Friday, March 08, 2013

BBC Lent Talks: Benjamin Cohen and gay-Jew 'blasphemy'


There is perhaps no greater task for the Church than that of communicating the gospel anew in each era; ensuring that the name of Jesus finds relevance and meaning for each group of people in every generation. There is little point in theologians becoming increasingly philosophical if their theology, or the language of their theology, bears little relation to the ordering of our lives in the world.

Christology, like all theology, is influenced by ontology and phenomenology, and is bound by language which may either elucidate or obscure. A primary challenge of applying that theology must be to establish how theological terms may be related to ordinary usages. Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams talked of the need for a ‘critical theology’ which tests the language by asking whether emerging thought forms are still identical to, or at least continuous with, the ‘fundamental categories’ of theology. This process embraces both traditional orthodoxy and the philosophical theology of our (post-)modern context.

Theologians generally agree that there is not one but many christologies; that no single one is normative, and that all of them take form through the lens of socio-cultural-religious contexts. Jesus, indeed, has many names, and they are irreducibly pluralistic, conditioned by historical setting, language, and culture. Christian theology can appropriately credit the insight that the names of Jesus were variously linked in order to provide a more adequate or acceptable proclamation for a particular community. Since christology is labyrinthine, expressed through historically conditioned language, there is an evident challenge to develop new christologies for new generations.

So, what's wrong with a gay-Jew christology?

Benjamin Cohen is a former Channel 4 News correspondent. He is also the founder of PinkNews - a gay newspaper - and the online same-sex marriage campaign site Out4Marriage.

Mr Cohen is also human - a sentient and deeply spiritual creature who eats bread, feels want, tastes grief and needs friends. Just like you.

He was invited by the BBC to make a contribution to their 'Lent Talks' series in the run-up to Easter, which deal with the theme of 'abandonment'. They explain:
The Lent Talks feature six well-known figures from public life, the arts, human rights and religion, who reflect on how the Lenten story of Jesus' ministry and Passion continues to interact with contemporary society and culture. The 2013 Lent Talks consider the theme of "abandonment". In the Lenten story, Jesus is the supreme example of this - he died an outcast, abandoned and rejected by his people, his disciples and (apparently) his Father - God. But how does that theme tie in with today's complex world? There are many ways one can feel abandoned - by family, by society, by war/conflict, but one can also feel abandoned through the loss of something, perhaps power, job or identity. The Christian season of Lent is traditionally a time for self-examination and reflection on universal human conditions such as temptation, betrayal, greed, forgiveness and love, as well as abandonment.
Mr Cohen's feelings of abandonment growing up a gay Jew in England were not as acute as (say) those of a gay Muslim growing up in Iran. He says:
“I was lucky, my family didn’t abandon me and I haven’t been rejected from my community, despite it being well known that I’m gay.

“Unfortunately, that’s not the case for everyone, and I’ve been written to by many young people whose families have abandoned them for being honest about who they love. Some parents give them an ultimatum to ignore their feelings or even undergo controversial reparative therapies to turn themselves straight. Shockingly, every year, hundreds of people, mainly teenagers kill themselves because of their family or society’s rejection of them, due to their sexuality.

“In many cases, the reason for this rejection is religion – something that really angers and upsets me. Religion should be about bringing families together, united in devotion and celebration, not tearing them apart.”
Andrea Williams of Christian Concern said: “To link (homosexual) experience to that of Christ is to misunderstand the biggest event in history - it is blasphemous. To say that lack of acceptance of homosexual practice which we are told to flee in the Bible equates with the experience and suffering of Christ is to have totally misunderstood his message. Jesus loves everyone but his message to homosexual community is to turn away from their previous path.”

And she added: “The BBC panders to a liberal, politically correct agenda and fails to take the opportunity to explore and educate its listeners about the true meaning of Lent and Easter.”

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali said: “Of course people, whoever they are, should be treated with respect and dignity. But I think to confuse Christ’s identity as the son of God with your sexual preferences is firstly not understanding who Christ is and secondly not understanding who God wants us to be."

He added: “Of course there are things about us that we feel we can’t help but by God’s grace he can help us to live in a way that is obedient to him and his word.”

Looking at the invited six well-known figures (in addition to Benjamin Cohen there is Baroness Helena Kennedy, Alexander McCall Smith, Loretta Minghella, Imam Asim Hafiz and Canon Lucy Winkett), Ms Williams undoubtedly has a point about the BBC's left-liberal bias. But blasphemy? Really?

Nowhere in his talk does Benjamin Cohen defame Christ or denigrate the name of Jesus. One may quibble with his imperfect grasp of Christian theology, but His Grace is merely Anglican and so also utterly devoid of that perfect divine communion claimed by the theologically infallible. One could write a weighty dissertation on the question of whether or not Jesus had no choice but to die an agonising death on the cross - that is, 'for something he couldn’t help'. But to dismiss the coincident feelings of a gay Jew as 'blasphemy' is the real blasphemy. Jesus died for everyone: we are all sinners before the Throne of Grace. It is simply the feeling of helplessness in absence of choice in life's course which Mr Cohen meditates upon.

And His Grace uses 'meditates' purposefully. For it is a clear and deep reflection on the character and mission of Christ. Throughout his talk, Mr Cohen is respecful and reverent. Those who have leapt to judgment appear not have thought at all about the meaning of Christ to a gay Jew, preferring instead to cry 'blasphemy' as their precious and pure Christ is, once again, dragged through the mud and filth of a contrary christology.

Hanging on the cross, Jesus said: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” For Mr Cohen, this echoes something of the fear of abandonment experienced by gay people. And he isn't entirely ignorant of his subject matter. He talks openly about the impact of being taught at an Anglican school that he, as a Jew, was responsible for the abandonment and crucifixion of Christ (..what a sensitive and intelligent RE teacher he must have had). He went on to study Theology at King’s College, University of London, and studied both the New Testament and the Torah. His final dissertation was on the Jinns of Islam in Morocco. His is not a voice of aggressive secularism: he is doing what all truly spiritual people do: making sense and finding meaning in the Messiah God-man who died that we might live.

Mr Cohen explains: "The only thing I directly criticise about Christianity and indeed any religion in my talk is that religion is often used as the basis for parents rejecting their LGBT children, something that I say is wrong and that it is terrible that this has in some cases led to young people committing suicide. I’m not sure what is blasphemous or offensive in this message at all.”

Quite. What kind of parent - what manner of Christian - rejects their child for being gay?

“Of course, I understand that for the very religious, it is difficult - an orthodox Jew really does believe the Torah is the literal word of God and a devout Catholic believes the Pope is infallible,” he says. “But do people of faith really want to reject their children for something which I believe they can't help? Just as, the Jewish authorities rejected Christ - for something he considered he couldn't help- being the son of God?”

Before coming to judgment, LISTEN to the talk HERE.

You will hear Mr Cohen talk about the large crucifix on a neighbouring church which overlooks his garden, where he and his (gay) friends often gather. “Having feared such abandonment myself, every time I look up at Christ, I’m happy that both our stories are ultimately about embracing love, rather than fear,” he says.

To dismiss this as 'blasphemy' is to misunderstand christology, abuse theology, and defame the name of Christ.

The christological debate is ongoing, and has been since the ecumenical councils of the second through the fourth centuries. They drew heavily on Greek philosophical concepts; that the mythical images of ‘Son of God’ and ‘incarnation’ were ontologised into absolute and exclusive categories. The socio-political developments from these early centuries greatly influenced christological formulation, and this had a powerful sociological and political cohesive effect. But the uneasy fusion of Greek and Hebrew thought, and the compromised linguistic formulae agreed upon, diminished pluralism by producing a doctrinally uniform Christianity. The consequent subtle shift from 'Son of God' to 'God the Son' was an effective way, within that cultural milieu, of expressing Jesus.

These classical community formulations have endured because they contain truth. There is nothing at all to fear in new christologies which explore individualism and fragmentation. Indeed, a return to a plurality is wholly necessary if Christ is to have meaning in a fractured and fragmented world.

239 Comments:

Blogger Flossie said...

Your Grace, forgive me, but - isn't this a bit of Christian-hating media bias - a bit like Channel 4 inviting Pope-hater-in-chief Peter Tatchell to present a programme on the Pope, as he did a little while ago?

I know nothing about Ben Cohen; he is probably a perfectly okay guy - but why not invite Christians to talk about Easter?

Having read some of Pink News's readers' comments on occasion, their views on Christianity and Christians generally would be regarded as hate crimes in any other context. While Mr Cohen cannot be blamed for these, it is his paper, so surely he has to bear some responsibility.

Would the BBC invite some right-wing Christian fundamentalist loony to present a serious programme on homosexuality, I wonder?

8 March 2013 at 10:47  
Blogger Gus said...

The BBC regularly invites comment from Christian Voice...

The story of Easter is not only relevant to Christians, and therefore the telling of that story should be limited only to them. Through the thoughts of others we can come to our own deeper understanding of the multi-faceted nature of the Christ story.

Also thank you for taking the time to respond thoughtfully to this issue.

8 March 2013 at 11:08  
Blogger David B said...

"Christology, like all theology, is influenced by ontology and phenomenology, and is bound by language which may either elucidate or obscure....

...Theologians generally agree that there is not one but many christologies; that no single one is normative, and that all of them take form through the lens of socio-cultural-religious contexts. Jesus, indeed, has many names, and they are irreducibly pluralistic, conditioned by historical setting, language, and culture. Christian theology can appropriately credit the insight that the names of Jesus were variously linked in order to provide a more adequate or acceptable proclamation for a particular community. Since christology is labyrinthine, expressed through historically conditioned language, there is an evident challenge to develop new christologies for new generations."

You must have enjoyed writing that, Your Grace,

I do sometimes very much enjoy your sense of humour.

David

8 March 2013 at 11:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cohen . every year, hundreds of people, mainly teenagers kill themselves because of their family or society’s rejection of them, due to their sexuality.

Gay hyperbole – you are very good at that, aren’t you ? Please substantiate with references.

“In many cases, the reason for this rejection is religion – something that really angers and upsets me. Religion should be about bringing families together, united in devotion and celebration, not tearing them apart.”

Any Christian visiting the comments site on your blog is also ‘angered and upset’ by the vilest description of them and their faith it is possible to get in the damn blog universe. That’s an amazing and damnable achievement.

that religion is often used as the basis for parents rejecting their LGBT children,

Not so, parents reject LGBT because of massive disappointment. And the fear that they are losing them to the gay community. Reckless sex, disease, pornography and drug use are so very gay community. Are they not ?

Don’t be fooled by Cohen, fellow commentators here. We do not have a man who wants society to be gay tolerant. We have a man who wants society to be gay.

8 March 2013 at 11:11  
Blogger David B said...

Having read the whole of the OP now, I congratulate His Grace for his open-mindedness, compassion and empathy for Cohen's position.

David

8 March 2013 at 11:18  
Blogger Jim McLean said...

What irks me is not any so-called "blasphemy".

It is the fact that in our society, where we lack nothing, where we have luxuries beyond most people's wildest dreams, we have bred a generation of people who genuinely think their child-like grievances and paltry inconveniences equate with the depth of tragedy and suffering of the heroes and martyrs of the past.

8 March 2013 at 11:19  
Blogger IanCad said...

What's the betting that there will be many more posts on this thread than the previous one?

8 March 2013 at 11:21  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

You Deity is fiction.

Grow up.

8 March 2013 at 11:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Haul out the nets and we’ll trawl for sympathy. There are people who collect sympathy in the same manner that others collect stamps and coins. They live off it, it is their very life force. Their reason for not closing their account.

Well, this fellow is wise to these people. And so should you all...

8 March 2013 at 11:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cohen has problems with the boy+girl stuff, and it’s OUR fault.

Bloody priceless !!

8 March 2013 at 11:29  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Benjamin Cohen: "Someone who happens to be attracted by someone of the same sex... no one knows anything for sure about Jesus love life...."

Now there's a man who really seeks to understand Jesus' teachings: To know His love-life and you will find the man who's humping his disciples with the holy message, "make love, not war."

Yet another generation of rebellious orthodox children turning to Communism to get out of the insanity of Patriarchy, by falling into the gentle hands of Matriarchy, informing them that their pain and suffering was only leading them to Perfection. New Born Again creatures wedded in submission to their teats of adoration.

