Uncategorized

“a sexuality-obsessed ecclesia… busy transforming itself into the clerical wing of ‘Hope not Hate’”

Goodness! Having read the correspondence generated by my last missive, I am minded to write a column about rugby. On the other hand, as I know absolutely nothing about it, I shall ramble on as usual, highlighting the doings of Barchester folk.

But first I fear we must sound the alarm! Thanks to the current Archbishop’s timely warnings in the General Synod, the scales have dropped from my eyes and I see the streets of Barchester – and indeed every town in the kingdom – are crawling with fascists! Ordinary men and women who feel abandoned by self-serving political parties and who are desperate for change are nothing more than – and one shudders to use the word – populists, and therefore beyond the pale! The butcher, baker and candlestick maker have no minds of their own but have been swayed by the forces of darkness, taking orders from the Arch-demagogue in the White House, President Trumplegrüber.

Of course I jest…

Or do I?

And yet the Left continue to get a free pass. They are the ones who identify with movements that have caused the deaths of millions across the globe; they are the ones who turn out to disrupt meetings and cause violence, and they are the ones who have linked themselves with the religion-that-must-not-be-named, which has an underlying agenda for world domination that seems to be right on track. It will all end in tears.

Perhaps His Grace could use a copy of the ‘I-Spy Book of Fascism’ to help make a more informed identification.

My Lord the Bishop thinks, and I agree with him, that His present Grace is in error. So, it seems, does the Archdeacon.

“Have you heard the latest flapdoodle from Lambeth, dear lady?” spluttered Archdeacon Grantly. “It appears the church’s new credo is to insult the honest, working people of this land and alienate them completely, as if we didn’t have enough trouble filling the pews. ‘We know what’s good for you so suck it up’ is the long and the short of it, soon to become the 40th Article, and it really won’t do.”

We were heading towards St. Viagra Undershaft’s Church Hall for their annual ‘Donate a Backbone for Jesus’ fund-raiser, organised by those wily birds, the Anglican Sisters of the Holy Parakeet. As usual, attendance was meagre; not a backbone in sight.

“Depressing, isn’t it?” he snorted, surveying the little gathering of flat-bosomed curatesses and sparsely-bearded, tank-topped lentil-weavers singing,

“Jesus loves me, this I know,

LGBT tells me so…”

The Archdeacon scowled.

“We need a Church Militant, and yet we have a sexuality-obsessed ecclesia purveying milk-sop platitudes and virtue-signalling, busy transforming itself into the clerical wing of ‘Hope not Hate’.”

At that moment Mr. Slope appeared, puffing and panting, having run all the way from the Palace.

“I bring news,” he gasped, “The House of Clergy have voted ‘not to take note’ of the Bishops’ report on marriage. Both the bishops and the laity voted in favour, but the clergy made a stand and the bishops have apologised for any hurt or distress the report may have caused. Isn’t it wonderful!”

I shall not record the Archdeacon’s response. Suffice it to say it was robust.

All that once was, is lost.

And there I am going to leave it for now, a shorter offering than usual, ‘tis true. Please feel free to talk amongst yourselves. I am sure there are aspects of ‘the beautiful game’ that haven’t been covered. So, as the carpet-fitter of time covers the floorboards of biblical tradition with the shag-pile of zeitgeist perversity, I shall retire to my boudoir with a strong cup of cocoa and a life of Charles Simeon. Sober stuff for sobering times.

  • Anton

    I have decided that I too shall not take note of the Bishops Report. It will be hard work, but I shall assiduously and diligently not take note of it. Will you join me, Mrs Proudie?

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Certainly. Mine’s a sweet sherry. So kind…

      • dannybhoy

        Sweet sherry?
        A lady of your strong constitution could easily manage a much stronger tipple.

        “We were heading towards St. Viagra Undershaft’s Church Hall for their annual ‘Donate a Backbone for Jesus’ fund-raiser, organised by those wily birds, the Anglican Sisters of the Holy Parakeet. As usual, attendance was meagre; not a backbone in sight.

        “Depressing, isn’t it?” he snorted, surveying the little gathering of flat-bosomed curatesses and sparsely-bearded, tank-topped lentil-weavers singing,

        “Jesus loves me, this I know,LGBT tells me so…”

        I read this out to my dear wife over breakfast .
        I was surprised at her reaction.
        I never knew a puffed wheat could travel so far….

        Have a lovely weekend Mrs Proudie.

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          Oh dear, I do hope your good lady has not done herself a mischief…

          • dannybhoy

            Nothing that some tenderness and fuss cannot undo…

  • Ah yes, Madam; you won’t go too far wrong cuddling up with Charles Simeon.
    And be of good cheer. Who is this riding to the nation’s rescue? Who else by Tony Blair, calling us all to rise up and subjugate ourselves once again to the obergrupenfuhrers (sp?) of the E.U. who obviously know what is best for us?

    • Merchantman

      Doubtless his reward will be the usual iron cross.

  • William Lewis

    No rugby this weekend, Mrs. P. Still plenty of balls to talk about, though.

  • 1642+5thMonarchy

    Your best yet Mrs Proudie, shorter but also sweeter!

  • Anton

    Today’s good news is that Tony Blair is calling for people to “rise up” against Brexit and saying that he will fight it relentlessly. This is tremendous news for Brexit, because Blair is so unpopular – and so vain as not to accept that he is.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38996179

    • Manfarang

      Wait until the Good Friday Agreement unravels.

      • Dominic Stockford

        The ‘republicans’ are desperately trying to do that right now, with this shameless attempt at preventing governance of NI.

  • len

    To whom do Christians take their truth from now, the ever changing’ Church’ or the unchanging Jesus Christ?.Because this is the real issue.’Gay Christianity ‘ is just the wedge being used to divide the church.

    “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” Hebrews 13:8.

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      The Bible? Pretty obvious to me. All denominations. leaders and congregations are to be judged by their willingness to assert its primacy and to broadcast its teachings to all and sundry.

  • yet the Left continue to get a free pass

    As President Trump rightly observed when he spoke in West Palm Beach: ‘Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depth of their immorality is absolutely unlimited.’

    Having acquired immense power, both in politics and in the media, you would have to be a saint not to abuse that power, and, according to The Donald, saintliness is not these people’s strong point.

  • IanCad

    Very wise Mrs. P not to write a column about rugby; of which sport, the very definition is, an apprenticeship for buggery. A vile, ungentlemanly game, indulged in by fellows with an unnatural yearning for close bodily contact with others of the same sex. And then – the showers after. Horrors!
    Surely after the last few OP’s a subject wholly unrelated to the cult of the bum should be on tap.

    • William Lewis

      Bigot!

      • Dominic Stockford

        You win the argument William.

        • William Lewis

          Indeed! Having impugned Ian’s character my position is unassailable.

          • IanCad

            Ain’t nobody gonna give me an uptick?

          • William Lewis

            Have a sympathy uptick

      • IanCad

        I remember school!

        • William Lewis

          TBH my school didn’t play much rugby and when I did play I wasn’t particularly good at it. My sons play much more and seem to enjoy it, mostly, and I nearly always enjoy watching it, whether school rugby or Internationals. The Six Nations is my favourite sporting tournament – a good tonic during the wintry days.

    • CliveM

      IC

      you are in many ways a wise and moderate man. You just let yourself down when it comes to Rugby :0)

      • dannybhoy

        You must know then that Chris Laidlaw is out for the rest of the Six Nations?
        Great shame because he is a great captain for Scotland. I think Finn Murray and Hogg will do their best to replace his leadership, but whatever it’s good to see Scotland playing positive rugby.

        • CliveM

          Greig!!

          But yes he will be missed. We still dont have enough strength in depth in the pack and are missing Dickson and Nell.

          Its bèen a good 6 Nations, with good tries and games.

          • dannybhoy

            Sorry mate. I’ve called him Chris a few times. Dunno why..
            Scotland have shown real class this year.

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          A great player. Wish he were English!

          • dannybhoy

            The wife likes him because apart from his leadership skills he has a cheeky smile and a glint in his eye that reminds her of er… ahem!
            (blushes furiously)
            I just admire him because he is a leader, and God knows we’re short of men who aren’t afraid to stand by their convictions..

          • William Lewis

            Agreed. The English scrum halves are not looking so good at the moment.

      • IanCad

        Thanks for the kind words in your first sentence. I still stand by my stated position though.

        • CliveM

          Fair enough. Even the best of people get things wrong!

    • dannybhoy

      Garbage.
      Disappointing garbage from you Ian.
      Rugby is all about rejoicing in our physical strength and speed, our strategic planning and leadership qualities.
      As a boarding school boy I knew nothing of same sex attraction, but I rejoiced in the emergent strength of my young body, of binding in the scrum, tackling an opponent and bringing them down, etc.
      There was no awareness of sexuality; simply the desire to out best your opponent.
      Rugby is a glorious game where men bond for the good of the team, and give of their best for victory.
      Danny in his early days as a Merchant Navy crew member was once lured to the cabin of an Egyptian passenger who actually kissed him.
      As an act of reciprocity, a shocked Danny thumped him..

      Psalm 147>
      7 Sing to the Lord with thanksgiving;
      make melody to our God upon the lyre!
      8 He covers the heavens with clouds,
      he prepares rain for the earth,
      he makes grass grow upon the hills.
      9 He gives to the beasts their food,
      and to the young ravens which cry.
      10 His delight is not in the strength of the horse,
      nor his pleasure in the legs of a man;
      11 but the Lord takes pleasure in those who fear him,
      in those who hope in his steadfast love.

