`s business of saving souls and not conforming to Worldly values and Worldly opinions.

15 December 2012 at 00:09  
Blogger len said...

I believe the attempt to force 'gay marriage'and gay lifestyles onto the public is an attempt to salve the consciences of those who need and desire the approval of the public for their actions.

It is God who defines sin and those who hold to the Word of God are being seen as' bigots' and 'homophobes' by those who are attempting to re-define sin which is merely an attempt to re- make man in their own[fallen] image.


15 December 2012 at 00:18  
Blogger John Magee said...

len

The irony in this whole story as it unfolds is that a state church is at last facing the wrath of the state it is part of.

15 December 2012 at 01:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

My dear Mr. Jacobs

My dear Bridget

If it were left up to the fruit of homosexuality, there would be no civilization within a generation or so.

Very true.

Marriage as a relationship intrinsically open to procreation (the begetting and rearing of children within a family) is worth your consideration not just as social or civilizational convention but ontological reality.

Also very true. That's why I frequently make use of that very argument on this very weblog. There is a difference between understanding an opponent's position and advocating for it.

carl

15 December 2012 at 03:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Mr Integrity

Legitimacy? They have established that under Blair.

Don't confuse acceptance with legitimization. The general public may accept the autonomous choice of homosexuality in the abstract. It most emphatically does not accept it in the particular. Just ask yourself how many fathers want a homosexual son? That isn't going to change. That is why there is an ongoing quest for legitimacy.

Heterosexuality is its own justification. This is self-evident from biology and complementarity. To acknowledge this is to submit to obvious facts inherent in human nature. Homosexuality on the other hand is the assertion of desire against that very self-evident observation. It is an assertion of the primacy of human will over against human nature. That's why it requires external justification. It can never find justification within itself.

This is all to do with destroying traditional lifestyles, nothing else.

In a sense, yes. The structure of marriage is designed to constrain human sexual and relational choices towards the realization of certain ends. The re-definition of marriage is intended to change those choices. Specifically it is intended to remove the boundaries that are inherent in traditional marriage - monogamy, fertility, permanence. Nothing prevents any given couple from voluntarily submitting to those boundaries. But the structure of marriage will no longer compel obedience by punishing their transgression.

carl

15 December 2012 at 03:39  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Phil,

Anyone who no longer wishes to see the death penalty for working on the Sabbath is, in your words, "making up a god to their own liking." That is the hypocrisy of conservatives. They are picking and choosing from the Bible as much as anyone else, and which bits they pick and choose say more about themselves than anything to do with objective morality.

I don't believe in a liberal utopia. I just believe in slow steady progress. Three steps forward, two steps back. Messy, difficult, faltering, such is the human condition. It's a process in which the church's role appears to hold everything back.

15 December 2012 at 05:59  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Laurence 'progress' as you call it is a lie. There is either good or evil, God or Satan and these are eternals. Forget the idea of progress it doesn't happen. You either move closer to God and your divine destiny or further away and the same is true of nations. What we are watching is not just a cultural war but a battle for the very Spirit of this Nation.

As believers we need to pray and fast as our LORD commanded us to do. Here is an excellent link to David Wilkenson, of the New York Revival, preaching on Prayer in the Closet (Matthew 6 : 6-8. I commend it to all Believers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZHWTNvYpcU

15 December 2012 at 06:17  
Blogger Naomi King said...

CRANMER'S CONSERVATIVE CREED (short form)

I believe in one Party,
Preserver of all that is good in our Constitution,
And of Individual Freedom, Limited Government,
And in one Party Leader
Being of one philosophy with the Party,
By whom Conservatism is articulated and maintained;
Who for us Members,
Shall come again with a larger majority to annihilate the Socialists and the Liberals:
And his Government shall have no end.
And I believe in the Voluntary Party,
The giver of life to the Parliamentary Party,
Which precedeth the Party and the Leader,
Which should be acknowledged and appreciated,
Because they do all the donkey work.
And I look for victory at the General Election,
Amen.

15 December 2012 at 06:33  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Question can Cameron deliver on all of the above ?

15 December 2012 at 06:33  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

"Forget the idea of progress it doesn't happen."

Yes of course. Modern medicine is in no way superior to leeches and blood letting. I reckon we should keep alive a couple of medieval hospitals reserved just for people who don't believe in progress. See how long it takes them to recant.

15 December 2012 at 06:34  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Let us learn from King Saul's mistake when he took things into his own hands rather than obey God's instructions. Samuel said to him – "Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD ? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”

Five seconds of prayer orchestrated and directed by the Holy Spirit can move Heaven and Earth, but in order to achieve success in our prayer lives, we must learn to patiently wait for the Lord (Psalm 40:1).

Romans 8:26 tells us that we don't know what we should pray for as we ought, and yet so often church prayer meetings are taken up with people praying long lists of prayers, binding, loosing and casting out as well as declaring and decreeing things in the spirit according to their own understanding.

The great apostle of faith, Smith Wigglesworth was one day standing on a pavement waiting for the Lord to speak to him.

He confessed to be getting impatient when the Lord told him to climb up on to a horse and cart which was passing by and to share the gospel with the driver. He obeyed and was surprised by the hostile response from the vehicle's owner. For one moment he thought that he had missed it but then he noticed tears flowing down the face of the person he was preaching to and then the man's whole attitude changed. There and then that driver received the good news, repented and was saved.

Two days later, Smith's wife Polly received a visitor who told her that the man who Smith had led to faith in Christ had died earlier that morning.

Had Smith Wigglesworth not waited on the Lord until he received His instructions, that precious man for whom the Lord Jesus gave up His life would surely have died a sinner and been confined to a lost eternity.

15 December 2012 at 06:51  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Say, Spare thy people, O LORD, and give not thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them: Then will the LORD be jealous for his land, and pity his people. Yea, the LORD will answer and say unto his people, Behold, I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen: whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: as the LORD hath said, in the remnant the LORD shall call.

Joel chap 2

15 December 2012 at 07:51  
Blogger Naomi King said...

And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

15 December 2012 at 07:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

How many fathers want a disabled son? Of course, we could just accept that some children are born with (say) non-functioning legs and leave them in front of the TV for the rest of their lives, if they're lucky, or sitting on a mat in the street begging for money, if they're not. Alternatively, we could install drop kerbstones for wheelchair use, lower door handles a bit, change perceptions so that people see what the disabled can do rather than what they cannot, etc. That way, they can live a normal live, going to work, going shopping, visiting friends, perhaps marrying, having children if they are able, and so on. And why not? For the most part, nature is not our master. It just takes will on our part to enable people to live a full life.