In reverse, the same way fascists are born, out of their hatred for the poverty and squalor of Socialism comes the golden dawn.

God-State intimidation brings forth the prideful conformists of little gods and little lawyers, meaning more memes carried around by informants with brittle rage-buttons seeking appeasers and justification for having Hate Crimes.

These people who wear their faiths on their sleeves.

Suffer the little children to find the real Jesus.

8 March 2013 at 11:38  
Blogger Benjamin Cohen said...

I'm incredibly grateful to His Grace for writing this piece. To respond to some of the comments:-

1) No I don't want society to be 'gay'
2) I don't think it's society's problem or fault that I am in love with someone of the same sex.
3) In regards to PinkNews, we don't censor the comments unless they warrant complaints. I disagree with some of the anti-religion opinions that are posted. I get criticised on there for being a Jew!
4) PinkNews is never mentioned in the broadcast either by myself or the Radio 4 continuity announcer. I'm simply credited as someone who grew up in an Orthodox Jewish family.
5) In regards to suicides, there are hundreds of reported incidents globally, the vast majority in the United States where there are two well funded charities to tackle the issue. Thankfully it is much less of a problem in the UK.

Ben

8 March 2013 at 11:42  
Blogger Irene's Daughter said...

Jesus' attitude is to be found in the story of the woman caught in adultery. Jesus said to the crowd 'let him who has no sin cast the first stone' and then when no stones were cast said to the woman 'Neither do I condemn thee: GO AND SIN NO MORE.'

We are all sinners in God's sight. What He wants is that we should 'sin no more'. That is to repent. And He who commands this has given us the Holy Spirit to help us. It IS possible to repent and change our ways.

Why should we? Because our eternal destiny is at stake. Whether we like it or not, God makes it clear that only repentant sinners will enter eternity with Him. Those who don't repent will enter an eternity in Hell!
And also, whether we like it or not, God alone, our Creator and Lord, is the only one who can define sin. Which is always a manifestation of our rejection of Him and His ways. And there are no degrees in sin. No sin worse than another. Those who gossip are on equal footing to those who sleep around or have homosexual relationships or commit murder. If we do not choose Him, He will ignore us.

He has told us very clearly that Homosexuality is an abomination in His sight - He cannot bear to look at it. And yet homosexuals are also included among those who are encouraged to 'go and sin no more.'

And surely, this is where the Church should be found. Not condemning but praying for them and seeking the Lord on how to best help these men and women to enter into His Kingdom.

Is it really a crime to want them saved? Afterall God does want them saved. He made it clear centuries ago that He has 'no pleasure in the death of the wicked!' (Eze 33:11)(Wicked = unGodly who are all those who reject Him!)

8 March 2013 at 11:42  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 11:53  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

Th BBC is ludicrously biassed. As if we haven't heard enough LGBT propaganda they now start shoving it into programmes about Lent, a Christian season, using it to attack Christian beliefs.
He claims that hundreds of teenagers commit suicide because of parental intolerance, but of course he gives no examples. The claim is rubbish. There is no correlation between homosexual suicide and societal intolerance.
Always portraying themselves as victims!!
In fact, the number of homosexual suicides has mounted steadily in the Western world as the LGBT movement has gained power and influence. Wherever the laws are most pro-homosexual and the social attitudes dominated by LGBT propaganda, the rate of homosexual suicides rises e.g. in Holland and USA. Which suggests that it is a deeply unsatisfying and unrewarding lifestyle that leads to self-harm.

8 March 2013 at 11:54  
Blogger Benjamin Cohen said...

Suggest you read The Trevor Project website for details on teen suicide. However, I personally know of one teen who killed themselves after their Orthodox Jewish family rejected them.

8 March 2013 at 12:05  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 12:09  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 12:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

When is it all going to stop Ben ? This gay crusade...

You live in a gay tolerant country. People are falling over themselves to support gays. But it’s not enough, is it ? Because it can NEVER be enough. “We still have a long way to go” is an oft seen remark. “Only until two men can kiss and cuddle in the street, in the pub, in Sainsbury’s, in church, in front of the Queen, will we have everything we want” is another frequent sentiment.

Let this man tell you this. He’s seen two men kiss and cuddle in the street. And do you know what this man had to do. He had to turn his head away, because it was quite the most revolting spectacle he’d seen in a city street. Believe him when he says this is a feeling any red blooded man will have. And the younger the man, the more intense it will be. In fact, you have to be pretty far down the road of personally degeneracy to feel otherwise.

8 March 2013 at 12:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

that the whole world needs to be converted to it [Christianity] or those that don't will burn in hell and fire.

Not right now Hannah, we are having a sensible discussion. Maybe later for you tonight, eh ?



8 March 2013 at 12:28  
Blogger Paul Burgin said...

I can see why people would like to see a traditional, albeit "moderate" view of this presented on the BBC and there is a good argument for that. The problem is that the BBC has to compete with other media outlets and anything out of the ordinary as such, gets a big audience reaction, positive or otherwise! I wish that generally people would not go for sensationalist media and I will always argue against sensationalist media, but it is popular and that has to be born in mind

8 March 2013 at 12:35  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 12:37  
Blogger Flossie said...

Gus @11.08 - 'The BBC regularly invites comment from Christian Voice...'

Only when they want to invite ridicule and humiliation. The BBC is notorious for this. They like to invite 'extremists' of all stripes to pillory them. But they are so steeped in anti-Christian bias that they don't even realise they are doing it. They want the 'ranters' because they can then stereotype Christians likewise.

Their other failing (or one of them!) is to invite 'celebrities' to give their opinions on important issues of which they have no knowledge. I am surprised they haven't invited Stephen Fry, or Beyonce, to appear on this programme.

Their reputation as a serious broadcaster is shot. Why not invite Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, who knows a thing or two about Christianity, or even Rowan Williams.

Would Mr Cohen be invited to talk about Islam?

8 March 2013 at 12:38  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

@ Ben . I suggest that you and others read this to give some idea of how the LGBT lobby distorts facts to arrive at its bullshit about gay-victim suicide:-
http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/tag/roger-crouch/

Yes I am sure that the charities you mention are "well-funded" - the whole LGBT propaganda movement is well-funded thanks to left wing governments handing out subsidies to the gay lobby. They get public money to spread lies and hysteria. The more control they get, the more suicides there will be as LGBTs are unstable disturbed people with an unstable, disturbed lifestyle.
It is quite inappropriate for the BBC to put this sort of gay-fanatic twaddle into a Christian series about Lent and it is offensive.
Nobody is less tolerant or more bigoted than the LGBT brigade.

Oh yes, and stats on assault show that gays are more likely to be bullied and injured by other gays than by the 98% heterosexual population.

8 March 2013 at 12:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘Her [Rosaria Butterfield is a former-lesbian English academic and one-time professor of 'queer theory'] account of how John 7:17 had been a key Scripture in helping her come to faith.

‘In it Jesus says, ‘Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

‘As an English professor with an interest in the order of verbs this fascinated her and became her own experience. ‘I do’ preceded ‘I know’. Obedience was the key to knowing God.' [The paragraphs are a commentary by Dr Peter Saunders summarising parts of her testimony]

"What good Christians don't realize is that sexual sin is not recreational sin gone overboard. Sexual sin is predatory. It won't be 'healed' by redeeming the context or the genders. Sexual sin must simply be killed. What is left of your sexuality after this annihilation is up to God. But healing, to the sexual sinner, is death: nothing more and nothing less."’

Rosaria Butterfield

8 March 2013 at 12:41  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 12:42  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 12:46  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 12:48  
Blogger Benjamin Cohen said...

I thought I should add to those that claimed that I wish society to be gay- Why would I want that?

I have a business that only exists because LGBT people are a minority group. If everyone was gay as you claim, what would be the point of PinkNews? No, all I want is for same-sex couples to be treated with the respect and dignity of every other couple.

8 March 2013 at 12:57  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 13:04  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Cohen

When we see a couple of black guys walking down the street - we can see a couple of black guys.

How can we tell if we are looking at a homosexual couple?

8 March 2013 at 13:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I am not sure how you talking about gay men kissing in the street and your view that if you don't hate gays then you are " pretty far down the road of personally degeneracy" is either sensible, valid or intellectually an argument.

My WHAT ! Where did the hate come from. All this man did was to voice his strong aversion to gay men kissing and fondling in public, and suddenly he’s the gaurd pouring the Zyklon B down the hatch !

Wouldn’t you be far better off haunting a site which suits your limited reasoning power. To wit, NOT this one...



8 March 2013 at 13:12  
Blogger Flossie said...

I feel sorry for any disadvantaged minority, but where are the disabled, especially the mentally disabled who are frequently stigmatised - coming out and saying that their suffering is equivalent to Jesus's suffering on the cross? I'm afraid I do find that blasphemous.

People have more chance of being treated with dignity and respect if they behave likewise. Gay Pride marches and Bigot of the Year awards do not do that.

I would also point out that most suicides are in the most gay-affirming societies - for instance the Castro district of San Francisco, where just about everybody is gay, has the highest levels of domestic violence and suicide.

But my beef is not with Mr Cohen, it's with the BBC.

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


Ben.3) In regards to PinkNews, we don't censor the comments unless they warrant complaints. I disagree with some of the anti-religion opinions that are posted. I get criticised on there for being a Jew! .

YOU are responsible for the anti religious hate and especially frothing at the mouth anti Roman Catholic evil YOU allow on Pinknews. No one else.

When the police interviewed the madame, she said she had no idea what the girls were getting up to in their rooms. They still arrested her for running a brothel.


8 March 2013 at 13:22  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 13:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


This man does NOT hate gays, and yes, he does dislike the militants for their uprising but gay people in general, NO, you blasted schoolgirl !

8 March 2013 at 13:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ben, the Inspector was trolling Pinknews for a while until he was barred from there. Bit touchy about it now. Probably Julia-posting-as-Jack too.

8 March 2013 at 13:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Ah yes, the definition of a troll. One who posts the counter argument...

8 March 2013 at 13:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Fellows – have already used “limited reasoning power”. Synonyms welcome if you think of any...

8 March 2013 at 13:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Cohen

'No, all I want is for same-sex couples to be treated with the respect and dignity of every other couple.'

Do you mean in the same way that the Burden sisters were denied a Civil Partnersip (presumambly, to avoid inheritance tax)?

8 March 2013 at 13:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Accepting your children does not mean that you accept and affirm all of their choices. It is the responsibility of a parent to reject the evil choices that an adult child makes. In the case of homosexuality, that means you reject the behavior and the relationships that attend it. No, you don't let the relationship into your house. No, you don't attend functions where the partner is present. No, you don't recognize the relationship by attending civil ceremonies and birthday parties. This is going to cause pain and hard choices. But it is necessary to force those hard choices. The behavior is wrong. The parent must demonstrate that the behavior is wrong. The adult child is responsible for the situation. He must be made to experience the conflict that his actions have caused.

carl

8 March 2013 at 13:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Those of us who have converted to Christianity from other religions and suffer rejection from opur parents, brothers, sisters - accept it as part of the consequences of the decision.

I have not heard one convert wail about abandonment nor establish a newspaper, or pressure group or lobby parliament for special laws.

And you know what Your Grace, when we come close to God - God seems to abandon us - when we feel that we really need Him.

Maybe that temporary abandonment cultivates our individual uniqueness - and that's why we need that abandonment - by God.

8 March 2013 at 14:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Here is a link to Prof Butterfield's battle:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/january-february/my-train-wreck-conversion.html

8 March 2013 at 14:24  
Blogger Paul Huxley said...

Your grace,

While theologians undoubtedly need to address the issues that people actually have (rather than angels dancing on pins), it seems to me that you've bought into unbridled relativism with this post.

Remember that some comments are often made on the basis of publicity, prior to broadcast. The Telegraph wrote:

He will directly compare the sense of “abandonment” felt by people who come out as gay to being on a cross and speaks about how much gay men have in common with Jesus.

And in a commentary ahead of the broadcast, he also likens the treatment of young gay people by some churches and religious groups to Jesus’s trial in front of the High Priest when he was condemned to death and handed over to the Romans.


So while you charitably quote some of what Mr Cohen said, I don't see mention of these specific points - that Jesus' crucifixion is comparable to 'coming out' and the claim that the Church treats gay people like the scribes treated Jesus.

Christology is a complex issue - but obfuscation makes for excellent wool with which to cover someone's eyes.