      Rugby is an expression of joyfulness in the masculine frame and his need to compete, to work with others in achieving a goal, and afterwards remain a gentleman……

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        Quite right. No other sport requires such courage and self-sacrificing willingness to put one’s body in the way of harm for a team-mate.

        • dannybhoy

          You’ve got it.
          God saw all that He had created and it was good..
          There is a certain exhilaration that comes after a hard fought match when with tired limbs and bruised bodies you make your way to the changing rooms either in victory or defeat.
          The point is that you stood up up and played the game as a man.

          “There’s a breathless hush in the Close to-night—
          Ten to make and the match to win—
          A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
          An hour to play and the last man in.
          And it’s not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
          Or the selfish hope of a season’s fame,
          But his captain’s hand on his shoulder smote
          ‘Play up! play up! and play the game! ‘

          The sand of the desert is sodden red,—
          Red with the wreck of a square that broke; —
          The Gatling’s jammed and the Colonel dead,
          And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
          The river of death has brimmed his banks,
          And England’s far, and Honour a name,
          But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks:
          ‘Play up! play up! and play the game! ‘

          This is the word that year by year,
          While in her place the school is set,
          Every one of her sons must hear,
          And none that hears it dare forget.
          This they all with a joyful mind
          Bear through life like a torch in flame,
          And falling fling to the host behind—
          ‘Play up! play up! and play the game!

          Sir Henry Newbolt

          • Manfarang

            And that spirit lives on in today’s Indian Army.

          • dannybhoy

            Huzzah!

          • Manfarang

            The last redoubt of Received Pronunciation!

          • dannybhoy

            India was indeed the jewel in the crown of the (gasps “Dare I say it? Well , why not, I am after all an Englishman…) British Empire.
            A fascinating country, a beautiful country, a burgeoning economy, a bigger space programme than our own (thanks to the current stoopidity of UK Overseas Aid). and one well worth exploring..

          • Anton

            There is something ironic in a man disparaging cricket in one post and then using a poem in which the first verse is all about cricket in order to extol the virtues of his preferred sport, which is not even mentioned in the poem!

          • dannybhoy

            Ironic?
            Possibly.
            But it’s the spirit of the poem that matters, not so much the game..
            Cricket in those days was a gentleman’s game. Rugby was for ruffians, and no English gentleman would deign to play.
            I think my comments on cricket and those that follow it are reasonably true. There is a cloud of ‘Bumbledom’ amongst many in the Church of England and those who consider themselves ‘better’. A contentment to keep on raking over the issues without ever coming to a conclusion..

          • Anton

            Have a care, Danny. Some of us here actually play cricket. It’s not an either/or here.

            You should find or write your own poem about rugby and British manliness, rather than steal ours. I can give you a story that exemplifies it, too. Edgar Mobbs, an England international, used to inspire his men to charge in the First World War by punting a rugby ball ahead of the attack. Sadly he died at Passchendaele.

          • IanCad

            Exactly the daft attitude that sent so many young men to their deaths in WW1.
            Nothing more than a paean to conformity and collectivism.

          • dannybhoy

            I understand that, but if through cultural obedience you find yourself in the army during war time, it seems to me your choices become limited to either becoming a conscientious objector or going awol.
            In such a situation what do you do?
            They did this in the second world war too..

          • carl jacobs

            Would rather Britain had become a German satellite?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Strangely, to a much lesser extent perhaps, rugby does produce the all-for-one-and-one-for-all comradeship that I believe is even stronger among service people.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, and that is why when they leave such a life style they flounder. Us Christians can by the grace of God become the kind of social glue that brings neighbours together and encourages the able to look out for the less able.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I try my best in our little village.

          • dannybhoy

            I knew you and most here would do so.. :0)

        • Anton

          You play tennis. You play rugby. But you don’t play boxing.

        • IanCad

          I think that’s just plain nuts. What about a National Hunt jockey? A Parkour participant? A vertical skier? A free-solo rock climber? Fox Hunting even? Those “sports” take real guts and dependence on self. No Namby Pampy horseplay, and high jinks with the team members after the show either.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I am not saying rugby has a monopoly of courage but it is unusual in that people put their bodies on the line for the team and sometimes even get into fights to protect another team-mate. That’s what I meant about self-sacrifice. If you haven’t played you can’t understand it.

      • IanCad

        Not my school experience at all Danny. Horrible rough and larger boys. The beastly undignified scrum. Pain, fear, shouting, bad manners; entirely alien to an undersized and unhealthy boy like myself.
        And after!! It got worse! Rah-Rah masters, communal showers, towel whipping. Big boys pushing and bullying the lesser lads. The embarrassment and shame of being – for sure – the most ill-hungest and unmanly of the entire rabble.
        Awful, dreadful; the stuff of nightmares. Can I still sue someone?

        • dannybhoy

          It might be too late to sue, and I empathise with your experiences, but listen, a man is not a man because of his size, his hairiness or the size of his manhood.
          None of those things are within his control.
          A man is one who holds an opinion and can state it, who is not afraid to stand up for the truth, for justice. Years ago on a muddy old building site for a power station Danny worked with some (southern) Irish navvies. Salt of the earth types. One of whom said “It’s the size of your heart that matters, not the size of your body…..”

          • IanCad

            And Danny, in a similar vein, and in another life, I so well remember a Kerry man – Cronin by name – an excellent amateur boxer turning to stoutness, was asked if he should perhaps take up wrestling instead? Immediately John shot back: “The nearest I want to get to another man is the end of my fist.”
            He didn’t like rugby either.

          • dannybhoy

            I used to be very (Englishly) embarrassed about giving another Christian brother a hug, but praise the Lord I got set free from that. Now I give the ladies a kiss on the cheek during ‘the Peace’.
            Your man was a man who simply didn’t feel comfortable being close to another man..

          • IanCad

            Danny,
            The sun has set; Sabbath is here. I shall retire and reflect.
            Blessings to all.

          • dannybhoy

            Blessings to you also, brother in Christ.
            And health and peace to thee, O Explorer.

          • Anton

            One trusts that you are impartial and give all the ladies a peck regardless of age and various other characteristics.

          • dannybhoy

            Absolutely.
            Wrinkles, limps, humps, they’re all the same to me.
            I look at it that in this life we experience little enough kindness and warmth. Our Lord Jesus would surely embrace each one during the Peace, and an especially warm embrace for those He knew to be on their own..

      • len

        Rugby was just an excuse for ‘a punch up’ at my school. The survivors were credited with winning.

        • dannybhoy

          :0) I like it..

    • Dreadnaught

      At least in Rugby the players respect the ref and their opponents . The England Wales game was a showpiece of a ruffian’s game played by gentlemen. None of yer tantrums and powderpuff dramatics to feign a foul.
      Saw a programme last night on the organised hooligan Russian Ultras in strict training for the world cup next year. Very scary stuff.

      • CliveM

        Hmm, Rugby is a great leveler. If you play up, in the next ruck you’ll be sorted. By both packs!

        • Dominic Stockford

          Not always. A player in a game I was involved in grievously assaulted one of our players, striking him from behind and shattering his jaw – in the jog back to the centre after a try had been scored. The referee ‘didn’t see’ (not unreasonable) but his own team refused to deal with him. A few moments later he struck me when I was trapped standing up in a ruck with arms by my sides, unable to defend myself – laying me out. The last thing I saw as I was hit was the referee looking directly at me. His team still did nothing. It was clear from the demeanour of the referee that we would be dealt with if we dealt with him. The courts and the police proved useless and my teammate never played rugby again, so grievous was the damage.

          • CliveM

            That’s dreadful. Yes, there was a time when violence was tolerated to much in the game.

            What I was referring to is pretending to be injured etc.

            Doesn’t excuse the violence though. I think nowadays the police would get involved over that level of violence.

      • IanCad

        Baloney!! How can you respect anyone who gets his kicks out of a game, most time of which is spent with his head up, or near, another man’s arse?

        • Royinsouthwest

          Your description applies only to the second row forwards and the Number 8. That is 3 players out of 15, and then only in the scrums.

          • IanCad

            Face to face is just as bad; and then the rest of the tribe is Hell-bent on seizing and grappling with his foe. Not for me!

    • carl jacobs

      Rugby is a great sport! Easily the best sport to come out of Britain. One has only to compare it to the catatonic display of performance art that is Cricket to see the difference.

      • CliveM

        I dont know whether to cheer or boo!

      • Anton

        Hail, cricket! Glorious, manly, British game!
        First of all sports! Be first alike in fame!

        – James Love, 1744.

        • carl jacobs

          But first, let’s stop for tea.

          • Anton

            That’s a myth. We stop for rain.

          • carl jacobs

            Eh?

            From Law 15.

            3. Duration of intervals
            (a) An interval for lunch or for tea shall be of the duration agreed under 2(a) above, taken from the call of Time before the interval until the call of Play on resumption after the interval.

          • Anton

            The tea break in several formats of cricket is at the change of innings, when one team stops batting and the other starts. In others it is at the end of a 2-hr session. What I mean is that neither captain says “I feel like a cup of tea, let’s all leave the field of play.”

        • dannybhoy

          Cricket is the game of the upper clarses, the wannabe upper clarses, the Church of England, and some eccentrics.
          Cricket is for people who obsess over statistics rather than the actual performance, who enjoy setting out all aspects of the case rather than reaching a conclusion, and who glory in obeying the rules rather than the actual affects of those rules…
          Rugby is for the more physical kind of patriot, who drinks his beer, slaps his friends and even foes on the back and sings his heart out for the sheer glory of the occasion. He/she honours the hero, commiserate with the injured, and lightheartedly boo the man who fluffed his chance -unless it was crucial to the team,..
          Afterwards he walks back to the transport, perhaps still singing or lost in thought over what went wrong, but at the end of it all bears no ill will to anyone..