15 December 2012 at 08:18  
Blogger len said...

As I may have mentioned once or twice before technology has advanced more in the past century than probably all the previous Centuries.But man has basically remained unchanged and' Science' has placed in his hands the means of his own destruction.

Man (according to humanist theology) is master of his own destiny and doesn`t need any 'divine being'guiding or directing him.Man in affect has become his own 'god'.This is being endorsed and backed by the man who claims to 'do God' and guides the rudderless ship 'libertine' heading for the open seas where no man dared go before.
If one has knowledge of the fate of the' Titanic' none would have boarded her the same could be said of the' Libertine' and Captain Cameron.

15 December 2012 at 09:36  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

We are moving towards a situation as in France. A secular state officiated wedding followed by a church wedding with nothing but religious significance - if people can be bothered..

I figure that this is a deliberate strategy by the State.

15 December 2012 at 10:02  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Laurence, the problem with "progress" is that it has no moral guidance. It simply goes with what people are willing to accept, either through empirical evidence or through lack of caring.

For example, 100 years ago (indeed, maybe even 50) homosexual behaviour was illegal and considered to be a mental illness. Fast forward to today and we find that most people will answer that they couldn't care less but will not take a stand against SSM if it does come in as it will not directly affect them.

Progress, when viewed in this way, could just as easily lead to paedophilia being legalised. You may scoff and express outrage at this, but the same reaction would have been given if, when homosexuality was decriminalised, you were to have suggested that gay marriage would happen in the future. And yet look where we are now!

Progress is a nonsense in terms of something to believe in. Yes, we learn new things about the world as we continue in our search for knowledge, but these thing should not be thought of as essential additions to the way we live.

15 December 2012 at 10:02  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

"100 years ago, homosexual behaviour was illegal and considered to be a mental illness."

Is that what you think YP? If not then, like me, you think that progress was made in 1967. Alternatively, you must think that we should round up queers and throw them into prisons which we will have to hurriedly build for the purpose. Which is it YP?

15 December 2012 at 10:50  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The homosexual lifestyle is expressly forbidden in Scripture. There are several references underlining this in both the Old and the New Testaments (eg Leviticus 18:22; Romans1:26-32).

Mrs Cut ‘n Paste King – Why is it that you only cherry pick that which serves your latest rant? Your bible also says (Amongst many other heinous instructions) the following (if you have nothing better to do with your life)…

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17)
Death for Cursing Parents
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offence. (Leviticus 20:9)
Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honour by committing fornication and thereby dishonours her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)
Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3)
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
Kill Followers of Other Religions.
(1) If your own full brother, ...entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known ... kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death... (Deuteronomy 13:7-12)
(2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns ... that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
Death for Blasphemy...Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel... (Leviticus 24:10-16)


Ad Nauseum.
And you give this book to children?

15 December 2012 at 10:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jonathon Tallon. The disorder that is homosexuality prizes above all else youth. Now with that in mind, you might want to re-read this man’s comments and accept the bitter and unpleasant truth...

15 December 2012 at 11:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dreadnaughty. Shusssh man, you’ll give Christians a bad name.

As soon as Christianity was opened up to the gentile, we should have thrown the blasted OT out the window, or at least stripped the vile poison out of it...

15 December 2012 at 11:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta: "Progress, when viewed in this way, could just as easily lead to paedophilia being legalised."

Consent? Harm? Etc?

15 December 2012 at 11:15  
Blogger len said...

Dreadnaught.

Many people have a 'one sided' view of God..'.gentle Jesus' and all that... which is true but God is also a God who will Judge people for the evil that they do.This is a fact.Mercy AND Justice...Perfect Justice cannot ignore those who commit sin wilfully and even encourage others to do so!.

If you view sin as a 'cancer'(as God does) which is affecting humanity then containment or even eradication is a necessary fact.If God had not acted as He did in the OT then man would have been so degenerate that there would have been no 'Mary' and no virgin birth to allow the Saviour to be born through.
Jesus stood in the place of fallen man and God`s judgement fell on Him.Look at Jesus on the Cross to see God`s opinion on sin and the punishment that sin deserves.
That was God`s judgement.

It is God`s Mercy that He stood in OUR place and took the punishment we all deserve.

Of course if you reject Christ`s atonement at Calvary you will meet Jesus Christ not as Saviour but as Judge...this is an inescapable fact!.


15 December 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger len said...

Our Judeo-Christian based Judicial system is in place for the containment of the sin nature of man.Without this chaos and disorder would result.
Fallen man is in the process of re defining what the' sin nature' of man is this is principally to allow those to pursue what God defines as' sin' without any sense of guilt shame or remorse.
To achieve this goal the fallen man comes directly into conflict with God and those who uphold his Laws the basic underlying principle of God`s Law which is love...love for God and for ones fellow man.All else precedes from this.
Freedom to do whatever one wants regardless of God is actually the satanic 'creed'."Do whatever you want is the whole of the[satanic] law"which leads one into a bondage to all that opposes God.

15 December 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

Oh look we've got one of those protestant biblical literalist atheists in the person of Dreadnought.

My Dad, who was also a biblical literalist, would approve of this stupidity.

On the gay "marriage" thing. What a mess. This is what you get when you pander to an elite establishment group and their desiderata. And I do not mean the C of E.

15 December 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Len

Of course if you reject Christ`s atonement at Calvary you will meet Jesus Christ not as Saviour but as Judge...this is an inescapable fact!.

I do reject it Len, It is not a fact at all - look what it has done to humanity throughout history.

I don't view 'sin' as a cancer I view cancer if anything, as a sin.

What are your views on why Christianity should keep the OT at all. It's either true or it isn't true anyway the waters been so muddied that it will always make Christians feel uncomfortable. This where Mohammad got the drop on Christianity with the lie of all lies and your bible spawned the koran. Islam flourishes while Christianity shrinks.

Christianity has always rewritten the 'facts' and the 'records' hundreds of years after the events. Look at how arrogant the Catholics on this thread are, even though the historical record of popes their sycophants held back science for fear of exposing their self aggrandising acts of fraud.

I don't give two hoots for all this scary bogeyman nonsense - its your right to believe in what you will as it is mine to ignore it.

15 December 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DoDo - your slip is showing.

The persons who constantly invoke biblical literalism are the like of you and King.

15 December 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Deadnought

I have not posted regarding this so I assume you are addressing another blogger.

15 December 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger michael north said...

John Magee is right about the CofE's terminal trendiness, but it started earlier than he says. John Robinson's "Honest to God" appeared about 1961 and I remember a Willy Rushton cartoon in "Private Eye" in 1963 or 4,showing the "Bishop of Soho" in an open truck, performing "The Blessing of the Pooves". CSLewis was fortunate enough to die at about this time; if he were alive today he would certainly be a papist.