Jesus stood firmly opposed to porneia - normally translated 'sexual immorality'. This was a loaded and fixed term and clearly included homosexual activity. Cohen identifies himself with those practices and goes on to compare that with the agony Jesus endured to free mankind from the effects of those same practices! Blasphemy would seem to me a fitting word.

To cut through the fog of Christologies - would you be willing to come up with similar Christologies for zoophiles, paedophiles or serial adulterers?

We have all felt abandoned and oppressed - for situations of our own making and those where we have no fault. But Jesus's message is not 'believe and find yourself a Christology that's cool with all the sin in your life'. It's repent and believe. And Mr Cohen, like all of us, will find our humanity most perfectly expressed when we follow Jesus by living the way he has called us.

8 March 2013 at 14:48  
Blogger Benjamin Cohen said...

Paul Huxley, the fact is that if you listen to the broadcast you will hear that I do not at any point compare Christ on the cross to coming out. I actually explicitly state at points that "I am not going to compare this to Jesus's..."

Judge the broadcast by the actual 14 minute programme not the Daily Telegraph please!

8 March 2013 at 14:59  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Cranmer - I've read the tweets, listened to the talk, looked at the Christian Institute's comment and have taken Christian Concern's comments as mentioned in your blog. I've also looked at some of the vitriol on the Daily Mail comments, which wasn't edifying.

BC’s talk was sensitive and in his way positive about Christianity, but it was still sad and wrong and I’m not impressed with the way you’ve reacted.

Brother Ivo blogged a while back about how the BBC is possibly being very irritating, and as you point out this is possibly subcontracting the alleged mischief to others. All that’s conjecture though, but could bleed some of the heat of frustration away from the issues you raise here. To put this under the title of ‘Lent Talks’ isn’t Benjamin Cohen’s fault but it does have an effect. Whether we should whine or moan about them or to them is another matter, but you’re trying to appear understanding here and not managing it.

I can see your right desire to assure Benjamin Cohen of our unconditional Christian love and support, but don’t think the post helps anyone – the last couple of paragraphs particularly. To be blunt, it’s just total confusion made worse by long words. It’s understandable that people who believe that Christ died for the ungodly are concerned when someone says the ungodly feel like Christ, because of their sin. That statement does display a misunderstanding of his sufferings and their purpose, and leaves Christ’s character and mission confused. For the record – I’m in that group of ungodly as well. Don’t say that I defame the name of Christ – I want Ben Cohen to never be forsaken by God because of what Christ did, but there’s a way to go there and you’re standing in the way.

No time now to explain further, for which escape from tedium you’re probably glad, but felt the need to protest this time.

8 March 2013 at 15:07  
Blogger Fizza09 said...

Who are we or any so-called Christians to judge Ben. Jesus said “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Matthew 22: 37-40. Jesus died for all! We have to be more concerned with what we are doing right or wrong, that's enough for us. So anyone judging Ben or any other gay, is committing a sin!

8 March 2013 at 15:12  
Blogger Paul Huxley said...

Ok, that's good to hear. I will listen later.

The comments made by Andrea Williams and Bishop Nazir-Ali would have been made before the broadcast and as such, could only have been made on the basis of the pre-publicity.

Doesn't that mean His Grace rather misses the point? Shouldn't this post actually be about the Telegraph (and, presumably, whoever publicised it) misrepresenting what you had to say?

Benjamin/Mr Cohen - it must be particularly frustrating to you how this has developed. Being misrepresented is never fun, particularly on such a large scale. There's loads more that could be said about what His Grace has quoted but it may be best to leave it there.

8 March 2013 at 15:18  
Blogger Paul Huxley said...

Fizza - Jesus, the Apostles and basically every Christian, ever, has judged others in some way or other. Your comment itself is judging those who judge others.

Jesus' teaching is 'do not be judged lest ye be judged'. With the judgment that we judge others, we will be judged. He's teaching us not to be hypocrites. That's hard for all of us.

You're totally right about the primacy of love. But love does not exclude instruction or rebuke - otherwise how could any parent love their children?

8 March 2013 at 15:28  
Blogger Jon said...

It's rather sad that a thoughtful piece has been so obviously used by those who would seek to don the mantle of Christian victimhood and reflexive offence as if doing so in any way serves to deliver the message of the gospels.

8 March 2013 at 15:43  
Blogger Flossie said...

His Grace has an honourable history of standing up for the oppressed, but in this case (a)I don't think Mr Cohen is oppressed and (b) those people at Christian Concern, who, being barristers, could have done a Cherie Blair and made a fortune out of the human rights industry, but they chose instead to stand up for those suffering oppression for their Christian beliefs. I don't think they deserve some of the opprobrium heaped upon them in the Twitter column of this blog.

8 March 2013 at 15:43  
Blogger JB said...

This is blasphemy!!! I hope Benjamin Cohen realize that "whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come," Matthew 12:32. Ignorance is no excuse. He has gone beyond limit comparing the suffering of Christ to his abominable acts! People should be cautious and not be crossing their boundaries, ignorance or not. His comments are very offensive to Christ's doctrine and unacceptable to ears!! He just shows how much blinded he is about who Christ is. How dare he blasphemously use the name name of Christ! Who can restore such? only the merciful God. God please have mercy on your people and open their eyes to LIGHT. This is so sad :(

8 March 2013 at 15:48  
Blogger Corrigan said...

His Grace is merely Anglican and so also utterly devoid of that perfect divine communion claimed by the theologically infallible.

Good old Cranmer - never miss a chance to take a dig at the Romanists, eh?

Well, whatever about that, the thrust of the arguments here seem to be around the definition of love. I hate to disabuse some of the ageing hippies around this site, but it ain't the sixties, and love is not all you need. Accepting people for what they are is not the same as validating them; it's called tolerance, and it has its limits. You can tolerate somebody without celebrating their acts, and that's what we do with homosexuals. It doesn't make us evil because we won't always tell people what they want to hear.

8 March 2013 at 15:56  
Blogger Jacqui Tyson said...

Well said, please don't think all Christians think like this. Jay

8 March 2013 at 16:11  
Blogger Jacqui Tyson said...

Well said, please don't think all Christians think like this. Jay

8 March 2013 at 16:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Corrigan is damn right as he almost usually is. Where does it say in the bible that we have to go beyond tolerance of our neighbour. Surely our tolerance of him is the very love that Jesus spoke about ? In Christ’s time one understands a man not killing him next door over some argument was love enough.

Now, here’s something that will surprise. When this man saw Ben Cohen was the subject for today, it was like a red rag appearing. But reading on, he’s carried himself off well. The most profound thing about him is that he is not another Peter Thatchel, living and breathing gay everything plus a desire to reduce the age of consent so school children can be sodomised. Instead, it appears the man has created Pinknews as a commercial venture. He saw a gap in the market and filled it, and now provides a service for those who need it and receives advertising revenue in return.

Thus results a certain admiration for him, no less...

pip pip !

8 March 2013 at 16:17  
Blogger Nick said...

It is typical of the BBC that the invite a non-Christian to talk about Christian issues. They prefer to pay homage to the Equality god and Camerons PC dystopia. one reason I stopped watching most BBC stuff.

8 March 2013 at 16:35  
Blogger Flossie said...

'Ad hom', Your Grace? (on Twitter). I have read through all the posts, and can see quite a lot of disagreements, and a certain amount of hostility, but always with a reasoned argument to back up the comments.

If you are referring to comments like, for example, 'a very stupid bigot, a truly poisonous little gimp', 'pants-crappingly insane', 'who can go and f-ck himself', you will be relieved to hear, Your Grace, that they are not directed at you, but at your successor, Justin Welby (who has today 'come out' against gay marriage and gay adoption) by Pink News readers.

Of course they don't claim to be professing Christians, but they seem to think they know more about the faith than Justin Welby, who has obviously never heard about shellfish and mixed fibres.



8 March 2013 at 16:37  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Cranmer. I'm not sure if I can call you your Grace.
What's the matter with you? Have you gone Gay?
Lost and abandoned? We all were until God met us. Cohen and the liberals all want to find a God that suites their requirements, not what God wants.
In the Old Testament, the elders knew that you can't keep rebels in the camp. They will pervade and destroy society. If a child failed to reform they were taken outside the walls and stoned. I'm not quite suggesting that but it has it's point.
Is God an End or is he a Means?
Do we use God to get what we want or do we serve him to the End?
God did not die to save us for ourselves but for his self, he wants our fellowship so that his suffering was not to no purpose.
All your ology's are to no avail unless you have experienced the power of God. They are just mind filling exercises otherwise. Head knowledge does not make you a Christian and this poor young fellow Cohen will I'm afraid perish unless he stops trying to make God fit his beliefs.
Inspector and Flossie; you are the White Knights of this Blog. Never fail to speak the truth and never waver in the wake of their withering niceness that causes God to cringe in heaven over.i
Try watching this. A bit long but very powerful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec5dJHtMTSg

8 March 2013 at 16:38  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thank you yet again for another surprise post, Your Grace. A young, Gay Jewish entrepreneur speaking on Christianity. Not many times and places when and where such dialogue could take place without bit of a kerfaffle.

And a warm hello to you, Mr Cohen...if you're still about... with a salute to your courage in popping by alone and with appreciation for your candor and courtesy. Shabbat shalom, any and all.

8 March 2013 at 16:48  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Having read this and checked through the comments, I have a few things to say:

Mr Cohen: Whilst I don't think what you say is generally blasphemous, I think you are sailing dangerously close to the wind saying "Both of our stories are ultimately about embracing love rather than fear". I don't think comparing Christ's love for the world and homosexual attractions is particularly wise; in fact I think it is an offensive comparison to the love of Christ.

Also, you say: No, all I want is for same-sex couples to be treated with the respect and dignity of every other couple

I don't think that is a reasonable request to make to those who believe that homosexuality as an overthrow of the created order and a breach of God's law, and therefore not comparable to a heterosexual couple which, within marriage, is a picture of the relationship between Christ and his church.

Carl: Why do you think parents of children in homosexual relationships shouldn't let the partner into their house? Do you think that implies approval? I don't think it necessarily does, any more than inviting an unmarried couple (that is sexually active) to your house would do so. Of course it would be incumbent on the parents to make sure their moral disapproval of and opposition to the relationship was clear, but how would you balance that with the need not just to love your children but to evangelise them (and potentially their partner)?

Your Grace: I think your claim that this is a matter of Christology is confusing, given Mr Cohen's attempt to separate it from that, making an analogy and nothing more.

But more than that, to say that no Christology is normative is also a confusing statement. Do you mean that Christ's divinity doesn't take precedence over his humanity, which doesn't take precedence over his Messiahship? I'm on board with that, but if you're saying that we can't know who and what Christ is and are limited to pious agnosticism, I can tell you that that does not put you in the Anglican tradition, least of all in the shoes of Cranmer. You don't need to be infallible to believe that there are certain things that the Bible teaches very clearly, Christology amongst them.

8 March 2013 at 16:49  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

On reading through all these comments I can only SIGH ... meaning "to let out one's breath audibly, as from sorrow or weariness."

8 March 2013 at 16:56  
Blogger Ivan said...


Homosexuals in the West have a higher suicide rate that the general population, as they put a greater premium on being and staying attractive to various partners. That combined with a fragile inner life makes them particularly vulnerable to rejection and suicide as soon as they begin to lose their attractiveness. This apart from the fact that their lifestyle and peculiar activities make them ten tmes more likely than normal people to contract AIDs.

The only solution is for them to avoid making their sexuality the be all and end all of their lives. I know of numerous normal people who have not slept with anyone in years, they are still around, going about their daily lives.

Obsession with sex destroys lives, kills off little by little that part of us that is closest to God. Unchecked it coarsens us and turn us into mere brutes. Why would any Christian wish that on anyone?

8 March 2013 at 17:17  
Blogger Fizza09 said...

In response to Paul Huxley: It is written we are wonderfully made and as I believe, gay people are made that way, they don't just chose to be that way. So if we are wonderfully made, then are you not critisising God for making them 'that way'?

8 March 2013 at 17:20  
Blogger Paul Huxley said...

Fizza - now we've moved topic from whether it's OK to judge to the rights and wrongs of homosexuality.

Whether or not people are born gay in a genetic sense (the evidence is sketchy), people are, according to the Bible, born 'in Adam' - that is to say, not morally perfect.