        • Dominic Stockford

          “Rugby is a hooligans game played by gentlemen.” Winston Churchill.

      • IrishNeanderthal

        According to our travelling geographer and historian, Mr Portcullis, the Kansas Cricket Club is located near Topeka. Of the first team, 90% are from India.

        Resistance is futile.

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        You might change your mind if you’d faced a rising ball coming at 85 mph at you from only 22 yards away.

        • carl jacobs

          But … Oh, you must mean Baseball. Although the pitcher’s mound is 60′ away so a little less than 22 yards. And of course a pitch at 85 mph is an offspeed pitch.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            A swinging seaming ball coming of the pitch at a full length at 85% is rather different!

  • Politically__Incorrect

    I am glad I’m not the only one who noticed that Wobbly Welby was in full Soros mode this week, conflating support for Brexit and Trump with fascism. I have to admire his technique for being all things to all men. He doesn’t exactly sit on the fence so much as continually swing from one side to the other just often enough to avoid either side developing too much outrage. Talking of outrage, I see the Bliar has apparently stopped taking his medication and now wants to lead a popular uprising against Brexit. With his popularity ratings he won’t go far; hopefully just as far as his nearest psychiatric outpatients department.

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      Excellent comment. Our Blessed Tone, that exceedingly luminous achievement of RC missionary activity (such credit he does them) currently has a -60% approval rating among the British population. How can they surpass this achievement, perhaps sign up Peter Sutcliffe or a post-mortum conversion of Fred West?

      As for Welby, he flaps about like a flounder on the trawler deck. To be made ABC these days one must clearly be required to have a massive jelly-fish DNA infusion.

      • Blair is not an emissary of the Roman Catholic Church.

        • dannybhoy

          Blair dear Jack, is a disgrace to our nation.

          • layreader

            The Anglican adoption agencies had thrown in the towel long before. Indeed, the Church of England Childrens’ Society even went so far as to drop the C of E from its name. No sexual morality required there, then.

          • Did Blair go to Rome or does he expect Rome to come to him?

            Mr Blair was — as one priest puts it — “the most anti-Catholic Prime Minister of modern times”. Others describe his policies as broadly anti-Christian. He has legalised homosexual civil unions and gay adoptions. He has championed stem-cell research. He voted against lowering the abortion limit from 26 weeks to the present 24. He’s a perfect secular liberal.

            One cannot join the Church as a liberal Catholic. There is only one kind of Catholicism, and its teaching is laid out in the Catechism. To convert to Catholicism, one must first make confession of all serious sins. Next comes the Rite of Reception which includes the declaration: “I believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God.” Ann Widdecombe, another Anglican convert, says she struggled with this sentence. “So either Tony Blair will perjure himself on a massive scale, or he has genuinely repented.”

            The Blairs are what we orthodox Catholics call “Tablet Catholics, named after the Catholic liberal weekly paper. This is the Catholic who professes loyalty to Rome but rejects many of its teachings. Mrs Blair has confessed to having ‘doubts’ about some of the Church’s teachings. “But I have been taught that you should stay and try to change things. It’s like the Labour party in the 1980s. I wasn’t happy with the way it was going, so I tried to help change it from within. Luckily, we won that battle.”

            Breathtakingly presumptuous. Today: Westminster. Tomorrow: Rome. Then: the world.

          • Anton

            Did Blair go to Rome or does he expect Rome to come to him?

            The latter, and he was not disappointed.

          • You clearly didn’t read Jack’s comment. One was referring to his spiritual predisposition and willingness to accept the Church’s teaching.

            Although Anglican, Mr Blair had always attended Mass with his wife, a Catholic. He described himself as an “ecumenical Christian”. In 1996 the late Cardinal Hume wrote asking him to stop taking communion at St Joan of Arc, a Catholic church in Islington. He reluctantly agreed, but wrote in reply, “I wonder what Jesus would have made of it.”

          • len

            I wonder if Blair is going to be the last Pope?.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            If he is the Antichrist…

          • len

            Carrying on the ‘tradition’.

        • Anton

          Months before resigning as British Prime Minister in June 2007, Tony Blair broke a Cabinet deadlock by insisting that Catholic adoption agencies be forced to place children with gay couples, knowing that these agencies would close as a matter of conscience. Yet by the end of that year (after resigning) he had been received into the Roman Catholic church, Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi stating that “The choice of joining the Catholic church made by such an authoritative personality can only arouse joy and respect.”

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7157409.stm

          Blair’s criticism of the Vatican’s attitudes in a 2009 interview in the gay magazine Attitude shows that his views did not change. Very clearly, Rome let him in without enquiring if he had repented of various of his views that went against anti-Catholic teaching. And we know why, don’t we? He is an “authoritative personality”.

          He’s all yours, Jack. You are welcome to him.

          • As Jack said, Blair is not an emissary of Rome.

          • Royinsouthwest

            The Catholic adoption agencies should simply have defied the government and said something along these lines:

            “We believe that it is in the best interests of the children that wherever possible they should be placed with a man and a woman who will be a father and mother to them. Therefore we will continue with that policy.”

            Then the government would have had the choice of either letting the Catholic adoption agencies carry on as before or forcibly intervening to close them down on the grounds that they were breaking the law.

            The Bliar Regime would probably have chosen the second course, but would have waited for a while if a general election was in the offing. However, by forcibly closing the agencies the Bliar Regime would have demonstrated the totalitarian streak in political correctness and would also have proved that the new law had absolutely nothing to do with the welfare of children but was all about trying to pretend that homosexuality and heterosexuality were just two equal versions of sexuality.

          • Anton

            The government would not have closed them down, but would have gone after individuals in them as each individual was accused of discriminating. That makes it tricky.

            Shame on you, Mr Blair.

          • Jesus, after a night of prayer, accepted Judas as an Apostle. Why?

          • Anton

            Being God makes a difference. The Pope only thinks he’s infallible.

          • Answer the question.

          • Anton

            I did. If you are able to think a little.

            Do you realise that if you hadn’t mentioned contraception on the previous two threads then we could have been in complete agreement?

          • “Do you realise that if you hadn’t mentioned contraception on the previous two threads then we could have been in complete agreement?”
            Jack doesn’t compromise on the Truth as he sees it to reach agreement.

          • dannybhoy

            Because His death had to be a conscious affair. In other words our Lord had to deliberately choose to yield up his life as the ultimate Passover Lamb.
            He was born at the right time when the Jews were still a nation even under Roman domination. The Roman popular method of death was .. crucifixion.
            The Jewish religious leaders were under Roman rule and in this case would have to defer to Roman justice, and Judas was best placed to ensure the Romans dealt with him.
            “So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”
            Whether Jesus or Barabbas they would be crucified..

            For blasphemy the Jewish punishment would have been stoning to death…
            (Leviticus 24:14,16, 23)
            Was Judas destined/predestined to be the betrayer? Personally I don’t think so. We know from the Scriptures he repented of his deed, and so what his ultimate fate was would be up to our God. Remember that Simon Peter denied knowing the Christ three times, and yet our Lord had mercy on him..

          • You’re avoiding the question. Jesus chose Judas knowing he would betray Him. Yet, it was still Judas’ decision. God, being eternal, foreknew his betrayal. So he was predestined, in this sense, to
            conspire with the Jews for Jesus’ capture and crucifixion.

            As for Judas’ ultimate fate, God alone knows this and will judge him. Jesus had this to say:

            “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

            What’s worse than never having been created?
            The word “woe” in the Greek is “ouai” and is a judgment as we read in the Book of Revelation (chapters 8. 9, 11, and 12). It means “alas” or almost like “oh no!” When the word woe is used it is signifying impending doom, condemnation and/or the wrath of God. The Hebrew word for woe is “howy” and essentially means the very same thing as it does when used in the New Testament. Jesus used the word woe more than anyone else in the Bible.
            When God’s judgment upon sinful mankind is being revealed, the Apostle John writes “Woe, woe, woe to those who dwell on the earth, at the blasts of the other trumpets that the three angels are about to blow” (Rev 8:13).
            The visible Church consists, and always has, of sinners and saints. Tares amongst the wheat; sheep and goats. No man can judge the soul or motives of any convert to Catholicism – but God – and no one knows where they will be spiritually when they draw their last breath.

          • dannybhoy

            Not avoiding it, setting the scene as it were. I agree with you. Judas had free will and our Lord knew his heart and what he would do.
            Ze case is close-ed.

          • carl jacobs

            That the Scripture might be fulfilled.

          • Cressida de Nova

            We are sending him back….gift wrapped !

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          Implausible denial!

      • Anton

        No, the ceremony of consecration involves other bishops gathering round him and discreetly removing the backbone.

      • Dominic Stockford

        So Tone’s more popular than the current incumbent at the ‘head’ of the Labour Party then…

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          About the same I believe.

      • dannybhoy

        Donate a backbone for Jesus..
        Slightly worrying , but wonderfully illustrates the absence thereof in the Church of England. Do we as Christians have to be 100% right on an issue or 100% committed to what the Scriptures say?

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          If we are committed to the Scriptures, but humbly, then we will be 100% right anyway.

  • Manfarang
  • Manfarang

    President Trumplegrüber hasn’t ordered the American embassy to move to Jerusalem yet.

    • Merchantman

      The Heralds have sounded the trump; its when they deliver the message; the R of P will go berserk, and we should take cover.