15 December 2012 at 15:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Mr North said ...

"CSLewis was fortunate enough to die at about this time; if he were alive today he would certainly be a papist."

He was an Anglo-Catholic and I doubt Christ holds his 'untimely death' or membership of the Church of England against him.

Others still living, however, do have a decision to make, wouldn't you say?

15 December 2012 at 16:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Laurence Boyce

I just believe in slow steady progress. Three steps forward, two steps back.

A step in any direction may be considered 'progress' when you don't know where you are or where you are going. 'Forward' and 'back' however implicitly demand a frame of reference with which to evaluate direction. The argument is not over the steps themselves but over the frame of reference in which they are measured.

What then is your frame of reference? And what is the authority that establishes it?

carl

15 December 2012 at 16:53  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Dreadnaught says:
Christianity has always rewritten the 'facts' and the 'records' hundreds of years after the events. Look at how arrogant the Catholics on this thread are, even though the historical record of popes their sycophants held back science for fear of exposing their self aggrandising acts of fraud.

Correct me if I am wrong but I presume your comments about Christianity opposing science refer to the Gallileo episode. The facts now prove that at the time, Gallileo did not have enough proof and the Church asked him to propose his position as a theory which he was not prepared to do. The facts have since proved his stance to be right but at the time he was wrong to claim it as a fact. He also poured scorn on Kepler's idea that the moon influenced and grossly insulted Kepler. In fact the whole saga ended up the way it did because Gallileo was such an abusive person to others.

Your claim about Catholics being arrogant I presume (again correct me if I am wrong) refers to our claim that if there is only one God there can only be One True Church of Christ i.e. the Catholic Church However, that it not arrogance on the part of Catholic because we accept the words of Jesus on this in Matthew 16. Argue your case with Jesus if you want. In fact one day that is precisely what you will have to do.

15 December 2012 at 16:56  
Blogger michael north said...

The Way of Dodo:

I meant simply that, by dying when he did, Lewis was spared the pain of seeing what happened to the CofE.

15 December 2012 at 17:02  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Dreadnaught says “What are your views on why Christianity should keep the OT at all. It's either true or it isn't true anyway the waters been so muddied that it will always make Christians feel uncomfortable. This where Mohammad got the drop on Christianity with the lie of all lies and your bible spawned the Koran”

A legitimate question as regards the OT but consider what Christ taught. He told the Jews they had got it wrong regarding an eye for an eye. Islam has taken us back there. He told the Jews not to be so legalistic and use rules to oppress people. That is what Islam does today. I wish people would stop pulling out the same old accusations simply to win a point and look at what Christianity does actually teach. It does not teach as some people imply that homosexuals should be killed. It merely states that homosexuality is a sin. There are plenty of people accusing the Catholic Church of being evil because of its stance on artificial contraception so why should we not be free to say a sin is a sin. Ask yourself what is the root of your animosity. Genuine criticism backed up by arguments are worth responding to but vague statements are difficult to answer. Yes the waters are muddied and this arises because Almighty God doesn’t treat us as a bunch of robots so he gives us choice and we screw up a lot of the time. However looking at the world today can you say we are any better off under a secular dispensation? As we cast of the so called “shackles” of religion and encourage rampant individualism and addiction we are seeing the results in the lives of school children killed by people who have been encouraged by our free uncensored media to feel rage. As yourself would the world not be a better place if we listened to Jesus and placed him in a position of honour in our society and prayed for his protection?

15 December 2012 at 17:20  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Carl, I'll ask you the same question I asked someone else above. Do you believe that the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967 constituted progress? Or conversely do you think that we should round up gays today and lock them up? Which is it?

When you answer that question, we can then have a discussion about the moral framework and where it comes from. Please note however that, in either case, the answer cannot be the Bible which says that gays should be executed. You don't want that surely?

Do tell.

15 December 2012 at 17:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One believes Dreadnaught does mistake arrogance for confidence...

15 December 2012 at 17:27  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Concisely explained Inspector.

15 December 2012 at 17:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The OT, or at least the parts Dreadnaught pasted, is in simple terms a handbook on how to be a Jew a couple of thousand years ago and earlier. And by crucifying the Christ, they showed they were still doing then exactly what it said on the tin.

The Jews rejected Jesus, we should reject their manual on the grounds that Christians are not Jews, and never will be...

Does anyone know of a Catholic priest who actually gives readings from that book ?


15 December 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Shacklefree

I refer you to my post of 10.58 and the fact that the enforcers of 'Christianity' at some time or other, used reference to your book as justification for all manner of repression and control. That book is still held as the source to 'ultimate truth'

Would that the Gallileo episode was the only example - how simple and convenient that would that be.

You claim that there is only one god not three as the Jews and Muslims accuse - personally I don't believe that any god is superior over another: its just what some need to get through life I suppose.

The Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, Hindus etc etc; all claim/claimed the same exclusivity and were no doubt equally subsumed by the arrogant beliefs that their gods were real. The Japanese believe their pooping farting Emperor is a god - hard to believe eh? - or is it? millions have been forced to believe it.

And yet again a Christian threatens me with divine judgement - you don't get it do you - despite your own book of contradictions and you pick and choose what suits the debate. Religion as far as I am concerned is all hooey, but you suck it all up all you want.

Oh - I almost forgot - where will you be on 22nd December?


15 December 2012 at 17:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 December 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Laurence Boyce

Nice try. You don't need me to explain anything before you can explain the presuppositions that form the basis of your argument. You made a positive assertion and I simply want you to explain yourself. Your assertion of 'progress' must be made relative to some means of measure. What is that means of measure?

carl

15 December 2012 at 18:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 December 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Do you believe that the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967 constituted progress? Or conversely do you think that we should round up gays today and lock them up?"

What we did looks like a forwards step to me, progress-wise. The HLA Hart vs Lord Devlin debate at the time makes the case as far as the law is concerned. Of course, it's also about 'public morality' and 'private morality', what the State is for, and the relationship between the individual and the State. The argument in the background is about what to do about competing 'absolute moralities', and whether and how we can proceed in life if absolute morality itself cannot be shown to exist to everyone's satisfaction.

15 December 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The fundamental question is actually one about human nature and the human condition. One of the reasons Christianity and Islam disturb me is that they both have a very narrow answer to that question which asserts an external ideal. What then does society do with the deviants? A liberal atheist like me sees human nature rather differently, where one core aspect of human nature is individuality. There is no ideal, just coexistence. That makes the notion of deviancy something quite different.