Although God created us wonderfully, as you note, we are not naturally free from the effects of sin. We can be selfish, angry, covetous and many other things. Many people are predisposed towards these sins.

Why would lust (whether heterosexual, homosexual or anything other kind) get a free pass?

8 March 2013 at 17:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "That combined with a fragile inner life makes them particularly vulnerable to rejection and suicide as soon as they begin to lose their attractiveness."

When I sitting on a window ledge 10 or so floors up, aged 19, deciding whether I should push myself off, it wasn't my expectation of declining attractiveness as I passed middle age that was forefront in my mind. It was that I saw no hope or prospect of happiness for me in a society, back then in the 1980s, which appeared to reject gay people. I saw a potential lifetime of failure of expectations, a secret life, hidden love, perhaps even brief, tawdry meetings with others living a lie. I'll tell you what, I'm very glad I didn't push myself off now. Society has changed for the better, and rapidly too. We can be open about our sexuality now in the UK if we choose. We can meet people in normal surrounding, chat openly over the internet, live together as partners, marry (to all intents and purposes), and just get on with our lives.

"The only solution is for them to avoid making their sexuality the be all and end all of their lives."

Lots of we gay people don't make their sexuality the be all and end all of our lives in real life. For instance, most people wouldn't realise I was gay. However, it's probably as important in our lives as it for straight people.

"Obsession with sex destroys lives, kills off little by little that part of us that is closest to God."

I'm not obsessed with sex. However, to turn that around, there are lots of Christians who are ... regarding the sex lives of others ... and I think it must kill off, little by litter, their spiritual lives such as they are.

8 March 2013 at 17:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


It appears the Almighty has arranged for 1.5% of the population to be sterile drones. Perhaps by denying them the ability to naturally procreate, he is relieving them of the burden of child rearing to free them up to better serve society...

It is generally accepted the human race has had precarious times regarding survival in pre history. Could it be that those groups where homosexuality was rife allowed these ones to thrive, where other groups where it did not occur perished because there were no non parents to help out.


8 March 2013 at 17:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 17:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I could naturally procreate if I so chose, Inspector. No need for test tubes or turkey basters. Just a quick reflex and a Cry of 'God for Prince Harry, England, and Saint George!' before sticking it in. You just need to think out of the box, so to speak.

8 March 2013 at 17:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


You are on record as saying you are unable to watch intimate man-woman behaviour !

8 March 2013 at 17:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Unable? No. I find it pretty unpleasant though. I grab for the remote control if there's such stuff on TV. Ewww.

8 March 2013 at 18:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

That will be 'unable' then...

8 March 2013 at 18:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Did you know the Cheetah came very close to extinction 25 to 50 thou years ago. So few specimens survived, that today EVERY new born cheetah suffers from some degree of genetic inbreeding. Obviously, no homosexual cheetahs around when they were needed...

8 March 2013 at 18:08  
Blogger Fizza09 said...

Paul Huxley
Did Jesus not die for our past, present and future sins? (Not that I am saying 'sinning' is the correct word for it.

8 March 2013 at 18:12  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

But do people of faith really want to reject their children ..

No, parents should not reject their chidlren. neither should they unconditionally accept their behaviors.

... for something which I believe they can't help?

The author is not an authority. He does not possess within himself the ability to define good and evil. The fact that he believes he can't help his desire is not relevant to the morality of the desire. Every man is possessed of evil desire, and he is expected to overcome it. Why then is this desire privileged? What validates the morality of homosexual desire? It cannot be the desire itself because desire is not inherently self-justifying. Neither can it be an appeal to ontology because homosexual desire is the only observable evidence for a homosexual ontology. We know nothing of the connection between DNA and behavior. Even if we did, the moral judgment would still stand. Evil behavior connected to DNA would still be restricted and punished. So what justifies homosexual desire that I must accept it?

Just as, the Jewish authorities rejected Christ - for something he considered he couldn't help- being the son of God?”

This is a false analogy. Jesus wasn't rejected for 'something he couldn't help.' He was rejected because he wasn't the Messiah envisioned by those with hard hearts.

Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.” ...

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. And although they were seeking to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet. Matt 21:37-41,45-46


carl

8 March 2013 at 18:15  
Blogger David Hussell said...

With society becoming increasingly dysfunctional, failing children and family structures, a socially reconstructionist BBC is an experiment that can no longer be tolerated. ( is there such a word as reconstructionist ? ) It's skill and ability to irritate and attempt the destabilization of normative Christian thought is truly incredible, but then there is nothing as effective as the apostate in attacking a former faith. The recent strong, clear statement from the Russian Orthodox Church is to be welcomed. Let's have more from the churches of the west. One senses Justin feels constrained by the established position of his church.

8 March 2013 at 18:19  
Blogger John Henson said...

Andrea Williams mentions "Jesus's message to the gay community". What message is that, exactly?

From my reading of the Gospels it strikes me that Jesus, although he says a great deal about the abuse of power and money, says virtually nothing about sex.

8 March 2013 at 18:39  
Blogger Paul Huxley said...

Fizza - Jesus died to save his people, absolutely. But his people are those who turn from sin (including lust) and follow him. If you're ignoring Jesus's teaching on this or anything else you can't presume to be saved.

John Henson - that would be an extrapolation from his teaching in general. There weren't many first century Jews who thought porneia (sexual immorality) was good, so why would he have spoken about it at length? It certainly is a pressing issue now though.

8 March 2013 at 18:58  
Blogger Paul Huxley said...

Fizza - Jesus died to save his people, absolutely. But his people are those who turn from sin (including lust) and follow him. If you're ignoring Jesus's teaching on this or anything else you can't presume to be saved.

John Henson - that would be an extrapolation from his teaching in general. There weren't many first century Jews who thought porneia (sexual immorality) was good, so why would he have spoken about it at length? It certainly is a pressing issue now though.

8 March 2013 at 18:58  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

I’ve listened to the talk but it comes across to me as part of the modern indoctrination by media that traditional morality has to change to fit in with people’s sexual addictions. Could we imagine the BBC having an alcoholic make a speech where he talks about being afraid of abandonment by his family because of his love of drink and then connecting this to the abandonment felt by Jesus? In addition nowhere does he distinguish between his feelings for other men and genital sexual activity with them. He doesn’t consider the possibility of fighting against the sinful behavior and makes it clear that he has also had more than one “partner”. He has therefore been unfaithful. Traditional Christianity says “love the sinner but hate the sin”. The modern spirit of the times exhorts us to change the rules and reject God's law. If we consider the story of the Tower of Babel and interpret it in a non literal way we can understand the building of the tower as being an attempt to reach up to Heaven and take possession of the “Law”. Unfortunately, that is what Mr Cohen is doing.

8 March 2013 at 19:08  
Blogger Preacher said...

I believe that as sinners saved by God's mercy & grace through the sacrifice of Christ, we must feel true love & compassion for those who haven't found or have knowingly rejected God's gracious offer of salvation, bought at so great a price. But that does not allow us to condone sin in ourselves or others. Or to change the rules to suit our own selfish lusts or desires, they are simply not OUR rules or even societies rules or conclusions as to what's fair or acceptable. They are God's immutable rules, & He says "I am the Lord, I change not" & "The soul that sins will die!".
We have no say in the matter, the Bible leaves no room for manoeuvre, repent or face the eternal results of sin.
God has no wish that ANY should perish & Christ shows that Agape love by purchasing our redemption at the price of His life & the pain He suffered. The choice is up to the individual, but no seeds of doubt should be sown regarding the fate of those that reject God's mercy. To do so would be the cruellest act any true believer could commit.

8 March 2013 at 19:10  
Blogger len said...

Jesus experienced every human emotion and because of that He can identify with almost any emotion we can experience.
Jesus experienced rejection on almost every level and He can therefore empathise with those who are rejected by society(for whatever reason)

God defines sin and the tragedy of sin is that it gives Satan inroads into your life and he will bring death disease and destruction into any life where he has access.It would not be 'love' to leave someone under the control and domination of Satan which is the reason Jesus came to' set the captives free'.
As a Christian I believe in the 'goodness' of God and if He warns us against types of lifestyles that are damaging I can only assume that He does so for good reason.
Jesus didn`t condemn sin neither did He condone it because He knew that God intended a radical transformation for man IF man accepted the Holy Spirit which would change man radically and totally from within.

We underestimate the Power of God if we think that' whatever we are' is unchangeable. Man is in the process of re -defining sin with the attitude that we must accept what we are instead of becoming what God created us to be.

8 March 2013 at 19:37  
Blogger Stardancer said...

I am not an habitual reader of this blog, and arrived here indirectly. Nonetheless, I must say that I was generally, though incompletely, impressed with the mainly compassionate thoughts of its author.

I am unable to be similarly complimentary about the quality, kindness or generosity of many of the respondents. I will not name them, for that would be to 'point an accusatory finger', which I would not wish to do.

To my mind, far too many of the respondents do not express the teachings of Christ, rather they express a base prejudice founded in human weakness/insecurity. In a remarkable contrast, the responses from Mr Ben Cohen, a professed Jew, appear to be of an opposite tenor. Now, mayhap some alleged Christians might learn a lesson or two from that particular Jewish man, at least in respect of their (commenting) behaviour.

Let me make my position clear. I was raised to be RC, but rejected its dogma at an early age. Since then I've been on a pretty long search for something that I could confidently believe. I've not found it in any kind of totality yet, but this much I do know with some certainty:

1) Hating/despising others is always counter-productive. It helps nobody, not least oneself!

2) Considering others' needs should always be as, if not more, important than considering one's own needs.

3) If God is love, then what does it truly matter if that love is found between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and a man? If God is love, then he/she/it is surely to be found in the space in between the two individuals concerned.

As a relatively agnostic/humanist man who would desperately wish to find a faith that I could truly profess, I found a little in the author's writing to inspire me towards Christianity. Almost everything written in response (presuming the comments come from 'Christians') push me in the entirely opposite direction.

Though I have tried to be measured and compassionate, should there be any response to this post, then I must be realistic and expect vituperous comments in return.

No matter how anyone might try, I will not be hurt, for I am confident in what I've said, and in its truth.

All written more in a spirit of sadness. Certainly not anger.

And, unlike many, I will put my own name to it!

Regards to all

Mike Killen

8 March 2013 at 19:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chin up Stardancer, though agreed, rejection hurts. It hurts to see it and it hurts to be on the receiving end.

But better that hurt than for Christianity to come to an agreement with homosexuality. You see, if you don’t reject it, you passively embrace it.

By the way, Christians don’t do hatred or despising of individuals, just ways of life that are in direct contest to God’s intention.

Sure you understand...

pip pip !


8 March 2013 at 20:02  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Stardancer, There is obviously disagreement about this issue but my impression of this blog has been that the criticisms of Mr Cohen's position have been generally to criticize the behaviour rather than to direct personal attacks against his person. With regard to Mr Cohen's talk it appears that throughout his childhood he was faced with teachings which caused him to question and in general his family and the people who taught him distinguished between the sin and the sinner. It would be good if Mt Cohen could do the same.

8 March 2013 at 20:15  
Blogger Stardancer said...

In all honesty, Office of Inspector General, your comment appears to be both bitter and insightless. I will not respond to you again (mainly 'cos I think you to be trolling!)

I neither reject nor embrace homosexuality - I simply accept its existence and wish that we could all do so - quite unlike you, of course.

Should you consider yourself to be a Christian, well your attitudes reveal you to be deluded, I'm sad to say that you do not appear to love your neighbour (whether straight or gay).

You have my pity that you write the nonsense that you do - especially upon a blog meant to be discussing religious ideas.

Or have I perceived something incorrectly about this place?

Regards

Mike Killen

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

Well, Stardancer, it is true you know. The Inspector will not inherit the earth.

As for being a troll, how dare you !

Anyway, tell me where it is written that a Christian must be a roll over sort (...excepting the turning of the other cheek business...). As for loving his neighbour, see his post at 16:17

Now, we are trying to keep buggery off the national curriculum. And that’s a real threat, if SSM goes through. What we don’t need are sanctimonious types like you holding the lifted shirt tails of our young.

By the way, welcome to the site. Very pleased to meet you old chap. One hopes your stay here will be a happy one...


8 March 2013 at 21:21  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

I object to Stardancer's rudeness, directed at OIG. It is clearly a personal attack and should be deleted. I hope he doesn't hang around here much longer.