  • carl jacobs

    In this (post) modern age, the Church is required to stand athwart Progress and cry “Halt!” But of course Progress doesn’t want to hear that it’s going in the wrong direction. Indeed Progress claims that the right direction is whatever direction it happens to be going at the moment. It is Progress that determines what the Herald must address. The obsessions of Progress are the obsessions of the Age.

  • Maalaistollo

    I venture to suggest, Madam, that the Anglican Sisters of the Holy Parakeet draw their inspiration from the flagrant Katharine Jefferts Schori. You may recall her – a denizen of Her Majesty’s Plantations Overseas who, with the help of an imaginative curriculum vitae, secured the post of Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church of said plantations. Although her many qualifications could not all (alas!) be verified, it became clear that her study of marine invertebrates had given her the knowledge of the Anglican hierarchy she required in order to facilitate her ascent to its highest echelons. May I suggest that the present ABC and many of the bishops be presented as suitable subjects for such study? Is it too much to hope that at least some of them will be found to display promising traces of, at least, cartilage?

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Excellent dear Maalaistollo, excellent.

      • Maalaistollo

        Too kind, Ma’am!

    • IanCad

      First-rate Maaly! Mrs. P’s ” Anglican Sisters of the Holy Parakeet” is truly inspired.

      • Maalaistollo

        Indeed! I am sure they are easily recognised by their discordant screeching.

  • Dominic Stockford

    ‘Hate not hope.’ Aren’t they the ones who hate the only hope there really is?

    • HedgehogFive

      Certainly it does seem to be a coalition of the disciples of Marx and of Muhammad, both of whom had “issues” with Jesus Christ and his Gospel.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    Interesting piece of news: Former Sunderland striker Asamoah Gyan found guilty of having ‘unethical hair’ .

    The 31-year-old is one of 46 players to have been found to have breached Arabian Gulf League rules on inappropriate hairstyles.

    I can hear L-Cpl Jones saying “Lord Kitchener would have got them playing cricket, Captain Mainwaring!”
     

    • Inspector General

      Thanks for that, Homo Neanderthal. One does delight in learning the ways of the less successful races on the planet…it’s so entertaining!

      • IrishNeanderthal

        I wonder. You’re beginning to sound a bit like that fellow Charles Darwin quoted in his “Descent of Man”:

        «Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts – and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal “struggle for existence”, it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed – and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.»

        • Royinsouthwest

          Who was Darwin quoting? He sounds like a racist!

          • IrishNeanderthal
          • Royinsouthwest

            Thanks. Mr. Greg, whoever he was, seems to have been a bit confused. He thought the Scots were far superior to the Irish but it seems he did not realise that the Scots are also Celts.

            Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts–and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five- sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ‘struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and LESS favoured race that had prevailed–and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.

          • Inspector General

            The ability to determine the behaviour of the individual races is wonderful! It explains so much….

        • Inspector General

          The Celt and the Saxon are cousins…

  • Inspector General

    Good Day to you, Mrs Proudie

    An old dog as the Inspector is, is not too old a beast as to learn new things. And the biggest thing he’s learnt in the immediate is how all controlling the left is. Quite astonishing really. In the not so recent, one would have staked an entire years single malt money on the right being the first to throw off democracy. But they’ve damn well been beaten to it! Pipped to the first past the post…

    Well, just thought you should know that. Make of it what you will, dear lady.

    By the way, old girl. This ‘Hope Not Hate’ business. An Inspector knows nothing about them. Are they anti Islamic immigration (that would be the ‘Hope’) to spare us any further radicalisation of their youth here (More ‘Hope’ but this time about the ‘Hate’ we endure from some of their bearded terrors). If they are, then they’re damn timely, what!

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      Hahamm I. .My winnings?

      • Inspector General

        A bottle of the Glasgow adored purple stuff on it’s way. Incidentally, it’s a tradition in that friendly city to use to empty plastic receptical as a cushion, should you find yourself billeted by a kerb…

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          I donated my winnings to Sister Tiberia whose need is greater than mineI

          • Inspector General

            Damn good stuff for cleaning windows, you know…

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            18 year old Talisker is my preference IG.

  • Inspector General

    Any of you fellows heard Blair!

    Certainly put a spring in an Inspector’s step this morning. His intervention is like several shovels of lime on what is left of the Remain camp. Poor deluded sod has no idea of his Jonah effect…

    Tally ho!

    • dannybhoy

      I’m sorry because it is wrong, but as a citizen I really dislike Tony Blair.
      As a Christian I pray I will exercise a right attitude towards him..

      • Inspector General

        Save your concerns for the victims of his existence on this earth, Danny. Especially our armed forces…

      • You don’t have to like him but you do have to love him.

        • dannybhoy

          Agape love Jack..

          • Rest assured, Danny, you don’t have to kiss, cuddle or marry him.

          • Inspector General

            Don’t let the bad man upset you, Danny…

          • Jesus a bad man?

            “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour, and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

          • Inspector General

            Out of context.

          • Explain …. (this should be good)

          • Inspector General

            It’s not particularly complicated. Christ was in the Middle East. He spent much of his time encouraging these fellows there not to murder each other just because a borrowed lawn mower was not returned.

            Nordic types tend to appreciate their neighbour, for working together we have built a mighty civilisation.

          • Ah, so the Gospel is meant for lesser races, not Aryans Nordic types?

          • Inspector General

            You know the Inspector is privy to a higher understanding of what is and you are not. So, what’s the problem? If you think the peoples of the Middle East conduct themselves differently now than 2000 years ago, you really are a thicko of immense proportion.

          • dannybhoy

            (Sniffs noisily)
            You will keep me safe Daddy, won’t you?
            That nasty man has such big ears, and that grin…..

          • Inspector General

            The Inspector will kiss you on the nose and tuck you in every night, sweet pea…

          • Interesting ….

          • CliveM

            ThatThat is possibly the scariest post I’ve ever seen.

          • Jack did warn you.

          • Careful Danny. You are being groomed.

          • dannybhoy

            Is it possible for a bald man to be groomed?

          • Inspector General

            Benny Hill!

          • He’s not interested in hair on your head, silly man.

        • Inspector General

          No you don’t, Blasphemy Jack. In extremis you can loathe an individual and still be onside.

          • You carry on with your loathing then, Inspector.

          • Inspector General

            As far as one can discern, Blasphemy Jack, the majority on this site worship God, not your utterings..

      • David

        Yes I sympathise, as I too struggle to be Christian towards the Blair creature.

    • HedgehogFive

      If my human history is correct, General Gordon was sent to the Sudan in 1884 to deal with a chap called the Mahdi. In Arabic, “Al-Mahdi” means “the Guided One”.

      What with our recent involvments in the Middle East, I asked the Hedgehogatollah and was informed that “Al-Mudhallal” would mean “the Misguided One”. Does that particular cap fit?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Indeed Inspector. Blair’s rallying cry to the remain camp will be like the reverse Midas touch for those still grasping at EU straws. Everything he touches falls apart like some ham-fisted kid playing with mothers best china. This is the man who single-handedly (almost) destroyed the Middle East first by bombing it then being appointed its caretaker. Since he ignored a million protesters opposed to the Iraq war, his call for a popular uprising against Brexit sounds a little ironic.

      • Inspector General

        Absolutely sir! He was hammered on BBC on line ‘have your say’. One doeth believe the people want him to answer for what he did…in a court of law.

    • David

      Spot on Inspector. Every time Bliar slithers and hisses he adds stature to the Leave camp.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Blair’s intervention is to be welcomed by all who oppose him and the specious, evil dribble he comes out with. Anything Blair calls for or backs will be rejected by the vast majority of Britons, regardless of political allegiance, because the man is toxic.

  • David

    There are excellent pieces by Andrea Michinello-Williams on her website Christian Concern regarding the General Synod’s discussions. As she says, there are now two quite distinct streams within the C of E, those who trust and follow Jesus and the Prophets, and those who will always compromise Christianity to conform to the world.

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      See her article in today’s Telegraph. There is no grey in this struggle.

      • David

        Yes I have, thank you. Andrea’s articles are always crystal clear and straight forward in their presentation of Christian faith. And how it contrasted with that weak, flabby article by the agnostic Tory MP with floppy hair, whose name escapes me.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Dear David, that is what I am wibbling on about…

      • David

        “this is what I am wibbling on about ..”

        Greetings Mrs Proudie. I do hope that you are well.

        Ah yes, I see now that you are indeed “wibbling on about” that same topic, “Welby’s Insults of the Nation. At least I see it now that I’ve decoded your paragraph.

        Pleasant dreams dear Lady.

  • bluedog

    An excellent post, Mrs P, re-affirming your Lord Bishop’s unswerving commitment to British Values of the John Bull stamp.

    Now that we are all branded Fascisti, and are practicing suitably menacing poses in front of the mirror, it seems necessary to offer the hand of friendship, truth and reconciliation to ++ Welby. By sole acclaim, this communicant puts forward the name of Justin Portal Welby for the Nobel Peace Prize. One trusts that President Emeritus Barack Hussein Obama will second the recommendation.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Does my chin look big in this bonnet?

      • bluedog

        Perfectly proportioned, Ma’am, perfect style and colour too.

        • *sigh*

          “A mighty pain to love it is,
          And ‘t is a pain that pain to miss;
          But of all pains, the greatest pain
          It is to love, but love in vain.”

          (Abraham Cowley)

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Hmmmmmmm

          • Tis true, dear Lady. Ask Linus. Only in his case:

            “…unrequited love does not die; it’s only beaten down to a secret place where it hides, curled and wounded. For some unfortunates, it turns bitter and mean, and those who come after pay the price for the hurt done by the one who came before.”
            (Elle Newmark)

        • Cressida de Nova

          I see you have been hanging out at the poodle parlour again

          B Dog !