15 December 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Dreadnaught, Your comments are very partisan. We all know that mistakes have been made in the past. Does this apply only to Catholics? Let’s look for example at the enlightened 20th century and its democratic progress – WW1, WW2, Gulag Archipelago, Jewish Holocaust, Korean War, compulsory sterilization of low IQ people in the US between 1910 and 1960, Vietnamese War, Angolan War, Yugoslavian War, Rwandan Genocide, destabilization of independent sovereign nations by Russia and America, Invasion of Tibet, billions killed in our hospitals without any defense and the deliberate setting up of a sectarian state in Northern Ireland by the democratic British government and the tacit approval of the most extreme discrimination against Catholics by all British governments up until recent times and no, I do not support the IRA murderers. Your criticism of Catholicism while valid to a point seems to imply that these were the worst atrocities that ever happened. You are very partisan about where you look.

Secondly, I always find it unfortunately when I get unto debate with atheists that all we get is accusations often inaccurate, as in the case of the Gallileo debate, topped off with statements like “you really don’t get it do you” which always means the debate has ended and you have won. Let’s have a bit more honesty. I do get it but we disagree – get over it. I have not seen any claims here of Christians refusing to recognize past mistakes but you people try and keep the debate focused on only the things you want. How does the sins of Catholics in past centuries measure up against the atomic bombs on Japanese civilians or the bombing of Dresden or the slave trade and before you jump to claim that it was Christians that were involved in the Slave Trade, it was undoubtedly the actions of people who did more than occasionally go to Church who put a stop to it. Remember too the sex slavery and financial slavery that is part and parcel of our secular world today. As I said ask yourself, what is the root of your animosity? Can you not engage in honest amicable debate? Must it always involve hatred?

15 December 2012 at 18:50  
Blogger len said...

Ignorance of the law is no defence.That is why God wants the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to the entire World.

God does not then have to judge anybody for in reality we judge ourselves by the response we have to Jesus Christ. Pride,arrogance, apathy and just plain 'bloodymindedness' are the hallmarks of the rebellious spirit that indwells all the sons of the 'first Adam'.
Nothing that is said by the Atheists on this blog surprises me for they all follow a similar pattern..I know this by personal experience because I was in 'their ranks'.

How anyone ever 'gets saved' is a mystery to me but I thank God that I was. It is perhaps only by standing in a different position that one can see where one was and the forces that held them there?.

15 December 2012 at 18:53  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Carl, there's really no great mystery here. People have competing moral frameworks and so they disagree on whether something constitutes progress or otherwise. People also make mistakes and fail to compute unintended consequences. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But I have been told on this thread that the very concept of progress is suspect - a standpoint which I find utterly exasperating. I was hoping that we might be able to agree on a basic example of moral progress with respect to the gay debate, but it would appear not.

15 December 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Yes Len, a recognition of our worthlessness compared with God's purity and a willingness to consider that our desires may in fact be addictions. That small step allows His grace to convince us that we have to follow His rules not ours. However unlike Islam where you live under the impossibility of earning your salvation, Christianity gives salvation freely for those who believe that Jesus is the Lord God who died for our sins, that He existed before the world was made and will rule for all eternity.

15 December 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger William said...

Some deviants need to be locked up because their behaviour is so harmful to others
and often themselves. Other deviant behaviours can simply be identified as such and castigated by society. The trick then is to promote and extol the desired behaviour whilest identifying and separating out the deviant.

Presumably liberal atheists will know when they have admitted too much deviancy when the species dies out.

15 December 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Shacklefree, don’t you find that those without belief, without a pre defined moral conduct, take great delight in kicking those that have direction ?

This man is waiting for Dreadnaught or DanJ0 to announce that when religion is banished, we will all live in a world of milk and honey. Can’t be long now. A side bet on who’s first, old chap ?

15 December 2012 at 19:19  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 December 2012 at 19:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Laurence Boyce

Correct. In which case you should have said "I believe in what I consider to be progress." But that vitiates the force of your argument for it places on you the entire authority for your argument. You however are not an authority. So instead you implicitly objectified the concept of progress without actually stating what you think it is. In doing so, you assumed the case you were trying to prove. You can't prove that the legitimization of homosexuality is progress by defining progress as the legitimization of homosexuality.

Your actual standard of 'progress' is the expansion of consensual human autonomy mitigated only by the concept of 'harm.' But you will always have a difficult time separating 'progress' from self-interest, and harm will always be subject to a cost/benefit analysis. As in "Am I more afraid of having that circumstance imposed upon me, or am I more afraid of not being able to impose that circumstance on others?" How do you resolve these questions? How do you separate the self from the good when the self is all there is?

carl

15 December 2012 at 19:31  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

What kicked off this, is the argument that opposition to SSM, homosexuality etc, is rooted in the bible and therefore the immutable foundation of Truth. What I intended, was to try and expose the absurdity of those claims.

So I should ignore that the tenets of your OT that have already condemned me to death by stoning and stow my animosity? You have already said Jesus is going to be cross with me in the never-never; and what’s done is done so to speak. I am not hostile to you or any other believers in any personal sense of course that would be silly; I don’t do hate; my beef is with organised religion for what it does and has always done to people’s minds.
It’s record is not good.
However, Jesus (if he existed at all) believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He is supposed to have said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters yet wrote nothing himself – illiterate? Maybe. But it would have been slightly more convincing if someone who could raise the dead or feed the five thousand with a tin of pilchards and a few penny Hovis, could conjour up his autobiography.

When dealing with the people of his day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.

Jesus supposedly confirmed many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife (Luke 17:29, 32), the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31-51), the judgment upon Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 1-1:21), and many others.

Not only did Jesus confirm the historicity of these accounts, he also apparently authenticated some of the passages that are most disputed today. Jesus believed that Moses wrote the first five books (see Matthew 19:8, 9; John 7:19; Mark 12:29-31).

Take the account of Daniel ; Jesus believed him to be a prophet (Matthew 24:15). The account of Adam and Eve often is ridiculed today as legend, but Jesus believed the story to be true (Matthew 19:1-6).

Likewise, the narrative of Noah and the great flood not only is authenticated by Jesus (Matthew 24:37), it also is used as an example of His second coming. Finally, the most unbelievable of all-the account of Jonah and the great fish-is used by Jesus as a sign of His resurrection (Matthew 12:39ff).

Either Jesus knew what he was talking about or he did not. The evidence, for what it is worth, is clear that Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God's Word; His attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust.

15 December 2012 19:29

Posted to Cameron treats the Church of England with contempt...

Delete Comment Cancel
Copyright © 1999 – 2012 Google

15 December 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "This man is waiting for Dreadnaught or DanJ0 to announce that when religion is banished, we will all live in a world of milk and honey."