8 March 2013 at 21:28  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Dash it All Carl Jacobs,

I am not sure what your story is, but mine is that I was a complete sinful bounder in my young days- fine wine, sex with classy women and fast cars were the order of the day!(a release perhaps of seeing things during the war, that a teenage boy should not have witnessed).

I came to Jesus and found a new life; started ironically by my brother's conversion to Judaism and me meeting the first and only lady I have ever truly loved.

I remember that my Sister in Law was most upset by her oldest son dating an ethnic minority girl, not because of racialism but because she was not of the Jewish faith. Yet rather than ignore or turn her away, the family welcomed her and eventually, she became David's first wife and a convert to the Jewish religion.

Also I agree with Thomas Keningley; to welcome a stranger into one's family life does not mean that one approves of whatever lifestyle they lead. I was strict with my children and now grand children.

I know that relationships of the flesh outside of wedlock are not a good thing and of course the Bible says no to them. So if they stay at my house, then they sleep in separate rooms, regardless of sexuality.

If they wish to be sinful then that is a consequence they must bear- both in this life and in front of God.

I think that family is important to our religious views, so I would rather not cast off or forever loose contact with my family who are Jewish or gay. The kindness we show and the Light of God does the rest of the evangelism.

8 March 2013 at 21:30  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Will Danjo never stop telling everybody intimate things about himself that nobody wants to know?

8 March 2013 at 21:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Julia, we must allow the fellow his say and stay, as he will soon be receiving the Inspector’s personal erudition...

8 March 2013 at 21:32  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

My dear Julia Grasper, our friend Inspector General is capable of thrashing anyone, with the wit in his armoury (I have things to say to him, later) and I cannot see the rude post you say, in so much as it is in line with the polemical banter one has on this blog. I am thinking your judgement is clouded because of your dislike of the homosexual.

8 March 2013 at 21:33  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 21:37  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Inspector General,

I cannot understand your war against Hannah and David. Please explain. You are clearly upset because you have been branded a racialist, homophobic etc.

I cannot see the racialist aspect myself and like men of your age you are suspicious of homosexuals. I don't think you are anti Jew as you deploy the traditional cutting Jewish humour into your posts.

Now my dear chap, both David and Hannah and have soft spot for you, for these reasons, despite matters. Hannah in particular. So why the antagonism?

Yes she is a gay and calls you a 'silly oaf'. Yet you say you claim to like Jewish humour. Perhaps you have been at the centre of a big Jewish "gag" all along? Reflect and think on that my dear chap.

8 March 2013 at 21:40  
Blogger Nick said...

Stardancer
"If God is love, then what does it truly matter if that love is found between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and a man?"

Sorry Stardancer, but like so many agnostics and atheists, you confused the Christian concept of love with lust. Please google "agape" or read 1 Corinthians 13". This is the kind of love that edifies its recipient not sees them as trophy for othe other to own and consume. It is sacrificial not self-seeking.

But Christians also love God as a child loves its father and that means obedience too. Promoting homosexuality is impossible for a true Christian as it is contrary to Holy spirit. That is not hatred.

The scriptures are unequivocal on the issue of homosexuality - you can check for yourself. God regards it as an abomination and is not likely to be persuaded otherwise by your argument

8 March 2013 at 21:42  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Also I wish that this Ben Cohen chap wasn't a gay. Many of my Jewish relatives have e-mailed me that from a hetrosexual view, he is a 'good catch' and quite a 'Dishy' fellow and a 'Cohen', which is quite a status, so I gather.

8 March 2013 at 21:43  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 21:57  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

@ "Lord Lavendon". My judgement is not clouded and Stardancer has said he is not homosexual. He used the terms "bitter and insightless" "trolling" "deluded" and "nonsense". Rude personal aggression.
It seems you can't tell the difference between dislike of homosexualist extremism and dislike of homosexuals. A common error.

8 March 2013 at 21:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Lavendon old fellow. First allow the Inspector to inform you he holds you in high esteem. That will continue to be the case.

Regrettably, your brother's family who post on this site have seen fit to wield the damn bat around this man’s head.

It is true the Inspector analyses replies, and young Hannah is not so able with the English language as one might expect of a university educated woman. It would have been convenient to illustrate the offence she causes this man, by directing you to earlier posts of hers on this very thread thread. However, she has deleted the damned lot ! What does that tell you ? The Inspector’s replies are still there. Read them...

As for the man Kavanagh himself, he is obviously a man unused to not getting his own way. This includes posting criticism of this man, then crying foul if a reply is received. The astonishing arrogance he displays cannot go unchallenged. Far too haughty an individual, needs bringing down if he is going to continue to post in public, don’t you think ? (Rhetorical, old chap)

Now to finish off the last of the Aberlour...

Chars !

8 March 2013 at 22:04  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

My other thoughts are that it may be the case that the BBC has chosen to not have the full blooded Orthodox Christians for the lent series on radio 4 , but that is not Benjamin Cohen's fault, is it?

I have listened to the wireless broadcast via the magic of the I player, and cannot myself see the blasphemy. Benjamin Cohen is Jewish and therefore has a different view to Christians.

And I think is quite fair, from his own view, on the nature of Jesus Christ and his sufferings. I think it is said that Christ who was without sin, was cut off from the Father during the agony of the cross.

The allusion is that Ben Cohen simply identifies with Christ, in his fear of being cut off from his own people for being a homosexual. This is not a blasphemous statement at all.

8 March 2013 at 22:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lavendon: "I cannot see the rude post you say, in so much as it is in line with the polemical banter one has on this blog."

My wit is wasted on poor Julia.

8 March 2013 at 22:17  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

It is your "wit" that is poor. You keep telling everybody all about yourself hoping that one day you will meet somebody who is interested. And who knows, maybe after about twenty more years you will.

8 March 2013 at 22:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Julia: "It seems you can't tell the difference between dislike of homosexualist extremism and dislike of homosexuals. A common error."

Nigel Farage may have done something similar recently if the Mirror is to be believed:

"Party leader and Euro-MP Nigel Farage responded to our investigation by condemning Dr Gasper’s “unacceptable war” against homosexuals."

8 March 2013 at 22:23  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 March 2013 at 22:25  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

@ Danjo. Your naive belief in everything you read in the tabloids is just what I would have expected.

8 March 2013 at 22:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I've been looking for a fuller quote. What did he actually say, Julia, when you had to resign from the Oxford branch chair of UKIP? Resign for, well, what was it for again?

8 March 2013 at 22:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One does feel that for a homosexual to compare his family or social estrangement to the rejection of the Christ by the Jews is in bad taste. It is not however, blasphemous. It does though illustrate the familiar cry of “I am what I am” of the gay community to a largely disinterested public.

For example, the Inspector loves reading railway books. But he’s clever enough to make a secret of it.

Oh no ! Ones secret shame revealed ! Life will never be the same again...


8 March 2013 at 22:31  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

@ Danjo. Your naive belief in everything you read in the tabloids is just what I would have expected.

8 March 2013 at 22:34  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

""Unable? No. I find it pretty unpleasant though. I grab for the remote control if there's such stuff on..."
Unable, incompetent, even impotent?

8 March 2013 at 22:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Why did you resign again, Julia?

8 March 2013 at 22:36  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

@ Danjo.
You are aggressive towards women because you are impotent with them.
That much is obvious. The more you go on displaying your hostility the more pathetic you look.

8 March 2013 at 22:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The reason, Julia?

8 March 2013 at 22:39  
Blogger bluedog said...

Julia @ 21.28 says, 'I object to Stardancer's rudeness, directed at OIG. It is clearly a personal attack and should be deleted. I hope he doesn't hang around here much longer.'

But irrespective of whether Stardancer is gay/straight or Christian/atheist it is always interesting to get a fresh perspective on His Grace's blog and its participants. Stardancer's comments seem balanced and considered and yes, he has formed a view of OIG's polemics. But are those views ad hominem insult or just an expression of mild shock?

This communicant is inclined to the latter view, and can see no reasonable basis for your attempted banishment of the poster.

8 March 2013 at 22:39  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

As for the person who thinks this Ben Cohen is good looking, you should have gone to Specsavers.

8 March 2013 at 22:41  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Dr Gasper,

As a student of English literature, you must surely be aware of polemics and other discourses, which can at first glance seem to be 'personal'. I admit I have yet to peruse Stardancer's comments, but I shall.

8 March 2013 at 22:41  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah, I see many more comments have come since I last 'refreshed' this conversation. I shall address the matters as best as one is able.

8 March 2013 at 22:48  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Anyway I shouldn't be talking to you as my parents told me not to talk to "strange men".
You certainly come into that category.

8 March 2013 at 22:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Talk to me, Julia. Why did you resign and what did Farage actually say about it?

8 March 2013 at 22:49  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Dr Gasper,

You call others here for their " Rude personal aggression"

Then you proclaim :

"As for the person who thinks this Ben Cohen is good looking, you should have gone to Specsavers."

This is not rude and personal, my fine lady?

8 March 2013 at 22:51  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Danjo,

Alas subtle humour doth allude many people here.

8 March 2013 at 22:52  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! So much strong feeling directed towards poor Ben Cohen, who looks like the sort of young man you would love to take home to meet your mother. Mr. Slope is hoping to make contact with him and explore the Eastward Position in some depth, which surely cannot be bad. It seems to me, from my quiet oasis in Barchester, that the biggest villain is that latter-day Jupiter, the BBC, a body infected by all sorts of heresies and dogmas of a leftist nature. Mr Slope would like Ben Cohen to know that, if the heat of debate makes things uncomfortable, there's always a bed for him in the chaplain's lodgings.

8 March 2013 at 22:53  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Dr Gasper,

You say to Danjo (when you do not refer to him as Banjo) :

"You are aggressive towards women because you are impotent with them.
That much is obvious. The more you go on displaying your hostility the more pathetic you look".

Again one has to ask, by your standard, is that remark not "Rude personal aggression"?!

And again :

"Anyway I shouldn't be talking to you as my parents told me not to talk to "strange men".
You certainly come into that category."

Neither of these comments add credibility to your argument. And I thought you were a politician of the UKIP, whom I was going to vote for ?

8 March 2013 at 22:56  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Blue Dog,

Jolly good show,my old Conservative Hound, are you sure you are not one of the family, posting under a nome de plume?!

8 March 2013 at 22:58  
Blogger Stardancer said...

Nick,

You have placed your own interpretation upon my words. I have singularly not confused love with lust. My words were that love, no matter where it might be originating from (ie regardless of the genders involved) is generally speaking an extremely good thing. It brings people together and generally promotes a better society.

You may quote as many verses and chapters from as many differing "Holy Books" as you wish, mostly dating from thousands of years ago, though still with at least something to tell us today. But that does not equal "Eternal Truth", no matter how much you as an individual might wish it to be so. It is time for you to do a little growing up, Nick.

You say that Christians love God. Well, what about Hindus, Jews, Muslims, or those of multiple other faiths? Do they love God(s)? You need to wake up to the world, lad, not just your own narrow perception of it.

My research (admittedly as an agnostic) suggests to me that most religions consider God to be Love. I therefore conclude that God may best be discovered in the joyous and loving relationship between two people. Frankly, I couldn't give a monkey's fu*k as regards their genders.

Regards

Mike Killen

8 March 2013 at 23:01  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah my Dear Inspector,

I did ask Hannah about why she deleted the posts -it is because of a vow she undertook not to post here for a while and therefore felt it to be wrong to post and still has respect for you.

And yes, she has problems with spelling and grammar, but bear in mind, old chap, that he first and real language is mathematics, not English. Half of the bally maths she comes out with is incomprehensible to me!

As for the rest of the view, on David being a haughty old cock, as I said before, perhaps you are subject to a Jewish joke here. I think that David likes to think so...

Hannah identifies with you because you are a single man, who is yet to marry, a predicament she as a gay female is also in, so in fact she does have respect and sympathy for you.

When Hannah says your a racialist etc, it is nothing the girl hasn't said to me in 26 years!

and you do like Jewish humour?

Pip Pip, old chap!

8 March 2013 at 23:06  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

PS- I can write the above, because I have asked them about these matters. They cannot write during their Sabbath, so I have collated their responses and posted in my own style. The men are currently smoking cigars and drinking brandy in the conservatory.

8 March 2013 at 23:08  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Next chap to deal with is star chamber.... cigar first though.