          • bluedog

            M/s Cressida, one posted and received an unsolicited response from the blogeuse, to which one offered a polite yet sincere reply. No dog can do more, or less, if it comes to that.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Mrs Proudie is trying to seduce you. I don’t think you should encourage here.

          • bluedog

            Do you think so? Mrs Proudie tells us she is the wife of a bishop, and like Caesar’s wife, beyond reproach. Is she really a different person with no connection to the CofE, preying on the vulnerable and impressionable such as this communicant?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Best not think about Mrs Proudie, Blue Dog. She is too hobnob fixated and quite odd even for a Protestant. You can do better.

          • bluedog

            Thank you for your advice, Cressida. As you know the lowly hound always respects your judgement.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Welby’s chance of a Nobel Peace Prize has surely gone. He has been in office long enough for people to notice his flaws. We all have flaws but sometimes it takes a while for others to discover them. That might be why Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize after having been President for all of 5 minutes.

  • chefofsinners

    Dear lady, I must congratulate your Lord Bishop on locating the correct button and voting to take note. No doubt your hand was, as ever, guiding his, to ensure your good pleasure.
    More than can be said for poor bishop Cocksworth, who lived up to his name and became confused about where to place his finger. – Thereby unwittingly creating a metaphor for the wider problem.
    Of course Guiles Fraser and his band of ecclesbians are still chasing the rainbow. It is unclear what they believe lies at its end; a crock, for sure, but not of gold, I’ll wager. It seems they just won’t take note for an answer. And his chum Peter Tatchell – did you ever see a man whose hair was such a mess? He needs to repent his combophobia, for sure.
    I can at least clear up Welby’s remarks. He actually said “asschism”.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      As ever I defer to your wit and turn of phrase, dear chef…but I love the idea of using Cocksworth as an adjective to describe where we are…i.e. The Synod voted against the bishop’s report and delivered a Cocksworth response…

      • chefofsinners

        I have received many upvotes as a result of the Cocksworth effect.

  • The Explorer

    Linus’ current quarrel with Christianity may be summed up as follows: Jewish/Christian attitudes have caused the hostility to gays within Western society. Christianity is also to blame for Islamic attitudes because Islam copied Christianity.

    One can point to homosexuals in concentration camps. Linus would account for it by saying that the Nazis were Christians. But if they were not, then their hostility must have had another source. If so, what was it? And did the queer bashing of the 70’s have a religious motivation? If not, what drove it?

    So here’s the proposition: without the monotheistic religions, there would be no hostility to homosexuality: in the West or, indeed, anywhere else. What do people think?

    • chefofsinners

      I think that without God there would be no opposition to any kind of sin. Hell defined.

      • The Explorer

        But some secularists who think nothing about committing fornication or adultery draw the line at committing homosexual acts.

        • Not what happened in Sodom.

          • The Explorer

            True. Some people will try anything. But J Budjejewski in his book on natural law makes the point that God’s prohibition is not arbitrary: apart from the natural order of male/female complementarity there are excellent health reasons. He maintains it is possible to construct a natural law argument against homosexuality, from its consequences, without recourse to revelation.

          • Natural law arguments do not depend on revelation.

          • The Explorer

            “Natural law arguments do not depend on revelation.” Exactly so. Natural law arguments show that Christian commands and prohibitions are practical and not arbitrary.

          • chefofsinners

            Yes, they are practical and heterosexuality can be derived from natural law to some degree. However creation is a corrupted and distorting prism. We see something of God’s morality in and through His creation, but to get a clear view we must look to God Himself. If we derive morality exclusively from creation we might justify euthanasia.

          • The Explorer

            Very true. Francis Schaeffer always stressed the point that Nature is abnormal. Any system starting from the premise that Nature is as it was meant to be is bound to go awry.

      • If we weren’t created by God with a purpose and to live a certain way, there would be no sin. We’d simply be animals and the law of the jungle would prevail.

        • chefofsinners

          Yes. My point was that God defines sin and therefore the sinner will always be forced to condemn God in order to justify himself.
          Indeed, God Himself had no alternative but to condemn Christ in order to justify us.
          Further, the only other option is sin unrestrained, which is hell.

          • Agreed – apart from the Father condemning the Son. Christ offered Himself to the Father in an act of supreme love for humanity.

          • chefofsinners

            Yes, and the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

          • Jack would say Jesus took on Himself the sin of the world – a self-sacrifice.

          • chefofsinners

            The scripture says “the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all”. Isaiah 53:6

          • Because He willing offered Himself ….

    • That’s a load of old tosh. Hostility to homosexuals and their behaviour is more attributable to the fact homosexual acts were criminal offences with a prison sentence went rather suddenly in 1967 to being partially decriminalised and on to totally legal in a short space of time. You can’t expect people to suddenly accept and embrace behaviour that was criminal without a reaction.

      The ancient Greeks criminalised it in their time due to it getting out of control and having too much of a negative impact on their society. It’s been in and out of fashion in one place or another throughout the centuries. Once people realise how damaging it is they banish it.

      • The Explorer

        Agreed. The most violent anti-gay sentiments I’ve heard expressed were from people devoid of any contact with Christianity. The Nazi hostility, as far as I can see, was rooted in biology.

        • I’d say to Linus that the Christians emphasised tolerance toward homosexuals, seeing them as people first.
          I remember a lot of heterosexual men being rather fearful of encountering homosexuals, thinking they would be touched up, and sometimes they were, causing them to hit out. The manly advice was stand with your back to the wall when in a room with a homosexual.

    • Inspector General

      Linus is a very naughty boy who has arse conflict…

      • Father Jack

        Drink! Drink! …. I love my brick!

    • People are inclined to hate groups consisting of the “other”. It’s human nature and is justified in many ways, including religion. This shouldn’t be confused with legitimate theological reasons for condemning homosexuality and resisting its normalisation.

      • The Explorer

        ‘People are inclined to hate individuals and groups seen as “others”… So Linus has a point.’

        I’d say that weakens Linus’ case. If heteros react to those whose sexual behaviour is other, then religion need not be involved at all. Religion may be invoked as a reinforcement, but it is not the cause.

        • Religion whilst not the cause can be misused as screen for hatred and natural disgust, and often is.

    • Malcolm Smith

      I have a certain amateur interest in anthropology, and what I have noticed is that the vast majority of cultures have treated homosexuality as either reprehensible or ridiculous. When it was allowed, it was usually in societies which segregated men and women fairly severely. Even then, it was not accepted as a full lifestyle choice. This is the reason for the famous Greek pederasty, which even they were uncomfortable with. It also explains its more-or-less open expression in some Islamist societies, despite the religious condemnation. Under the Roman Republic it was theoretically subject to the death penalty. The norther barbarians did not accept it. In many societies it is unheard of. (It exists, but it is unheard of. A practice can be relatively common and still socially invisible.)
      In other words, it wasn’t as if everyone were happy little buggers until the terrible Christians came along. Severe animosity comes from two main sources.
      (1) There is the natural disgust the normal person feels for such behaviour. (Which is why the homosexuals’ in-your-face advocacy will eventually be counter-productive.)
      (2) In her first book, The Female Woman Arianna Stassinopoulos (that was Arianna Huffington before she went over to the dark side) pointed out that it is hard to become a man. For a girl to become a woman she only has to imitate her mother. But a boy must be taken away from feminine influence in order to become a man, and a man’s life is harder and tougher than woman’s. To this end, therefore, society uses two methods: (i) it pretends that the masculine lifestyle is adventurous and exciting, which is the reverse of what going to the factory or the office really is, and (ii) it cracks down hard to males who refuse to adopt the masculine lifestyle – of which homosexuals are a good example.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Here is an example of the appalling dangers of political correctness.

    Baby taken into care after father was heard talking about ‘benefits of formula milk’
    http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/16/baby-taken-into-care-after-father-was-heard-talking-about-benefits-of-formula-milk-6453485/

    Now, I think that the father was wrong and that the natural way of feeding babies, unless there are problems, is the best. That is the view of most experts (not that I am one). Even so, it is appalling that the baby was taken into care and at the High Court in London, Kirklees Council was ordered to pay the mother, the father, and the little boy a total of £11,250 in damages.

    Evidently this country still has a few judges with common sense. However, I cannot help wondering what would be the attitude of the social workers if the parents were, for some reason, unable to care for the baby and decided to put him (or her) up for adoption and said that they wanted the baby to have a mother and a father? Wouldn’t that be even more important for the child’s welfare than breast feeding? What would the CoE’s synod think, especially those members campaigning for “inclusion”?

  • Ray Spring

    Congratulations on an excellent article.
    Me? I left Brum when Enoch made his speech and was vilified. I am safe here in NZ for the moment, but idiot do-gooders are even trying to destroy Godzone.
    So what is left for Christians? I concluded years ago to wear two hats. One, the Christian hat, the other hat is almost Fascist. I used to be a member of the BNP. It was the least I could do, having escaped Brum but left my friends, who refused to jump, to boil in the pan.
    Christians must wear two hats to overcome this total nonsense of ‘let ’em all come’. Look what happened to Constantinople as a result of that policy.

    • Royinsouthwest

      The Byzantines certainly did not have a policy of “let ’em all come.” They fought hard against the Ottoman Turks but eventually lost.

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        After being stabbed in the back by the Papacy in 1204.

        • Father Jack

          What? A Proddie? Don’t tell me I’m still on this feckin’ blogsite!

      • Ray Spring

        Undermined by the Crusaders! But they, Moslems, crept on and on. Eventually taking the City.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Enoch Powell was one of the most vilified and misquoted politicians in recent times. His words were prophetic however, and all he said is now tragically becoming reality across Europe. I don’t think we’ve seen the worst yet either.