I'm a liberal. You may note that implicit in my talk about individuality and deviancy above, religion is just part of our diversity and ought to have its place provided it is benign. That is, I have no desire to banish it at all despite my thinking it is incorrect and a bit naff. I'm happy to coexist with the religious, subject to rights, but quite a few of them don't want to return the favour and want to overrule mine. In a diverse world, my way is the progessive one.

"Shacklefree, don’t you find that those without belief, without a pre defined moral conduct, take great delight in kicking those that have direction ?"

I'd take issue with the pre-defined moral conduct thing if I thought it was worth the effort. I have noticed that those with one version of moral absolutism are very happy to kick those with a different one. In fact, it doesn't need to be that different for there to be an awful lot of jostling. That's the trouble with these absolute thingies, they bloody hate competition for the most part.

15 December 2012 at 20:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

By the way, also implicit is that something built on individuality is unlikely to produce a land of milk and honey.

15 December 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Dreadnaught, By all means argue your case that Christianity is absurd. Yes Jesus did refer to passages in the Old Testament and we can clearly see many passages which accurately prophesied his coming and his crucifixion e.g. Isaiah 53. He also said that the Jews had misinterpreted the law in some cases such as the idea that salvation was only for the Jews. So yes he confirmed some passages and he criticised the interpretation of others. I don’t see anything wrong with that so the fact that we can see some pretty gruesome things in the Old Testament is not a problem for me particularly when we see much greater barbarism under modern democratic governments. The atheists like to imply that we all support the slaughters that went on then but that is dishonest. Let’s focus on what Christianity teaches rather than what its detractors would like it to teach so that they can have something that is easy to knock down.

Jesus also made prophesies which came true in the 20th century i.e. the legalization of abortion. The eye witness accounts of the time also state that he performed miracles for example by curing people. One view is that the people writing these stories were lying but they ended up dying for their beliefs – I find it difficult to believe they would die for a lie. Nevertheless it did occur 2000 years ago and if miracles happened then, it is reasonable to ask why don’t they happen now. Well the answer is that they do happen now but it is always censored by the BBC and other organs of indoctrination in our society. For example, the current financial crisis was predicted 2000 years ago by St. John in Chapter 18 of the Book of Revelation and it predicts that our financial system will collapse. In 1917 a miracle occurred which was prophesied by St. John in Chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation. Seventy thousand people saw the miracle of the sun and three young children aged 7, 8 and 10 predicted the Russian revolution, the spread of communism, the Second World War and the annihilation of various nations as occurred under communism and now under the EU. Pretty impressive for illiterate children who didn’t even know that Russian was a country. None of our intelligent leaders came close although Rudolf Hess did warn that the punitive reparations imposed on Germany after WW1 would result in another war but he was ignored. However, notwithstanding its faults, past and present, the main point of Christianity is that God himself died to save us from our sins so it all comes down to a very simple question i.e. does God exist or are we merely a cosmic accident. The scientific evidence that I have seen clearly rejects the idea that life was an accident. When the so called experts tell us that life evolved by chance their only evidence is that that dogs look like cats and chimps look like humans. Well using that argument we might as well say that all cars on the road were made in the same factory.

15 December 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Battle of Jericho. The poor kids.

15 December 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

No Carl, I just believe in progress period. Of course people disagree on what this is. I have even disagreed with myself over the years! Also I have made it clear that moral progress is difficult and messy and that one is liable to go down any number of dead ends. Yes, self interest is always a problem. But the fact remains that, though we may disagree on what constitutes progress, we are on a level. You don't in principle have access to any special insights that I lack, and vice versa.

For my part, I simply draw upon the writings of various philosophers, applying my own reason and experience. I don't bother with the Bible though. First it says "thou shalt not kill." Then "kill gays." Seems a bit confused.

15 December 2012 at 20:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dreadnaught, as far as this man understands, all that Jesus did was to confirm he was fulfilling scripture. We must not forget that he stopped a women being stoned, and he’d hardly do that if he was an OT enthusiast.

15 December 2012 at 20:37  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Shacklefree

So we don't have witness to miracles because of a BBC cover-up?

Taxi!

15 December 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, The Inspector was merely playing fast and loose with the concept of what governs us as individuals. This man is happy to have an off the shelf regime, Christianity, to work under. He is actually fearful of liberalism, in as much as you are free to decide one way or the other. So we’ll say he was gloating in that he has a default position.

Really, good luck to you if you want to figure it out all by yourself, or rely on others who are trying to figure it out all by themselves. Take Dreadnaught, for example, and his grievances...


15 December 2012 at 20:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

The strongest argument for atheism:

"Had God designed the world, it would not be
A world so frail and faulty as we see."

(Lucretius)

The best argument for theism:

"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way.
They know the Law of Nature; they break it.

These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."

(C S Lewis)

15 December 2012 at 20:59  
Blogger len said...

The Cross of Jesus Christ stands between the Old Testament and the New Testament.


In the Old Testament all the pressure was put upon man to obey God`s Laws no help was offered by God as man said he COULD keep God`s Laws.(Incidentally God`s Laws are primarily for the protection of man.All that oppose God come under the jurisdiction of Satan and he has actual legal rights over them. Satan is not known as 'the god of this World' for nothing...even Jesus Christ did not challenge Satan when he claimed authority over 'all the World'.)

Through Jesus Christ`s atonement at Calvary God was able to forgive sinners who placed their faith in Him without compromising His perfect sense of Justice...that is the difference between the OT and the NT... the OLD Justice( and the need to stop the corrupting nature of sin ) .... the new Justice and Grace to all who place their faith in Jesus Christ.

15 December 2012 at 21:13  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

"We must not forget that he stopped a woman being stoned, and he'd hardly do that if he was an OT enthusiast."

Doh! Haven't you read the Da Vinci Code? It was because he fancied her!

15 December 2012 at 21:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Damn nuisance that Laurence Boyce, Jewish adulteresses being beauties. One wouldn’t give too much hope for a Gloucester obese gal of the ‘all you can eat’ diet and the beached whale look persuasion....


15 December 2012 at 21:45  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace, it's a terrible business; thank you for keeping it in our 'minds' eye' - as it were.
Madness in high places should not go unwatched.

So Mr. Integrity & I approach from a similar place. He says: How sad this all is. Who started this all and why. That is the question that should be constantly asked. and A Civil ceremony is effectively marriage in all but name and there’s the rub. (14 December 2012 14:28)

To play further, methinks this Prime Maggot (PM) that feeds on the dead dog - a diet of worms, no less - presumes to a part beyond his scope. It's infected him badly, so - though he cannot be (K)king - he pretends to the conscience of a Prince, who unlike himself, "know[s] a hawk from a handsaw." In effect, PM poisons us with:
I say we will have no moe marriage. Those that are married already -- all but one -- shall live. The rest shall keep as they are. To a nunnery, go. (Hamlet III.i.129-132).