8 March 2013 at 23:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Lavendon old fellow. Many years ago this man heard a eulogy for a dear departed worthy on Radio 4. The subject, who’s name this man has forgotten, was described as a ‘complicated man’. Made the Inspector laugh, so it did. Are we not all complicated men ?

Should Hannah post to this man again, tell her this. He was older than she is now when she was born. Perhaps a bit of respect for the additional two and a half decades of experience this man has over her wouldn’t go amiss. Then again, doesn’t the young demand equal parity these days ?


8 March 2013 at 23:22  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah my Dear Inspector,

Jolly good show. As you were.

Despite my efforts I have yet to impart wisdom to Hannah...

Hannah is young, intelligent, but head strong and tempestuous, whilst also struggling from the anti-Jewish and homosexual bullying she has taken in her young life . Read her writings in that context and you shall understand her.

I did ask her and she still has a soft spot for your posting style.

8 March 2013 at 23:29  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

The newspapers this week tell us that Nigel Farage has been having dinner in London with Rupert Murdoch, whereas his own blog says that he has been fog-bound in Jersey for some days and only landed at Heathrow this morning (Friday).
Moral: (yes some of us are still bigoted enough to have those)Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers.

8 March 2013 at 23:31  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Aberlour- good show that man!

As for Starchappie, well it seems you don't really believe anything, but wish to criticise others for having a belief?!

The comments section here is robustly polemical,a bear pit, where one's views can get shredded quicker than a hungry Velociraptor, a gladiatorial arena, in which the antics of the House of Commoners seem like a little meek mouse and in which a chap or chapess needs to survive with sword and whit and on their toes.

And is this Christian? Perhaps and perhaps not. It is certainly Jewish though.

9 March 2013 at 00:14  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

Far better to experience a sense of abandonment in this life than eternal abandonment in the next.

9 March 2013 at 00:28  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Well as I predicted Julia, you are going to be he who can do no wrong's next victim.You have already had a taste of his bullying and muck raking and it will get worse. The professed Christian ghouls will watch salivating as he attempts to tear you to pieces.I sincerely hope you do not go the way of our Dodo.Arm yourself for the lowest gutter tactics imaginable to be used against you.

9 March 2013 at 00:41  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Goodness Lavendon I think you have exposed your deep seated anti semitism in a freudian slip.(your ast 2 sentences) Hilarious! Oh well..that is what comes of trying so hard to lie to yourself. Just rattle the will - that should calm your relatives. Best delete your post it before they see it.

9 March 2013 at 00:58  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Cressida,

My dear. Go hang. I am fully well aware of your attempts to hate people here, but it will not work upon me. There's a good gal.

9 March 2013 at 01:07  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Cressida ,

And if you could prove the anti-semitism jibe, I'd be very appreciative. It is not my fault or anyone's that you have a deep seated hatred for Anglicans, Jews, Homosexuals or anyone who does not follow your ridiculous brand of Roman Catholicism. I have little time for the nonsense you spout. But if you want a fight, then you shall have one.

9 March 2013 at 01:12  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Thomas Keningley, Lord Lavendon

Consider. Assume Bob's son leaves his wife and two children for another woman. With whom should Bob's loyalties lie? The son or the daughter-in-law and his grandchildren? Should he then receive this wife of adultery as if nothing had happened? Should he honor that relationship by recognizing it? And what does he say to his daughter-in-law who was dealt with so treacherously? No, I do not see any blanket injunction to receive anyone into my home.

The above relationship is illicit. It can never be made morally whole. So also with a homosexual relationship. It can never be made morally whole. Because of this, I could never recognize it. I would in fact take positive steps to demonstrate my rejection of that relationship. And that begins with this definitive statement. "This relationship that you have chosen will never be a part of this family. You are always a part of this family. But you cannot bring into it whatever you may desire." That is the consequence of the behavior of the child, and not that of the parent. The parent must defend the boundaries that he has established.

carl

9 March 2013 at 01:16  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Oh dear... you have been caught out! LOL

9 March 2013 at 01:27  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Cressida,

Caught out? Why prove it my dear anti-Anglican lady.

9 March 2013 at 01:32  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I ask that of you Cressida, because unlike you I not an intellectual poet, who can wax lyrical about people in some mystical way; I am a thickie patriot who isn't some "misunderstood" poet or whatever your apologist friend calls you. Tell me plain. Give me the evidence. If not shut up, my good girl.

9 March 2013 at 01:37  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

" For if it is rash to walk into a lion's den unarmed, rash to navigate the Atlantic in a rowing boat,rash to stand on one foot on the top of St.Paul's,it is still more rash to go home alone with a poet. A poet is Atlantic and a lion in one.If we survive the teeth we succumb to the waves.."
LOL
This is a quote from an erudite but disturbed lesbian author who filled her coat pockets with rocks and drowned herself in the Thames.



9 March 2013 at 02:24  
Blogger non mouse said...

Oh my, Your Grace: how 'appropriately' post-modern! It’s all those impressive adjectives and -ologies that do it, of course; and one quite appreciates how today’s style “relates” to the substance of the post. Fragmentation and all.

Others have adequately addressed today’s topic in terms of opposing forms of Love (cupiditas/Caritas). This is certainly part of the picture Mr. Cohen ignores when he claims: “Having feared such abandonment myself, every time I look up at Christ, I’m happy that both our stories are ultimately about embracing love, rather than fear.” However, I suggest that Cohen’s statement is less than sublime in his opposition of fear and love. Surely the opposite of fear is courage?

And do we not learn that Christ redeemed us by spiritual courage, rather than by succumbing to the fear of physical death and suffering? My problem continues, furthermore, with Cohen’s interpretation of “fear.” Christ may or may not have "feared" social isolation and pillory — but that was not the limit of His ontology.

The Gospels tell that the meditating Christ rejected His Fear with: “... Father, not my will but thine be done (Luke 24:42).” In response to today's problem, Bishop Nazir-Ali’s comment echoes acceptance of this model, and Mr. Jacobs is among those who’ve recognised that Christian duty requires us to follow it.

Of course one partly agrees with Your Grace - of Cohen's statement, and his image of meetings under the Cross - To dismiss this as 'blasphemy' is to misunderstand christology, abuse theology, and defame the name of Christ: One can give Cohen the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, we would be wise to beware of seduction by boyish charm. I therefore think Mr. Singh’s link responds usefully to your call to action! That story presents a Christian approach to the even greater challenge of overcoming post-modern indoctrination and bullying.

It would take a lot of doing, though, and success is predicated on somehow eliciting a conscious search for Truth - and courage - from those who fear ... what? The Cross of Christ that just happens to overlook their lives, even beyond Lent? It is ubiquitous, after all, even as part of every woven fabric we all wear. "Cultural milieu" notwithstanding.

9 March 2013 at 03:46  
Blogger Stardancer said...

I had thought that this blog might have been a good place for a "seeker", such as me.

Sadly, all that I see is bickering. I do not see love nor care, be that Christian or otherwise.

OK, I know that I am a newbie here, but in my heart I see something badly wrong in the comments here. Too many are so, to be polite about it, so unutterably unpleasant. Why should that be? It is so unnecessary.

Is this a place to thoughtfully discuss religious ideas - even the lack of them, or is it a place for what increasingly appears to have become a place for pointless and meaningless insult?

@ Cramner, it is not my place to tell you how to organise your blog. And while I support freedom of speech, as it does appear that you do too, some people on your site do appear to abuse that freedom.

For fu*ks sake, is there a line, and where might it be drawn?

Some of the comments that you freely allow appear to me to be much less than 'Christian'.

Oh , I'm sick of thinking about this. I'm going to bed.

I can only offer my good wishes to any readers of this humble missive.

Regards to all,

Mike Killen









9 March 2013 at 04:06  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 March 2013 at 05:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Stardancer

Beginning from a position of unbelief, you have constructed for yourself an idol of straw. This is the image of the god after which you seek, and would very much like to find if only he/she/it would make itself manifest. But he/she/it does not make itself manifest, for he/she/it does not exist. Nevertheless you keep seeking because the image of the idol is quite attractive, and no wonder. It is fashioned after the image in the mirror.

You find us wanting in sympathy and love because we do not worship this idol of straw - this god you have imagined for yourself. You expect us to bow before a god in which even you do not believe, because that is how you imagine a god must be. You will accept no other because if a god did exist he would have to be just as you have imagined. You would have us behave according to the dictates of this god in which you do not believe. Why? It is your idol. It has nothing to do with me.

Truth is not beholden to your feelings, Stargazer. It does not care if you are offended or saddened or repelled or pushed away. It simply is. Gnash your teeth and shake your fist and curse it all you like. It will not change. It will not crumble. It will not move. When your idol of straw is reduced to earth and ash and dust, it will yet remain.

I do not know your straw-god. But I do know the Living God. And I know what He has said. And I am bound to tell you that Truth - whether you want to receive it or not.

carl

9 March 2013 at 05:15  
Blogger Stardancer said...

@ carl jacobs

I feel so sorry for your rather basic, may I say infantile kind of belief. You are welcome to enjoy it of course. Have you ever even questioned it, ever? Really?

If you are of good heart, then never seek to impose your beliefs upon any other, but always seek to validate your own, if only for yourself.

For me, I seek only after truth in its purity. Your words do not help me on my path, though I am sure that they were well meant.

Really, Carl, while I respect your view - It is slightly "off the wall" insofar as most people are concerned. I guess that you should travel your personal way while I travel mine.

I trust in both being good, and that we both get to our hoped for destinations.

May I thank you for your thoughts, even though I do not agree with you?

Best to you, Carl

Regards

Mike Killen

9 March 2013 at 06:04  
Blogger Flossie said...

Outstanding post from carl, as usual.

Stardancer, you might get a better grip on Christian doctrine if you understand that the bible does not recognise homosexual persons per se, only homosexual acts. So the perceived 'hatred' of people does not come into it. There is no room for hatred in Christianity (although, as you will have noticed, there are plenty of squabblers!).

'The homosexual' is a recent phenomenon. They have assumed this identity, which has now been re-branded as 'gay'.

A Christian cannot embrace what the bible forbids, and it forbids homosexual acts. The old adage of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' might seem hackneyed, but it is particularly apt here.

9 March 2013 at 06:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Stargazer

I feel so sorry for your rather basic, may I say infantile kind of belief.

You compliment me.

You are welcome to enjoy it of course.

I should rather say that I am thankful for it.

Have you ever even questioned it, ever? Really?

As it is written: "My sheep hear my voice. They follow me, and they will never follow another." But do you understand what I have just told you?

If you are of good heart...

No man is of good heart. The heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked.

... then never seek to impose your beliefs upon any other...

An ironic statement from one whose entrance onto this weblog was heralded by harsh judgment. But you don't even believe this statement. What do you think law is but imposed belief? The father who seeks to have sex with his adult consenting daughter will be put in prison despite his beliefs to the contrary. In any case, I am not imposing my beliefs on you simply by claiming access to exclusive Truth. You are free to deny it as you wish. But you cannot free yourself from it.

... but always seek to validate your own, if only for yourself.

I know my heart all too well. I do not need to validate it, least of all for myself.

For me, I seek only after truth in its purity.

And how will you know when you have found it? By what will you measure it? Yourself? Then you search is already at an end. If not yourself, then what else? The truth is that without God there is no Truth. There is only fang and tooth and claw. You are a blind man searching for light. You have no hope of finding what you seek.

Your words do not help me on my path, though I am sure that they were well meant.

My words? Again you misunderstand. I am herald, not author. These words do not help because they point you toward a road you do not want to traverse. The fault is not mine. Neither is fault found in the words.

Really, Carl, while I respect your view - It is slightly "off the wall" insofar as most people are concerned.

Again you bring forth a compliment. Should I follow after the crowd lest they think poorly of me? You tell me I am well beyond the norm, but you don't think to ask about the desirability of existing at the norm.

I guess that you should travel your personal way while I travel mine.

Yes, on this we agree. But the choice is not a neutral choice. There are definite endpoints to the different roads that may be chosen.

I trust in both being good

You see, this is the first fundamental division. In fact, to even make this claim you would have to already know the pure truth you say you are still seeking. But the harsh truth is that no man is good. If you trust to your goodness, you will be condemned.

... and that we both get to our hoped for destinations.

The destinations are not of our own making. You can hope for anything. What is the source of your hope?