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        Follow the accounts in Paris at the moment. Strangely entirely absent from the MSM. Likewise what’s happening in Sweden. It’s just beginning to warm up.

        Trump is entirely right about the western media.

        • Anton

          Put up some links!

        • Paul Greenwood

          Media is either State subsidised as are newspapers in Sweden, Netherlands, Italy, France or State owned as in TV stations whose boards are stuffed with political parties. Goldman Sachs owns the major Swedish media. Then the mainstay of advertising is Finance, and the slush fund that keeps journalists lubricated comes from Govt agencies. In UK Home Office funds the C of E through “Cohesion Funds” and in Germany bishops are paid directly by the State and radio stations receive State subsidy.

          In the US 6 corporations control 90% media outlets. NY Times is owned by Carlos Slim of Mexico and Washington Post by Jeff Bezos of Amazon, it is a CIA house paper. Facebook was funded by In-Q-Tel the CIA Vencap arm which operates through Kleiner Perkins etc; Google is a State Dept asset and NSA data collector……both Facebook and Google were front-ends for NSA Big Data collection efforts with people volunteering themselves and their friends for vast databases.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Knew some of that, but not all. Many thanks. We’ve got real problems to overcome.

  • Okay, okay, time to own up. The plan is for Blair to be given a Red Hat and then elected Pope. He will adopt the name Abaddon I. Aided by Cherie, he will conduct a root and branch reform of Catholicism. All outdated doctrine will be ditched and the New Catholic Church will rise, dedicated to social justice, appealing to all faiths and open to all, thus securing popular support.

    However, this will all be scuppered if he fails to become President of the EU. Therefore, he must first keep Britain in the European State. This will happen.

    The Lizards cannot be stopped. They are gathering in Canterbury tomorrow to finalise their tactics and organise their members.

    • Inspector General

      It’s methanol isn’t it? nothing else consumed could result in that whatever…

      • Jack is in hiding for breaking the oath of secrecy …….

    • Royinsouthwest

      Are you sure Blair would be satisfied with being Pope? Instead of taking instructions from above I would have thought that the Blairs would fancy advising God on the subject of human rights.

      • They will ……

        • len

          To what, the executive toilet?

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        Pope and Holy Roman Emperor surely, who will lead Crusades to conquer Moscow, Jerusalem and Babylon. He will ride in a massive tank nicknamed ‘the Beast’.

        • Royinsouthwest

          It is certainly difficult to think of anyone who could combine spiritual and worldly authority in such a manner!

      • IrishNeanderthal

        In the tale of the Fisherman and his Wife, she was not even satisfied with being Pope, and demanded that she be made the Lord of the Sun and Moon, to tell them when to rise and set.

        At which the fish said “that’s a bridge too far” or words to that effect, and sent them both back to their miserable cottage.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    When I said feel free to talk about rugby, I lied…

  • ChaucerChronicle

    Mrs Proudie

    You probably know this; the ‘beautiful game’ is soccer and not rugby. (I think it may have been the Brazilian footballer who once described it so.)

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Well…shorts and long socks are worn in both events, I think? As for Brazilians, one has very little experience………..

      • Inspector General

        Naughty girl.

    • (Ahem) It’s Football, not soccer. Are you an American?

      • ChaucerChronicle

        I didn’t want to trigger a debate about ‘Rugby Union Football’.

      • carl jacobs

        Why must you resist the inevitable? Even Mrs Proudie recognizes the truth. It’s time you came in from the cold, Jack.

        • I cannot and will not recant, for to go against truth is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other.

          • carl jacobs

            Now if you just keep following that line of reason, you will eventually emerge from darkness into light.

          • English Premier League alone, FA Cup alone, UEFA Champions League alone, FIFA Wold Cup alone, Manchester United F.C alone.

          • Anton

            Sola power!

          • ChaucerChronicle

            You’re not alone.

            ‘The order which came stated: ‘Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front – follow the enemy and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns. Troop Horse Artillery may accompany. French cavalry is on your left. R Airey. Immediate.”

            The disastorous Charge of the Light Brigade, 1854

          • dannybhoy

            Well said Martin..

        • Father Jack

          Yank! Yank! Reverse, Reverse.

          • carl jacobs

            Why doesn’t Father Jack look like a crazed grapefruit?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Because he is a Catholic. The beauty of truth shines from all of our faces beaming light on the rest of you. Isn’t that right Jack?:)

          • Lol ….. he’s been driven to drink.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Button it, cowboy.

          • carl jacobs

            Well OK. A crazed orange then? Or a crazed pomegranate. Blueberry seems to be taken.

      • Anton

        Correct, Jack. What Americans call soccer is properly called Association football, and ‘rugby’ is short for Rugby Football. Sorted.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          You mustn’t lead Happy Jack astray by confirming him in his ‘cultural error’. If you do, he might then be invited to explain: ‘the beautiful game’.

      • dannybhoy

        I seem to remember he lived in the USA and returned.. He (like me) is appreciative and in some respects, an admirer of ‘real America..’

    • Ivan M

      Soccer?!! That’s the game American moms take their wards to during weekends. The stupid game they call football, where they spend half the time smelling each other’s backsides is only incidentally connected with the foot.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Getting away from sport for a moment, it seems that everything, even climate change, should be seen through the prism of LGBTQWERTY.

    Claim: Same Sex Marriage The Model for Climate Action
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/16/claim-same-sex-marriage-the-model-for-climate-action/

    David Hochschild, environmental commissioner on the California Energy Commission, thinks climate activists should learn lessons from the same sex marriage movement, about how to convince the public to take action on climate change.

    • Methane gas and hot air are certainly contributors …..

  • David

    After being inoperative for some weeks, with website problems, Anglican Mainstream is working again. It carries useful updates from around the globe.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    It seems to me that “progressives” are wanting to rewrite the first five books of the Bible, to make it so that it all began in a lovely hippy colony before God came along and made all those rules.

    From their point of view, “male and female he created them” was a pretext for installing a partiarchy, whereas when compared with the surrounding nations, it was an innovation in recognizing that women were actually human.

    • The Explorer

      Rousseau started the alternative narrative to ‘Genesis’. The State of Nature where everybody shagged everybody else before heading back for the trees was ruined when someone erected a fence and said, “This is mine.” Next thing you know there’s a cultivated plot of land, then a house, then a wife, then a family, and the whole ruinous process of civilisation is set in train.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        Yes.

        Rousseau: the father of fascism.

    • dannybhoy

      Most champions of freedom and equality hate Patriarchy. They hate the idea of Maleness, of Masculinity, of Fatherhood..
      In fact they hate the idea that whilst God has both male and female qualities He describes Himself as Father..

      • IanCad

        Mostly true Danny but the madness lies in the fact that freedom and equality are mutually exclusive.

      • Cressida de Nova

        Well Patriarchy has not made a good job of things. Mankind ( males ) must be the greatest disappointment to God. They have been entrusted with being in charge and care and they have failed abysmally. The way the truth and the light example was given to men and they just ignored it.

        Atonement , true Christian behaviour ; (the Christian religion is the only religion which respects the dignity of women and children and equal rights) …taking spiritual responsibility for the privilige of their dominant role, testosterone management (thinking above the waistline and attempting at staying a few rungs above the chimpanzees in the food chain) are essential endeavours needed for a better world.

        Men have caused most of the problems in this world. All must embrace the message and precepts of the true Christian faith if discrimination and misogyny are to be eradicated.

        • Much truth in that, Cressida.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Thank you Jack.

        • dannybhoy

          I can’t really disagree with anything you’ve written Cressida.
          A true man is not a macho man, but he is courageous strong and resolute when needed. He is gentle, he is not afraid to show emotion, but doesn’t let his emotions rule him.
          Our Lord is the perfect man, the second Adam. Jesus shows the best of male and female traits in one person, and in following His example a Christian man will become a better man.
          All we have toi do now is find you one…. ;0)

    • ChaucerChronicle

      ‘whereas when compared with the surrounding nations, it was an innovation in recognizing that women were actually human’.

      Good insight.

  • Shadrach Fire

    C Of E – R.I.P

  • How far we’ve fallen. Here’s a recent exchange between Happy Jack (using a different ID) with a “Catholic” on what calls itself a “Catholic” website:

    monicadeangelisl
    “If we were to take an informal survey of Christology, I believe most Latin Rite Catholics would come down squarely on the side of Nestorius. A lot of theologians, too….”

    HJ:
    Translation: most Roman Catholics and a lot of theologians are heretics.
    The Nestorian heresy regarded Jesus Christ as a human person joined in some way to the divine person of God’s Son. He claimed that Mary only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, thus
    fracturing Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb.
    The Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, now rejects Nestorianism and is in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.

    monicadeangelis:
    “If the idea that Jesus had two natures makes sense to you, you need to have both your heads examined.”

    HJ:
    You need to remind yourself of orthodox Christian Christology i.e. the union of divine and human natures in the single person of Jesus Christ.
    So, in your mind, was His nature human or divine?

    monicadeangelis:
    “Thanks for reminding me it was all baloney.”

    HJ:
    Since you deny Jesus Christ is the union of divine and human natures in a single person, is His nature human or divine?
    Do you also deny our Triune God – in Persons three, in substance one?

    monicadeangelis:
    “The category “nature” (phusis) belongs to a different era, which was been superseded by science. Tell me what you know about someone’s DNA and we can discuss.”

    HJ:
    So you do deny Jesus Christ is divine and also deny the Triune God.
    What does “science” know about the nature and mysteries of God?

    monicadeangelis:
    “Non sequitur”.