Thus placing us all beyond redemption, shameron consorts with strumpet Fortune. Meanwhile, the corpses on our national stage pile up apace: to feed the foreign invaders --- all strong in arms.

And midnight approaches. Not just at Wittenberg either.

15 December 2012 at 22:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 December 2012 at 23:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Lawrence Boyce

I just believe in progress period.

Right. You just can't tell me what you think 'progress' is.

Of course people disagree on what this is.

Then how do we adjudicate between the competing claims?

Also I have made it clear that moral progress is difficult and messy and that one is liable to go down any number of dead ends.

This a description of process. But the question you need to answer is this. "How is a moral dead end distinguished from moral advancement?" You are fixated on the journey from X to Y but you won't tell us the direction from X to Y, or the location of Y.

Yes, self interest is always a problem.

What then is the solution to it? How is a morality based on (say) empathy not a morality based upon self-interest? The question still stands. How do you separate Good from self-interest? You can't even tell me what you think progress is. And yet you assume the desires of the self can be extracted from it. How? Where is the objective ground upon which to stand?

But the fact remains that, though we may disagree on what constitutes progress, we are on a level.

Yes, we are on a level. That is the fundamental dilemma of modernity. Man is locked in an immanent universe without intrinsic authority. He can therefore in principle arrive at any location and call it 'progress.' Indeed, to the victor belongs the right to define 'progress.' But that isn't the same thing as Good and you know it.

You don't in principle have access to any special insights that I lack, and vice versa.

Yes, well, that is the centroid around which the argument turns, isn't it. If God has revealed Himself to man, then I do have access to Truth. And so do you.

For my part, I simply draw upon the writings of various philosophers, applying my own reason and experience.

The critical pronoun being 'I.' What authority does this carry? What weight? What presuppositions inform your reason? What presuppositions determine how you evaluate your experience? You have merely affirmed what I originally said. But then you have already undermined your own position by saying that you have no access to any special insights. You have your idea of progress. Another man has his. You contest with each other, and work out some arrangement according to relative power. This is the actual mechanism of progress. And what will you say when Western Culture collapses from its privileged position in the world, and all your ideas of progress collapse with it?

I don't bother with the Bible though. First it says "thou shalt not kill." Then "kill gays." Seems a bit confused.

This argument isn't worthy of you. You are far more capable than this.

carl

15 December 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Society allows homosexuals the civil partnership and is tolerant of homosexual behaviour but certainly does not need to go over the top with all this fawning over them.

Why would the government back relationships that cannot produce the next generation when they clearly do have a vested interest in backing ones that do?

Why are they trying to demean and denigrate those relationships that provide the very citizens for the government to govern and deduct tax from.

I think more than enough has been done to ensure homosexuals are treated well and recognised socially, financially and lawfully in society they are not the same as heterosexuals and never will be so. No amount of brainwashing and pushing homosexuality will make them the same.

I read in the Mail that the BBC's latest brainwashing wheeze is to have more homosexual presenters on children's TV programs in order that they become more familiar with it. This is really going too far for they are the minority not the majority.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247981/BBC-told-gay-presenters-characters-childrens-TV-familiarise-young-people-different-sexualities.html

16 December 2012 at 00:02  
Blogger len said...

I would be interested to know how atheists explain the absence of Jesus`s body from the sealed tomb He was placed in after the Crucifixion?.

A Roman guard was placed outside the Tomb and they knew full well the penalty they would pay if the body was removed.The Roman and the Jewish authorities knew that if the body was removed then the disciples could claim that Jesus had 'risen'.
What does their'applied reason 'tell them?.
To use the' Da Vince' code as 'evidence shows the shallowness of their argument.

Da Vinci was quite probably 'gay' and liked to have his own private joke which he (to his own amusement) put in his commissions to the Popes.The 'lady' in the last supper is reputed to be Leonardo`s gay lover.

16 December 2012 at 08:59  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Dreadnaught says "So we don't have witness to miracles because of a BBC cover-up?"

We do have the witnesses but the BBC and others do not report. We live in George Orwell's age of Newspeak and Doublethink and the media for decades now have been feeding the populace with their ideas and accusing the Church of indoctrination. The current push for homosexual marriage and adoption by homosexuals has been very well managed. People have been told for example that homosexuals make even better parents than heterosexual ones. The basis for this are so called scientific studies which are not much more than anecdotal comments from a few people with a vested interest. Proper scientific methodology is not followed but these are not exposed and studies which do follow rigorous practice are not reported on by the BBC or other mainstream outlets. The whole of society is being indoctrinated now and children are the pawns and the victims.

16 December 2012 at 09:17  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

"That is the centroid around which the argument turns. If God has revealed Himself to man, then I do have access to Truth."

Then share it with us. Reveal your source of knowledge and how it applies to this particular debate, and then we can all nod in agreement, or otherwise. I've read the Bible and it says "kill gays" which far from being unworthy of me, seems unworthy of God really. But perhaps you have something better?

The problem for Christians however is that they can never agree. There are a large number of Christian leaders coming out in support of gay marriage, arguing (a la Cameron) that it is not despite their Christian beliefs that they favour gay marriage, but because of them.

Christians can't agree on moral questions any more than wider society, a conundrum you can only escape by applying a "no true Scotsman" argument which would be tiresome. Likewise Christians, being only human, are prone to error and self interest. So we remain on a level. And all the questions you fire at me, you simply need to ask yourself.

16 December 2012 at 11:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marie made a good point about the ‘toleration’ of homosexuality. Research into the 1967 act finds that word everywhere. Then, it was recognised by law makers that the condition is largely considered by society, including the Inspector, as unhealthy. Promiscuous homosexuality is just downright filthy, as it involves coming into contact with
faecal matter and urine of multiple partners, often during the same day.

If SSM does go through, the homosexual agencies WILL be in the schools and they WILL enrol the next generation to their way of thinking and they WILL enshrine it in law.

And parents WILL tell their children what they have been told at school is wrong, and there WILL be a renewed homophobia outbreak, with the parents blessing. And this homophobia will not be what the homosexuals think of it as now, which is denying their every whim, but will be gay bashing, which died out in the 1970s. Just like the nasty diseases of childhood you think you’ve heard the last of, it will reappear again...

16 December 2012 at 11:45  
Blogger len said...

God gave His Word so His Truth could be ascertained by all(this is the purpose of the Bible although many put their own 'spin'on what the Word 'actually' says).Those who add their' own ideas' to the bible are the root cause of much of the confusion amongst the various denominations.God is not the author of confusion .