This is my hope - my infantile faith as it were. God exists, and I am not He. God is holy and I am not. God would righteously judge me, but Christ died for me, and rose again from the dead for my justification. He will call me from the dust on the Last day and I shall see God in my flesh.

That's what I would tell you. That is the Narrow road. You see, there are only two roads from which to choose for your journey. One is narrow, and leads to life. The other is wide and leads to death. And many are they who race upon it for fear that hell will be filled before they arrive.

You are a wicked creature, Stargazer. We all are. There is only death at the end of the journey you are taking. Turn around, before it is too late.

carl

9 March 2013 at 07:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 March 2013 at 07:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Stardancer

I feel so sorry for your rather basic, may I say infantile kind of belief.

You compliment me.

You are welcome to enjoy it of course.

I should rather say that I am thankful for it.

Have you ever even questioned it, ever? Really?

As it is written: "My sheep hear my voice. They follow me, and they will never follow another." But do you understand what I have just told you?

If you are of good heart...

No man is of good heart. The heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked.

... then never seek to impose your beliefs upon any other...

An ironic statement from one whose entrance onto this weblog was heralded by harsh judgment. But you don't even believe this statement. What do you think law is but imposed belief? The father who seeks to have sex with his adult consenting daughter will be put in prison despite his beliefs to the contrary. In any case, I am not imposing my beliefs on you simply by claiming access to exclusive Truth. You are free to deny it as you wish. But you cannot free yourself from it.

... but always seek to validate your own, if only for yourself.

I know my heart all too well. I do not need to validate it, least of all for myself.

For me, I seek only after truth in its purity.

And how will you know when you have found it? By what will you measure it? Yourself? Then you search is already at an end. If not yourself, then what else? The truth is that without God there is no Truth. There is only fang and tooth and claw. You are a blind man searching for light. You have no hope of finding what you seek.

Your words do not help me on my path, though I am sure that they were well meant.

My words? Again you misunderstand. I am herald, not author. These words do not help because they point you toward a road you do not want to traverse. The fault is not mine. Neither is fault found in the words.

Really, Carl, while I respect your view - It is slightly "off the wall" insofar as most people are concerned.

Again you bring forth a compliment. Should I follow after the crowd lest they think poorly of me? You tell me I am well beyond the norm, but you don't think to ask about the desirability of existing at the norm.

I guess that you should travel your personal way while I travel mine.

Yes, on this we agree. But the choice is not a neutral choice. There are definite endpoints to the different roads that may be chosen.

I trust in both being good

You see, this is the first fundamental division. In fact, to even make this claim you would have to already know the pure truth you say you are still seeking. But the harsh truth is that no man is good. If you trust to your goodness, you will be condemned.

... and that we both get to our hoped for destinations.

The destinations are not of our own making. You can hope for anything. What is the source of your hope?

This is my hope - my infantile faith as it were. God exists, and I am not He. God is holy and I am not. God would righteously judge me, but Christ died for me, and rose again from the dead for my justification. He will call me from the dust on the Last day and I shall see God in my flesh.

That's what I would tell you. That is the Narrow road. You see, there are only two roads from which to choose for your journey. One is narrow, and leads to life. The other is wide and leads to death. And many are they who race upon it for fear that hell will be filled before they arrive.

You are a wicked creature, Stardancer. We all are. There is only death at the end of the journey you are taking. Turn around, before it is too late.

carl

9 March 2013 at 07:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 March 2013 at 07:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "You are a wicked creature, Stardancer. We all are."

Actually, I'm lovely in real life.

9 March 2013 at 07:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie: "'The homosexual' is a recent phenomenon. They have assumed this identity, which has now been re-branded as 'gay'."

You're right in that particular sense. It seems we've always been around but now we've recognised we have some shared interests in society as gay people.

The identity started maturing through the civil rights movement but it has gained significant social traction through advances in technology, I'd say.

Social media, in particular, has connected us in a way that wasn't possible before. We know about each other. We talk. We share. We assert. And we're not going back into the closet now.

9 March 2013 at 08:09  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

7:59
What you mean is - you seem lovely compared to Carl but then so would Bluebeard!

9 March 2013 at 08:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So, did Farage have his 'secret' dinner with Murdoch on Tuesday night and fly out to Jersey on Wednesday morning for his event, getting stuck later in the day and talking about hiring a light aircraft in the early hours of Thursday morning, only to eventually get back to London in the early hours of Friday morning? Or is it a sinister journalistic plot to discredit him, which he hasn't yet commented on via his Twitter or Facebook account? Time will tell,I suppose. Also, does that bloke ever sleep, going by the timestamps on his tweets?!

9 March 2013 at 08:38  
Blogger Roy said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 March 2013 at 10:00  
Blogger Roy said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 March 2013 at 10:01  
Blogger Roy said...

Third time lucky ... I had to delete the two previous versions of this comment because after posting them I suddenly noticed mistakes in what I had written!


Benjamin Cohen said...

I'm incredibly grateful to His Grace for writing this piece. To respond to some of the comments:-

Usually I am quite critical of the arguments used by gay activists on this blog, however although I don't agree with everything Benjamin Cohen wrote he seems quite sincere and states his views in a reasonable way.

I also agree with the way in which His Grace has treated this issue, even though, like some others who have made comments, I do think that the BBC has shown the sort of bias we have come to expect from it in its choice of speakers. The BBC is also biased on many other issues, but I had better not wander off topic.

9 March 2013 at 10:04  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Carl @ 01.16 asks, ‘Consider. Assume Bob's son leaves his wife and two children for another woman. With whom should Bob's loyalties lie? The son or the daughter-in-law and his grandchildren? Should he then receive this wife of adultery as if nothing had happened?’

And, ‘No, I do not see any blanket injunction to receive anyone into my home.’

Surely it is the sacred duty of every parent to offer unconditional love and to resist the temptation to live their adult children’s lives for them through discriminatory intervention. There is of course, no suggestion that you should withold honest advice if it is sought. But how can Bob in all conscience establish a hierarchy of loyalties that has the potential to inflict even more damage to the inter-family relationships than that already implied by the example you posit.

Scenarios change, so permit me to extend yours. What happens if the estranged daughter in law goes out on the town and after a chain of lovers, Bob starts to fear for his grandchildren’s future?
Assume there’s a phone call and she rings to ask to come and stay with the grand kids, and oh, she’s with somebody special now and hope it’s okay for him to come too?

Bob’s answer? The consequences if Bob rejects the request?

What happens if Bob’s son’s new relationship collapses, partly as a function of Bob’s rejection of his son’s new partner, and the son is alone and bitter as a consequence? What if he then starts drinking and loses his job and is unable to support his family, the wife having custody? Does Bob pay for his grandchildren’s education despite his disapproval of his former daughter in law’s lifestyle choices? Would Bob make it a condition that the daughter in law does not co-habit while he (Bob) is providing support?

Decisions, decisions.

Perhaps this communicant misreads the sentiment behind your post, but it seems that by taking an unforgiving line you can easily add to the risks inherent in an already difficult situation. Feeling morally superior at the expense of your children and/or grandchildren’s happiness may not be the way ahead. Indeed, on the basis of your attitude in the case of Bob, I’d suggest that there is a real possibility that Bob would lose son, daughter in law and grandchildren.

9 March 2013 at 10:43  
Blogger Martin said...

So, because he behaved in a certain immoral way Cohen gets to whinge on the BBC while others talk about theology as if he had any?

9 March 2013 at 11:07  
Blogger Kinderling said...

To sit on a cliff edge and contemplate suicide because people will not receive you for what you do in private, has happened to many a poor paedophile drawn by compulsions they are powerless to prevent. Do they like being born this way? No. Do the institutes of psychology still say they have a mental illness? Yes. How lucky they are, because their nurtured fixations can be cured. A state-sponsored lobby group had not taken them off the very recognizable list of psychotics. Yet.

A Homosexual equating their suffering with Jesus, is... inverted. Black is white and white is black. The former is the sociopath living amongst the sane who see the fruit of their activities damage the young; the other is the sane living among the unsane who cannot see because they are lost in the fruits of their activities. They suffer rejection quite differently for one seeks Pride, the other seek to remove pride. One seeks justification, the other forgiveness. One wants to jump to avoid pain or else turn it into dirty pleasures; the other to face the source of their pain, and by the truth, set themselves free.

Mental dominance over what people are allowed to think and say under Socialism does not equate to improved mental health in society. The exact opposite: They are made more diversely dysfunctional and then 'can be fed to each their own appetites'.

Dark and Light do not mix. Ben's and Jesus' suffering are not the same. This is the lie being propagated here. This is Moral Relevatism to deceive the naive and unwary to gain their sympathy so as to invite them in as friends, to sit alone with the children, to educate and subvert the lost in the schools. Everything anti-christian, anti-life, anti-freedom.

Simples.

9 March 2013 at 11:13  
Blogger Kinderling said...

To sit on a cliff edge and contemplate suicide because people will not receive you for what you do in private, has happened to many a poor paedophile drawn by compulsions they are powerless to prevent. Do they like being born this way? No. Do the institutes of psychology still say they have a mental illness? Yes. How lucky they are, because their nurtured fixations can be cured. A state-sponsored lobby group had not taken them off the very recognizable list of psychotics. Yet.

A Homosexual equating their suffering with Jesus, is... inverted. Black is white and white is black. The former is the sociopath living amongst the sane who see the fruit of their activities damage the young; the other is the sane living among the unsane who cannot see because they are lost in the fruits of their activities. They suffer rejection quite differently for one seeks Pride, the other seek to remove pride. One seeks justification, the other forgiveness. One wants to jump to avoid pain or else turn it into dirty pleasures; the other to face the source of their pain, and by the truth, set themselves free.

Mental dominance over what people are allowed to think and say under Socialism does not equate to improved mental health in society. The exact opposite: They are made more diversely dysfunctional and then can be fed to each their own appetite.

Light and dark do not mix.


9 March 2013 at 11:14  
Blogger bluedog said...

Lord Lavendon @ 22.58, no Milord, no relation that your correspondent is aware of.

9 March 2013 at 11:26  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

@ Cressida. I am touched by your sympathy. I think I have already encountered all that the gutter press can do.
The level of intelligence of Mr Cohens "Pink News" can be judged from the fact that it devoted a whole article to discussing the mark on Steven Twigg's nose on BBC Question Time last Thursday. Apparently it traumatized hundreds of their readers. No other issues were thought worthy of discussion. (I saw the programme and didn't notice that Steven Twigg had a mark on his nose, but then I'm normal.)

9 March 2013 at 13:24  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Danjo claims "The [homosexual] identity started maturing through the civil rights movement ..."
Wrong, It had nothing to do with the civil rights movement. The identity was already fully formed in Germany in the period 1900-1945. Many large and influential groups campaigned for homosexuality and pederasty to be legalized and understood through psychoanalysis and mumbo-jumbo rather than morality.
And many of these people were active in the Nazi movement too.

9 March 2013 at 13:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Gasper: "And many of these people were active in the Nazi movement too."

Heh. There's a name for a comment like that used in the way you're using it.

9 March 2013 at 13:41  
Blogger len said...

Danjo( 8 March 2013 17:34) ?.

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

Julia, looks like DanJ0 is moving in with you, so to speak !

He so misses the attention scrapping with the bird gave him.

You've got a friend
You just call out my name
And you know wherever I am
I'll come running to see you again (oh baby don't you know)
Winter, spring, summer or fall
All you have to do is call
Lord, I'll be there yes I will.
You've got a friend


And all you have to do to summons him is to post !

Damn good luck for the future, what !

9 March 2013 at 14:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "And all you have to do to summons him is to post !"

Ah, you must have missed all the ones I've deliberately ignored on various threads recently for the sake of peace and quiet around here.

9 March 2013 at 14:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

{HOWLS OF LAUGHTER AND MUCH MIRTH IN A BLOFELD FASHION BUT WITHOUT THE INCONTINENCE}

9 March 2013 at 14:22  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

"There's a name for a comment like that" - yes it's called history. I didn't say they were all Nazis but plenty of them were.
More history: The homosexual identity was well understood in France in the same period 1900-1945. You've only got to read Sartre, Gide and Beauvoir to know that.
And in Oxford University in the 1890s there was a pro-homosexual movement, which attracted a lot of pederasts.