    HJ:
    In what way is it a non sequitur? You’ve denied the hypostatic union and by association the Trinity.
    Go ahead, use your “science” and explain the Incarnation.

    Br. Robert:
    “I think I do. I even lean towards Arius. OK, Trads, prepare the kindling!”

    HJ
    Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. He disguised his heresy using orthodox
    or near-orthodox terminology and ambiguous language, and sowed great confusion in the Church.

    Guess who got all the upticks.

    • David

      Jack, the internet is full of these types who, with a superficial understanding of both the nature of science and the Christian faith, assert that science has supplanted faith. I’ve found that, in almost all cases, they know nothing of the philosophy of science or the scientific method, but having read a few books, or even picked up a few slogan like catchphrases, from a certain well known popular author, they vastly overestimate their own cleverness.
      Their knowledge and understanding of the Christian faith is, if it wash’t so serious for them, even smaller. Typically they quote from Leviticus about not wearing garments containing two different materials, as proving how out of date all faith is. When an explanation of the relationship of the OT to the NT is offered they are simply not interested. Most simply represent a waste of time.

      • This particular blogger, who never tires of informing people, has a Doctorate in Theology from the Pontifical University in Rome.

        • chefofsinners

          No wonder he’s so confused.

          • Now, now. Besides, he is a she. The clue’s in her name.

          • chefofsinners

            Ah. Thought that was just a moniker.

        • Royinsouthwest

          It is kind of him to let you know that you can expect a more profound level of ignorance from him than from less well educated people.

          • “This world’s wisdom, with God, is but folly. So we read in scripture, I will entrap the wise with their own cunning. And again, The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, and how empty they are.”
            (1 Corinthians 3: 19-21)

        • David

          Well he don’t know the first thing about the doctrine of Christ.

      • Royinsouthwest

        In my experience, which admittedly may not be representative, most non-militant agnostics and atheists (I write “non-militant” in order to exclude Dawkins-type campaigners) use two arguments to justify their views.

        1. Religion is the source of most trouble in history.
        2. Religion was used to explain whatever people did not understand whether it be earthquakes and other natural disasters or the origin of life but now we have science so we do not need religion.

        Of course there is some truth in both those views. I often encounter difficulty when I try to explain that it is senseless to talk about “religion” as a single coherent entity because it would be like saying Churchill, Hitler and Gandhi were all just the same because all three were politicians.

        • David

          Yes that is exactly my experience as well.

        • Dreadnaught

          All religions, believe that they are individually and uniquely, privy to the ultimate truth. This is what is nonsensical about ‘religion’ being a useful component in the search of knowledge. Their adherents are historically prepared to kill dissenters to prove their point – that makes no sense.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Your reply proves my point by seeking to nullify all the differences between religions. As I said it is as if you claimed that Churchill, Hitler and Gandhi were all just the same. Some people who claimed to be adherents of some religions were prepared to kill dissenters, and there are still a few today, just as there have been people prepared to kill for all sorts of different causes, especially political ones.

          • Dreadnaught

            The act of killing is not the issue. My first sentence illustrates the essential element that all religions have in common. You then proceed to muddy the waters and ignore that very point with added mitigating conditions and whataboutery.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Every message you send proves my point. Killing is not an essential element of all religions. You could say “killing is an essential element that all political philosophies have in common” because you can find examples of wars started by left-wingers, right-wingers, and centrists.

          • Dreadnaught

            When I talk of ‘religion’ I am speaking of all beliefs based on belief in the existence of supernatural entities, where the comon denominator is that each one will and/or has, claimed for it to be the only true ‘faith’.
            Belief without testible proof or evidence is insufficient to convince me to give credence to the claims made on behalf of any of them.
            No scientist has caused someone to be put to death for simply challenging a hypothesis. But religions have done to dissenters down the ages.
            You have still not responded to my main observation which is an uncomplicated statement.

          • Is Dreadnaught another ID used by the same person as Royinthesouthwest? Because, if it isn’t, Dreadnaught could scarely be doing a better job of making Roy look wise, by seeming to argue against Roy, whilst illustrating perfectly an example of what Roy says he has observed.

          • Dreadnaught

            Roy is backing two horses to win in the same race.

          • dannybhoy

            Yeah I’ve been meaning to speak to the Chef about his murderous missionary tendencies..
            Granted there has been killing in the history of Christianity, but you won’t find any backing for taking life in the New Testament.

          • Dreadnaught

            I am not speaking exclusively about Christianity which whether you accept it or not, is still rooted in the old testament. I talk about religion as a primitive human construct to explain what at the time is unexplainable.

          • chefofsinners

            Murderous? Moi? That whole thing with the missionary and the meatcleaver was a misunderstanding.

          • dannybhoy

            I know, your toque blanche slipped as you were showing him how to rightly divide the Word of Truth…

          • How can a “religion” “believe” anything, “individually”?

            How can anybody believe anything, other than in the sense of considering that which they “believe”, to be the truth?

            The quasi-proposition, “‘Religion’ [in quotes?] is a useful component [do you mean ‘tool’?] in the search for knowledge”, is either “nonsensical”, or not.

            If it is nonsensical, you cannot refute it as though it were an intelligible proposition, because you have no idea what the quasi-proposition means. Only a fool would try to refute nonsense, especially nonsense that nobody else had seemingly asserted.

            You have fallen into Royinsouthwest’s trap so comically, that I suspect that you are an alias of his.

        • “there is some truth in both those views”

          Views you say? You are using a “views” metaphor that comes from the important process of making maps. Did you realise that, or had you forgotten?

          In the metaphor, all “views” are not only “true”, they are as infallible as the eyes, or camera lenses, of the witnesses who testify to those views, or who photographed them and exhibited the photographs to their witness statements. (Cameras never lie. Eyewitnesses sometimes do, alas.) One simply cannot have or express a view that isn’t merely true, but also downright infallible, unless one is (so-to-speak, at best) partially sighted – or dishonest.

          A view is what something (for example, a mountain, which is a three-dimensional solid) looks like, in a two-dimensional photograph taken from one so-called “point of view”, or (say) a sketch made by an eyewitness standing at that point of view.

          To make a model of the “mountain” that we cannot dismiss as badly inaccurate, when we compare photographs of our model with photographs of the real-life mountain supplied by other witnesses, it is necessary to find a 3D shape that doesn’t make it downright impossible for a trustworthy witness at a stated point of view, to have seen, or to have photographed, what has turned out to be his particular 2D “view” of the mountain, as “viewed” from his “point of view”.

          The genteel metaphor of which I have reminded you so pedantically, is the etymology of the word “view” as you have used that word, metaphorically. It is a metaphorical etymology better remembered than forgotten, if humans are to learn from one another, voting with our behaviour and mutual respect for Hope rather than Hate, as being polite has started being put this year.

          Somebody who has never been within a thousand miles of Mt Everest himself, but who nevertheless has a thousand photographs of Mt Everest taken from a thousand different points of view, is better equipped – with data he could use, if only he was willing – to make a reasonably accurate 3D model of Mr Everest, than any one of the photographers whose views he attempts to reconcile.

          But, an arrogant armchair “cartographer” who doesn’t want even to try to reconcile different views in his “feeds”, seen from different points of view, is badly crippled, and doomed to fail, when it comes to making a plausible 3D model of Mt Everest.

          Arrogant armchair cartographers don’t want to understand life better, or (in the appropriate metaphor) to model the mountain better, by listening to others. Instead, they have made-up minds already, each based upon only one view, the arrogant armchair cartographer’s own view. They have, so-to-speak, seen the mountain from the north, where they live, and had a stab at making their best guess as to the shape of the south side of the mountain that they’d need X-ray vision to see for themselves, without a spot of tourism outside their comfort zone.

          They don’t much care for the tribe (uncouth to their way of thinking) that looks daily at the same mountain, but from the south, whom they deride as “Southists”. What Southists see, they say – their Southist views – is “nonsensical”. Even though all honest views are as infallible as photographs of Mt Everest from different angles.

          When you find yourself sucked into debating with people who say, “Your view is false”, you are (barring divine intervention, for which you should pray), wasting your time. A “view”, per se, cannot be “false”, in any ordinary sense. That is why the “view” metaphorical meaning evolved, to remind us of the necessary humility of cartographers, whose job it is to find out how to reconcile views from opposite points of view.

    • chefofsinners

      Remember, Jack: Pope not hate.

    • Inspector General

      Ah, Blasphemy Jack. Doing what he does best. Laying it all down to us, and you can wager that he has enough hot pokers prepared for those that will not listen to his truth.

      Meanwhile, another truth says the nature of Christ remains unknown. We simply weren’t told by him to a satisfactory level, and he, if anyone, knows what he is. As it is, we can ‘safely’ rely on prophecies thousands of years before his time, even, telling us what to expect. Sort of.

      Thus we have many theories. The Trinitarians won out, but then Christianity was up against the Roman gods. Jupiter was not given credit for bringing the universe into existence, so we gave that honour to our man, somehow. There you go, our god is bigger than your god, Romans. Move in with us.

      Having said all that, if the Trinity works for you, stick with it. But the uncomfortable fact is still there. Man was not considered worthy enough to be privy to as it is from the mouth of Christ. If he had enlightened us, there would be no Arianism or Nestorianism. Or even Trinitarianism, for it would then not need to be named if Trinitarianism it be.

      • Yes, her views are remarkably similar to your “higher understandings” about Christ and the Trinity.

        • Inspector General

          Jack. We need only to accept Christ as our redeemer, and live our lives as he would have us do so. That’s it. Salvation. There is no theology exam at the end, so why worry about things we don’t know.