Christ's essential mission was to reveal the Father, who is "our God" ( Jn 20:17), at the same time he himself is revealed by the Father as the Son. This Son, "being one with the Father" (Jn 10:30), can therefore say, "He who has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9). In Christ God has become "visible"; God's "visibility" is realized in Christ. St. Irenaeus expressed it concisely: "The invisible reality of the Son was the Father, and the visible reality of the Father was the Son"



16 December 2012 at 11:50  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Danjo

"By the way, also implicit is that something built on individuality is unlikely to produce a land of milk and honey"

At last something I can agree with you on. However, it is not just America where the "cult of the individual" has replaced Christianity in the minds of people and even many Christian leaders.

Just take the example of the push for Gay Marriage. My needs, not what God tells is we need, HAS to have priority

Phil



16 December 2012 at 11:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0. I have noticed that those with one version of moral absolutism are very happy to kick those with a different one

True, but not the point. Those with a version of moral absolutism are happy to promote it. A positive activity. Those without, no positive activity open to them, so all they can do is decry the former, a negative thing...


16 December 2012 at 12:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

The key argument appears to be that as Society in general has lost interest in the sanctity of marriage so all should be allowed to change the terms of definition, I have a parallel?

If Society believes that Stealing is no longer to cover the exact act itself as defined for many millenia by all civilisations, how about defining 'Stealing' as only pertaining to the individual and not the businesses up and down the country.

Ask them should the act of stealing only be relevant if done against another individual but not a shop, store or business, as they were probably only stealing to provide for their families to have the things normal society take for granted so why should they be punished and excluded..Have stealing means-tested so anyone in receipt of monies below £150 per week is let off Scot free if only a business is affected.
Let make all society morally relative?!

It appears the supposed thoughts of society only matter when it suits the government desires and does not affect those with a vested interest such as the business world, where ethics are no longer in evidence anyway.

E S Blofeld

16 December 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Those with a version of moral absolutism are happy to promote it. A positive activity. Those without, no positive activity open to them, so all they can do is decry the former, a negative thing..."

Personally, I don't find the moral absolutism underlying Salafi interpretations of Islam very positive but, as you say, their adherents seem very happy to promote them.

This is the thing with all this bollocks about authority and divine plans and such like, it's actually what is true that counts rather than what some people prefer, and we can't agree on what's true.

For sure, imagining a deity and using it as a token authority is a tidy method of social control but it suffers from the same issue as local forms. That is, a significant number of people must believe in it in order for it to work.

However, what happens when insufficient numbers buy into it? How does one resolve a conflict between imagined authorities other than to bring out the big battalions?

I'm happy to let religious people live according to whatever weird and wonderful precepts they wish as long as they don't intrude on the rest of us. Unfortunately, lots of them won't accept those limits and so people like me must point out the cultural nature of religion on a regular basis.

16 December 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 December 2012 at 16:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "At last something I can agree with you on. However, it is not just America where the "cult of the individual" has replaced Christianity in the minds of people and even many Christian leaders. Just take the example of the push for Gay Marriage. My needs, not what God tells is we need, HAS to have priority"

I don't believe your god exists so why should I bother with the precepts and directives the people who claim to speak in its name try to push on me? We live in a diverse society where conflicts between differing interests are inevitable. The State should arbitrate between interests, not act on behalf of a minority god squad.


16 December 2012 at 16:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. For sure, imagining a deity and using it as a token authority is a tidy method of social control

Agreed. it’s been a few centuries since you could be fined for being a non believer

However, what happens when insufficient numbers buy into it?

For the UK, 33 million is hardly insignificant. But of course, the secularist answer to that is that people who claim they are Christian aren't really. Just atheists in denial

I don't find the moral absolutism underlying Salafi interpretations of Islam very positive

One of these days you are going to forget about mentioning Islam in every post where you criticise Christianity and it’s influence - you’ll be reaching for the delete button, p.d.q.

Unfortunately, lots of them won't accept those limits and so people like me must point out the cultural nature of religion on a regular basis.

Good man, ‘cultural Christianity’. Personally one doesn’t care if you believe or not, but when you types start dismantling our Christian culture then it DOES get personal. This last sentence sums up well what the Inspector is doing on this site...


16 December 2012 at 16:46  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Inspector, I think this sentence sums up better what you are doing:

"Promiscuous homosexuality is just downright filthy, as it involves coming into contact with faecal matter and urine of multiple partners, often during the same day."

But now they just want to settle down and get married, and you won't let them! You simply want to nail gays to an outdated and self-fulfilling stereotype. Shove them back into the closet, where long term relationships based on commitment and love are all but impossible. It's just good old fashioned hate-mongering, no more no less.

16 December 2012 at 17:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Laurence Boyce. It's just good old fashioned hate-mongering, no more no less

Do believe the Inspector when he says that until he arrived on this blog, and were informed what they are trying to do, he hadn’t given gays a single thought since the onset of CP, which at the time he agreed with, still does. One of the reasons for his agreement was that fouling marriage was not sought. So, off they went and settled down and signed up for CP. Good for them, and we won't hear from them again. If long term relationships based on commitment and love are all but impossible. despite CP in place, you must ask yourself whether this is the true nature of homosexuality.



16 December 2012 at 17:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Good man, ‘cultural Christianity’."

I didn't mean it like I do when I call you and some others "cultural Christians" where I mean that it's just part of your ethnic identity . I mean that religion/theism is just a cultural thing as far as I am concerned. That is, it has no external reality other than as a human construction.

16 December 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "One of these days you are going to forget about mentioning Islam in every post where you criticise Christianity and it’s influence - you’ll be reaching for the delete button, p.d.q."

It relates to the false dichotomy thing I mentioned recently. Christians here often talk as though there's believers and non-believers, where believers are Christians. That is, someone like me has a choice between the Christian god or being an atheist, and a choice between the moral absolutism of Christianity and pure moral relativism. I regularly get dire warnings that I'm off to hell for not believing ... Christian hell, that is. There's the impression that people who truly believe are Christians and everyone else who claims to believe in other gods are faking it or are deluded. Obviously from my position it looks a bit odd since both Christians and Muslims are probably faking it or are deluded as far as I am concerned. It's trite but that quote Dawkins is found of about believing in one less god than you springs to mind and seems apposite.