9 March 2013 at 15:26  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

@ OIG
Offer accepted.

9 March 2013 at 15:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Julia, in order to make your 'point' you're essentially equivocating between identity politics and the recognition of homosexuality as something other than a moral deviance. Moreover, you're skipping over the ongoing development implied by "The identity started maturing [...]" aspect of my comment in order to have something to say.

9 March 2013 at 15:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also Julia, have you nothing to say about the comment by Flossie, who is coincidentally not a homosexual, that:

"'The homosexual' is a recent phenomenon. They have assumed this identity, which has now been re-branded as 'gay'."

albeit in the context of the Bible and its take on it? Or are those late 19th century activities 'recent' too?

9 March 2013 at 15:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Finally, any news from the horses mouth yet on why you resigned from the Oxford branch chair of UKIP? You seem to be very, very reluctant to answer that question. I wonder why.

9 March 2013 at 15:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Heh. I see Pink News has posted a writeup of the thread here, including quotes from our very own Inspector:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/03/08/influential-christian-blogger-defends-pinknews-founder-benjamin-cohen-against-accusations-of-blasphamy/

9 March 2013 at 16:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Best stay away from that site – it will give you ideas...

9 March 2013 at 16:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Is that a personal confession, Inspector?

9 March 2013 at 16:25  
Blogger non mouse said...

On reflection, this strand might warrant a reference to Chaucer's Pardoner and his Tale.

If Mr. Cohen and his readers considered that work, they could find it enlightening about the kinds of love people encounter on their way through the world --and the "business" of preaching about them. The gender of Chaucer's preacher/Pardoner is both debatable and relative to the theme.

That Tale is also about fear: three party boys who fear the Black Death -- set off to kill Death. Like their Pardoner, they are so blinded by materialism and socio-economics that they cannot see the difference between their "desires" and the spiritual imperative that informed Christ.* They have no conception of the senses as providing information from which the mind-soul can learn.

On such blindness, the story recalls the "Dream of the Rood" - where the dreamer envisions a Cross that flickers between both Glory and Shame. Ultimately, one realises, the fault is in the eyes of the beholder: not in the Cross, which is Universally Glorious.

The Crucifixion enabled the cleansing of our sight; if we choose not to see at this stage - that is an act of will.
It's as we read in John I
"... And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not"(5)

"That was the true Light, which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (9-13 KJV).

Btw nothing would induce me to read Cohen's publication --- why, they can't even see to spell "blasphemy."
___________
*The wonderfully drawn figure 'al forewraped,' who cannot die - a sort of Wandering Jew - could well be what they seek: but the possibility never occurs to them.

9 March 2013 at 19:38  
Blogger Mike Stallard said...

All camels have humps.
This is a camel.
Therefore it must have a hump.

All camels have humps.
This old lady has a hump.
Therefore she is a camel.

Jesus was misunderstood and excluded.
This is Jesus.
Therefore he is misunderstood and excluded.

Jesus was misunderstood and excluded.
Gay people are misunderstood and excluded.
Therefore they are Jesus.

9 March 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger bluedog said...

Quite brilliant, Mike Stallard @ 19.42.

But His Grace has taken an opportunity to build a bridge and used it most effectively, without compromising the Christian position.

9 March 2013 at 20:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Stop licking His Grace’s behind, that hound.

There are some of us who suspect our man has only gone and gained gay accreditation as seems to be the damn requirement these days.

There you go – said it !


9 March 2013 at 20:38  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

'..gay accreditation..'?

No doubt you'd have been among the first to accuse Jesus of seeking whore accreditation or the tax-collectors' accreditation. Nothing sought; just a christological truth asserted.

9 March 2013 at 20:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hardly, old man. The Inspector, a self opinionated busy body of everything nefariously gay, made a horrific prophecy that ALL teachers will eventually need a gay accreditation certificate to work, you may recall. And look, here we are this week. Cranmer gets there first by installing number two in his unsolicited testimonials: Pink News, no less.

Did you really think you could get away with that without comment ?

9 March 2013 at 20:58  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

@ Lord Lavendon.
Since you say you are a UKIP supporter I am deleting any criticisms of your grammar. Quid pro quo!
Are you a real Lord?

9 March 2013 at 21:17  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

I'm very surprised that anyone thinks Justin Welby has only recently or suddenly made up his mind about the true meaning of marriage. He hasn't (and I shudder to hear that phrase "come out" attached to him). His views on the subject have always been sensible and were naturally taken into account when he was selected to be Archbishop. It was between him and John Sentamu, both of them sound theologians.
As for the smart-Alecs who drone on about shellfish, they do not understand anything about theology. Or marriage.

9 March 2013 at 21:31  
Blogger len said...

Inspector ....that rope is tightening.

10 March 2013 at 01:29  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Inspector then you will have read in the Mail that the Queen now backs gay rights too! They've finally got to her as well. Nowhere is safe from whining homosexuals and liberal loonies.

10 March 2013 at 02:28  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

There'll always be an England
Where there are country lanes
Where all the queers go courtin'
To make plans for their wedding day

So all you fine men left there
Red blooded and prone aux dames
Grease up and swim the channel
To feel Christianity amongst the palms

As England starts to sink fast
Into the dark and secular sea
All that remains is a rainbow flag
Hanging limply in the breeze

10 March 2013 at 04:49  
Blogger Stardancer said...

I arrived here inadvertently yesterday. I had thought that what I had discovered would at first sight appear to be a thoughtful blog upon the nature of Christianity. I have been so immensely disappointed by the nature and quality of the comments that I have seen.

The community here, if such it may be called, is not a one which I would wish to be any part of. In fact, and to be honest, so many of the comments here appear to be hateful without reason. I just can't get my head around that - it is totally anathema to me.

I try to follow the example of Christ - Always to forgive, never to judge.

I shall not be returning to this blog since, although I do not doubt the best intentions of its author, some of the comments which are allowed are utterly abhorrent. I'm not willing to accept/read them.

I have far much better things to be doing than to read what boil down to idiotic rants.

Apologies if I've hurt anyone's feelings.

Mike Killen

10 March 2013 at 06:06  
Blogger Philip Anderson - Christianity Blog said...

I just listened to this chap on the Radio 4 thought for the day. Although he has a nice tone and not deliberately offensive, some of the ways he discusses his experience of Christianity and expresses his thoughts on Jesus are quite clearly out of keeping with their original intended context. He also was indicating that many people commit suicide because religious people will not accept them for being 'gay', thus in some way trying to say that some Christians inspired by Christ are causing innocent people to kill themselves. I think bigoted beliefs are an issue in today's society but I think a true Christian is able to express true love and compassion towards another human being but at the same time expressing a distaste for the practices of that person if they contravene the written word of God. I can love someone but disagree with them and I think there's a fundamental 'persecution complex' which some people have that unless Christians and church people say 'we agree with you' to everyone then we are not expressing love - this is quite the contrary. True love speaks truth and if truth involves sin then so be it, as long as the communication is done sensitively and with compassionate love at it's heart.

10 March 2013 at 06:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I find it interesting when people feel the need to declare their departure from a weblog. He could leave silently, of course. But then how would the guilty be made aware of their transgressions? Instead, the soon-to-be-departed must read the indictment of those responsible for the great loss that attends his departure. It justifies his decision and gives it some measure of significance. After all, he leaves because he was in some sense offended. He wants some measure of vindication for the offense.

Stardancer, you should seriously consider three things as you depart.

1. It is inherently contradictory for you to declare that you "try to follow the example of Christ - Always to forgive, never to judge" in the same post with statements such as "hateful without reason" & "utterly abhorrent" & "idiotic rants."

2. If you think that Christ didn't judge, you know very little about Him. Study Matthew 23 and the Seven Woes of the Pharisees. The use of the word 'Woe' is a very strong prophetic word of unalterable judgment.

3. Christianity isn't a malleable religion that shapes itself to the desires of anyone who comes looking through the window. We will not dance simply because you play a flute. Neither will we mourn simply because you sing a dirge.

carl

10 March 2013 at 07:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "I find it interesting when people feel the need to declare their departure from a weblog. He could leave silently, of course."

Drives me nuts. Who wants to read a self-indulgent swan song, especially when most people who write them are back within days?

10 March 2013 at 07:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Inspector then you will have read in the Mail that the Queen now backs gay rights too! They've finally got to her as well. Nowhere is safe from whining homosexuals and liberal loonies."

She does what she's told, I expect.

You're probably pretty safe hanging around the Daily Mail comments for the time being before we homosexuals and liberals mass for the final assault to assimilate the whole country. We only post there at the moment to poke fun at the readership with their mail order sheds, commemorative plates, elasticated trousers, and anachronistic attitudes.

10 March 2013 at 07:54  
Blogger non mouse said...

All this about socially 'excluded' homosexuals killing themselves ... Who excludes whom, though? Is that not the crux of the matter?

Long ago I learned that the suicide cuts him/herself off from God. The act of suicide - self-murder - evidences the greatest sin: lack of hope, which is refusal to put Faith in God.

Others commit murder, however -- if they strategise 'exclusion' in order to prevent physical survival of any victim. That is if, for whatever reason, they engineer conditions that will leave any individual foodless, shelterless --> death.

Homosexuals, though, choose exclusion: they will not reproduce themselves - but they will pervert physical pleasure while avoiding that responsibility. They cut their own life-lines. Under this self-imposed exclusion, could not self-murder manifest: self-hate; hate of the opposite gender; hate of family, society, race; and even hate of God?

In short, there's a difference between martyrdom and suicide; between victimising and playing the victim. The matter involves human will, but God alone can Judge the cause and quality of each choice.

10 March 2013 at 08:33  
Blogger len said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 March 2013 at 08:50  
Blogger Flossie said...

DanJo, who would want to hang around Daily Mail comments when Pink News comments are so much more edifying?

The headline about Her Maj embracing gay rights (actually,she hasn't) has not been greeted with gratitude by Pink News readers at all. Typical comment: 'What a pointless, crappy, out-of-date relic the parasitic royal family are. Clear off and take your pathetic, non-committal “support” for us with you.'

Oh dear. I am afraid this is the fate of anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support gay marriage, gay adoption, and every single demand of gay activists. Making soothing noises won't wash.

10 March 2013 at 08:52  
Blogger len said...

The levels of homosexuality within a Society seem to be an indicator of the spiritual and moral aspirations of that Society.

When a Society turns away from God it creates a' religion' of its own namely' Secular Humanism'. Humanism is not spiritually neutral on the contrary it is a deliberate denial and rejection of God`s authority and power.Humanism has its roots in Greece 'and when in Greece?.'
The' male form' was particularly idealized in Greece and marriage between a man and woman was not held in high regard, in fact male /male relationships were seen as more 'intellectually fulfilling'. .The 'so called' Greek gods displayed all the failings of humanity lust, immorality,jealousy,vindictiveness, in fact a complete absence of any moral code.
This exultation of man (and complete denial of God) will finally give rise to the Anti- Christ who will be worshipped by those who have joined him in rebellion against all that God stands for.
Humanists will believe anything but the Truth and will tolerate anything but Righteousness.

10 March 2013 at 09:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

non mouse: "In short, there's a difference between martyrdom and suicide; between victimising and playing the victim."

Ben Cohen is predominantly talking about homosexual teenagers regarding suicide. Vulnerable people. I was one of them at one point and I most certainly wasn't playing the victim when I was sitting on the window ledge of a high rise block deciding whether it was better in the long run to push myself off.

10 March 2013 at 09:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie: "DanJo, who would want to hang around Daily Mail comments when Pink News comments are so much more edifying?"

You're talking as though I'm both resposible the comments there in some way and an apologist for Pink News itself simply because I'm gay and I have contempt for the Daily Mail and some of its readership. Well, you can nob right off there if so.

I think Pink News website is the equivalent of the Christian Institute one and I'm no fan of either. For the most part, I only see stories there because I have someone on Facebook who regularly shares the stories there, usually in some sort of silly outrage. The sort of outrage one often sees down here, as it goes.

As for some the comments, they occasionally disgust me. Mostly because they're profoundly illiberal rather than merely aggressive and unpleasant. The gay bloke on my Facebook is forever calling for things to be banned or websites closed.

The laughable nonsense the often appears on the Daily Mail website stands on its own lack of merits, as do the risible little Englander and Outraged of Oakhampton comments that appear under the stories.

10 March 2013 at 09:33  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older