16 December 2012 at 17:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "For the UK, 33 million is hardly insignificant. But of course, the secularist answer to that is that people who claim they are Christian aren't really. Just atheists in denial"

I asked the question: "However, what happens when insufficient numbers buy into it?" It's not the significance of 33 million Christians, or more likely 5 or 6 million Christians, in the UK at the moment. The question is a theoretical one. People can hold up a rule book and some principles as an ideal and assert a god to provide an authority for it but what happens when there aren't enough people who believe the authority exists in some other dimension or other for it to hold any sway? It'll be the same as in the lifting ourselves by our shoelaces version. The authority is just a suggestion of power backing up the rules at the end of the day. Play by the rules or suffer the consequences.

16 December 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0. I mean that religion/theism is just a cultural thing as far as I am concerned. That is, it has no external reality other than as a human construction.

Take God out of the equation but leave religion in and human society is a human construction, and it’s very real. The question is, why do you wish to secede from our society as it is now. You’ve done rather well under what we have for a gay man. The UK has to be in the top 10 of the best places in the world to live. Millions of immigrants landing here can’t be wrong !

16 December 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger William said...

OIG @ 17:20

Good comment sir.

I also thought that civil partnerships were/are a good idea. Little realising that the point was that everyone would be forced to have them and that marriage would be legislated out of existence.

The insatiable appetite for "equalisation" by the homosexualist will not be assuaged until man is called woman and woman man.

16 December 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Quite William. One thinks that is where we’ll leave it for now; would be aghast if anyone thought the Inspector was a personal crusade. If Laurence wants to know more, he needs to google ‘Gay Agenda’. He will then realise that SSM is a mere station in the long journey they have planned out, which will eventually end in the terms ‘men’ and ‘women’ being made redundant, in a similar way the Imperial measurement heroes found themselves in court after metric measures became law.

Chilling stuff, what !


16 December 2012 at 19:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

You've never addressed C.S. Lewis' arguments for theism:

"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way.
They know the Law of Nature; they break it.

These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."


The majority of individuals accept heterosexual relationships are for procreation and raising children, as well as expressing love. They accept such relationships are for life too and should be monogamous.

Homosexuals are the exception. Not only do they break the 'Law of Nature'; they want to rewrite it and impose this on others.

16 December 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

How does that CS Lewis quote even begin to justify theism? It doesn't mention theism, never mind justify it. Still less does it justify Christianity.

16 December 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You've never addressed C.S. Lewis' arguments for theism"

I'm not obliged to address any of your points, of course. In this case, I don't see much to address as it looks like gobbledygook to me.

16 December 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

How does one know that one is deluded?

17 December 2012 at 00:56  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 December 2012 at 01:21  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

John,

Progress means making things better. That's it. I don't have to answer for the left. I'm not of the left, still less a communist.

Communism looks like a total disaster with the benefit of hindsight. But the fact remains that numerous intellectuals signed up for it at the start. Would I have signed up for it? I might have done. You might have done. What grand principle would have prevented you? That you don't believe in progress?

I find this anti-progress standpoint more than a little tiresome for the simple reason that almost everyone I meet seems to possess some concept of progress - in their personal lives, in the local community, and in the world at large.

Every politician says that they went into politics to "make the world a better place." A trite phrase certainly, but that's what it's all about. You never hear anyone say they went into politics to "make the world a worse place."

Of course people disagree, so politicians quickly form into different camps and start hurling abuse at each other. This can be rather childish, but it's also understandable. At stake is their vision of the future which they think is worth fighting for. That's why they're in politics.

Talk of "utopia" or "paradise" is to set up a straw man that nobody believes in who has the slightest understanding of human nature. Of course it is religious believers who still believe in an external paradise which is no more credible than its earthly versions - much less so in fact.

Sixty years ago we hounded the war hero Alan Turing to death for being gay. Today that wouldn't happen. That's progress. Some people on this thread would choke before they could admit that.

17 December 2012 at 02:50  
Blogger John Magee said...

Laurence

There's an old saying and I know it's trite but it is also true. "change follows progress but progress doesn't always follow change". We have to be careful what we wish for.

I want Gays to have the same freedoms and equality that hetrosexuals have before the law but is it "progress" when less than 2% of the population manage to change the definition of marriage for the other 98% when they could have had civil unions?In spite of all the promises made by our governments that traditional religions will not face discrimination charges for refusing to "marry" Gays inside their religious structures in a religious ceremony this is nothing but a ruse to keep conservatives calm for the time being. We will see religion persecuted for refusing to performing Gay marriages within 25 years. I promise you this is coming.

How can Gay "marriage" be called progressive when it will without a doubt, sooner or later, result in the persecution of religion? It sounds retrograde to me. The persecuted become the persecutors when they get power.

17 December 2012 at 05:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's the Tory party trying to bring this change in, not the 2% you claim. We're being used to detoxify the Tory brand. Also, as some people point out every so often, not every gay person wants the change anyway. I would have been content with civil partnerships for the time being but the churches and fringe Christian organisations have raised the stakes so much now that I think we must have same-sex marriage now otherwise there will be resurgence of political activity by the religious. Some of these groups won't stop until we are stigmatised and persecuted again if they win this one.

17 December 2012 at 06:40  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

John, there's no point conversing with you if you are going to delete your comments after they have been responded to.

17 December 2012 at 07:10  
Blogger Luther said...

This is all utterly depressing - except for one thing.

"We are more than conquerors in Him [Jesus Christ]..."

We have already won the war with sin and its instigator - they have already lost. And although there are battles and struggles and suffering in the here and now, we have eternity to look forward to, and they do not.

17 December 2012 at 16:40  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

That's not true Danj0 we'd all get on and concentrate on other more important issues like extricating ourselves from the vice like grip of the EU dictatorship for a start.

Think back to how things were before call me Dave started all this homosexual “marriage” stuff with that utterance at the party conference. Was it 2010 or 11? I forget. Things were ticking along nicely. If I were you I'd be highly offended that the conservatives are using you the homosexuals to “detoxify” their party image when it wasn't really toxic in the first place.

Homosexual “marriage” is not in the wider public interest and most of us will not benefit from it at all. It's a waste of taxpayers money to implement and police it in times where we have to watch what we spend.

17 December 2012 at 17:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, excellent news…

Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow plan to mount a legal challenge over the government’s decision to ban gay couples from marrying in the Church of England.

The civil-partnered millionaires say as committed Christians, changes to the law as part of the government’s equal marriage reforms will result in discrimination against them.


The commentators at Pink News are aghast, as so they should be !!

17 December 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

AnonymousInBelfast said...

"How does one know that one is deluded?"

One doesn't.

Happy Days!

19 December 2012 at 22:52  
Blogger len said...

Those who think they cannot be 'deluded'are prime candidates?.

23 December 2012 at 10:11  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 December 2012 at 17:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

One man's "delusion" is another man's "enlightenment".

23 December 2012 at 21:53  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 December 2012 at 02:48  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older