          • If you don’t know Him for who He is, how can you understand what He did for you and accept Him? You deny His Divinity. You deny the Trinity. What you’re saying is treachery to Christ.

          • Inspector General

            How many times did Jesus speak of the Trinity. He did speak of the Trinity, did he not?

          • There are many examples of Christ identifying Himself as God and as one with the Father and Holy Spirit. Perhaps you should pay more attention to the scriptural readings and to the liturgy at Mass.

          • Inspector General

            and the word Trinity. He used that, didn’t he…

          • Perhaps if you spent less studying filth and more time in prayer, study and contemplating the Gospel, you begin to understand.

          • Inspector General

            The homosexual community that believes in Christ needs the Inspector. He does it for them.

          • It would help if you believed in Christ and what He taught. You offend, taunt, insult, show ill-will and display an ungodly relish in their physical, emotional and spiritual suffering.

          • Inspector General

            One points out their physical, emotional and spiritual suffering. It doesn’t have to be that way for them.

          • chefofsinners

            Oh really? He doesn’t do it for me.

          • Inspector General

            It’s pro bono stuff.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            He talked about the Father, Holy Spirit and Himself just before the Ascension all in the same breath and context IG. There’s no doubt Jesus saw himself as one of a Trinity, exactly how that Trinity works we can’t begin to fathom.

          • chefofsinners

            “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” Matthew 28:19

          • Inspector General

            The son of God the father is then most surely an arch angel…

          • chefofsinners

            There is only one being named in scripture as an archangel, namely Michael. Jude records this: “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
            Now would Jesus, who utterly defeated Satan, who said “get behind me Satan”, who cast out demons all across Israel, would he not dare condemn Satan for slander?
            Go and read your bible before you start dropping your doctrinal trousers in public.

          • Inspector General

            Lucifer met up with Christ in the desert and offered him the Earth. What was that all about!

          • chefofsinners

            Satan offered them. Whether he had the power to give them only God knows. No doubt Satan regularly offers more than he can deliver.
            Certainly he is called ‘the prince of the power of the air’ but we are reassured that ‘greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world.’ 1 John 4:4. By this John means the Spirit of Christ, which is greater than the spirit of antichrist.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            You are in error on this one my friend!

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I don’t think the Inspector is guilty of that Jack. Much of our faith is founded on paradox just as much of quantum mechanics is paradoxical. I find that reassuring and indeed mutually supporting. Our faith is that of a child and that is sufficient for salvation.

          • There’s no paradox in the Incarnation or the Trinity. How can one who doesn’t believe in the Incarnation or the Trinity be a follower of Christ or worship the true God?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Of course there is. Was Jesus in full communion with the Father when on Earth? No because Jesus said he did not know the Father’s plans and he prayed to Him, yet Jesus was divine even when on Earth but not fully because he was also human. We don’t know how it worked and it’s a paradox The filioque clause? Does the Holy Spirit descend from the Father and Son, or just the Father as the Orthodox believe (the older tradition)? We don’t know and don’t need to know. Accepting the limits of our certain knowledge does not invalidate our faith. A little more humility please.

          • Anton

            You beat me to it. Of course there is paradox in the Trinity. I defend it by saying that you don’t expect the deepest mysteries in existence of be understandable by man, do you?

            NB The Inspector has made assertions there in the past that show squarely he’s Arian.

          • Inspector General

            Jesus called God his father, Anton. Something an arch angel would do.

          • Anton

            Isaiah (9:6) said that a boy would be born who was God, and among self-identified Christians it is accepted that this was Jesus. Also, Jesus accepted Thomas’ cry “My Lord and God!” (John 20:28) whereas if Jesus was not divine then he would have rebuked Thomas.

          • Before His resurrection:
            “He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep” “(John 21:17).

            Jesus did not correct Peter. He let Peter continue on with his statement that Jesus knew all things.

          • Anton

            Perhaps you are replying to the wrong person here? I made no mention of Peter.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Plus Jesus asking Peter who he thought he was, and he did not rebuke Peter’s statement that he was both Messiah and God, but merely told Peter not to mention it to others.

          • Inspector General

            “My God, My God, why have you abandoned me” is a rather difficult one to wriggle out of, Anton. But if anyone can do it, you can.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            See my answer above IG. It does not imply Jesus was not divine.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Please see my answer to CC IG. While in human form our Lord cannot not have been in full communion with the Father, a temporary separation necessary to His mission in ways we can’t comprehend, but He is still fully divine.

          • Inspector General

            Now that is rather convoluted. The most sensible way forward is to accept Christ, and not worry about his provenance, other than he is from God.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            That’s the bottom line indeed. The rest is intellectual enquiry, little more.

          • “The most sensible way forward is to accept Christ, and not worry about his provenance, other than he is from God.

            You agree Christ was from God and not Himself God?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            No, Jesus is God of course, part of the Trinity.

          • Anton

            It evokes the psalm of which it is the first line, and which ends with a statement of faith. QED. Now, what about Isaiah and Thomas?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Given that we don’t know the precise details of Arius’ theology and that no balanced authority argues that Arius denied Christ’s divinity, but that Arius saw Jesus as created by the Father before time began, to be an Arian is not what is understood by common misconception. Again it’s fruitless speculation.

          • Ariaor angelns taught that the Logos was a being created by God the Father before the creation of the world. He concluded that Jesus Christ was a created being, not uncreated as God is. This determination meant that Christ was less than fully divine – He was somewhere between God and man.

            “Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.”

            http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

            Modern Arianism advocates that Jesus was a good and wise man, perhaps even a prophet, (or an Archangel, as Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Inspector claim) but certainly not fully divine. Such a view has gone beyond heresy to apostasy.

            Arianism is false biblically, but its doctrines and those of Nestorius and others, has led the Church through all generations to define what she believes regarding the person and nature of Christ.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Different scholars say different things about Arius. Modern Arianism is not ancient Arianism. Jesus was seen as a divine off-shoot of the Father before Time, not as non-divine. One can see it’s a logical position given that Jesus says ‘Father’ and said the Father had knowledge he himself lacked. The answer must surely be that while on earth in human form Jesus was not consubstantial with the Father but was before and after his physical manifestation? Fun speculation but that’s all it is.

          • The root of Arianism was, as Jack has said, a denial that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            We can’t know, but Jesus himself said that the Father had knowledge that Jesus did not possess. I have offered a potential explanation, but it’s pure speculation.

          • Anton

            My preferred explanation is that Jesus voluntarily limited his knowledge for a while, just as voluntarily constrained himself by becoming flesh, in the Incarnation.

          • Anton

            That’s a subject change. I’m using “Arian” as a shorthand for someone who believed Jesus was a very high order of being but not God, and by God I mean in the sense of the Creator of all that is not Him.

            Cf many Calvinists don’t agree with what Calvin said, if they did but know it!

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Fair enough,but I was discussing Arius himself just as we wre earlier discussing Nestorius and the early monophysites.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            1642,

            Interesting: ‘Was Jesus in full communion with the Father when on Earth? No because Jesus said he did not know the Father’s plans and he prayed to Him, yet Jesus was divine even when on Earth but not fully because he was also human.’

            Do you have Biblical references? I am genuinely interested in studying the topic.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Sorry, not to hand but it’s repeated in the Gospels.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            All right. One the others may assist.

          • I decided that the resolution of the filioque controversy lies in humbly accepting the biblical doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ became the one who baptises the church (or the saints individually) in the Holy Spirit, by pouring, as explained in Acts 2:33. “Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear.” (DRA).

            There are arguments in the church as a whole about the doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, but at least what the bible teaches, about the Father and the Son, is plain.

            When in a Western church, I am therefore content to do as the Romists do, and say “and the Son”, but am happy not to say that phrase when attending an Orthodox liturgy.

            I came to my present understanding of the relationship between the filioque controversy and the doctrine of baptism in the Holy Spirit (a doctrine much-emphasised in my Elim home church at the time) whilst reading Acts 2 during a visit to a Grace Baptist church, whilst sitting next to a Romanian of Eastern Orthodox churchmanship.

            The Orthodox recite that creed without filioque. The Romists recite it with that word. Low church evangelical protestants like these Calvinist Cessationinsts, and my own charismatic Elim tribe at the time, tend not to recite creeds at all, which is a pity, because it would make visitors from Poland (very RC) and Romania (very Orthodox) feel at home. However, I picked up a Catechism at the Protestant Truth Society shop in Strand yesterday, which I am looking forward to reading.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            A wise view. If only some of the more fanatical denominational warriors on here would do likewise.

          • You are a fine example of a modern Anglican …. Now it’s “fanatical” to defend the divinity of Christ and the Trinity.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Twisting words again? You are rattled. My comment was addressing the filioque clause controversy (caused by the RCC). I was commending Judge Mental’s wise attitude which did not make any attack on the Trinity.

          • Jack has not commented on the filioque controversy, so your comment was a more generalised attack.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Oddly Jack I was not referring to you in that statement, but had in mind one Protestant and one RC poster on here, both of whom come across as unhinged and devoid of God’s Grace. It’s not all about you!

          • Inspector General

            In one’s higher understanding, there are no Christian sects. Just Christians.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Agreed IG.

          • Like … er … Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses?

          • Andre´Kristian

            Dearly divine,
            how strikingly veracious. Further more, as the Latin judiciousness advices, “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.
            Allow me to bring my perpetual reverence before the Inspector General, the superlunary man and patriot whose Christian name I shall never know. (A certain stroke of pusillanimity almost kept me from this greeting, but what the devil, nothing venture – nothing have.)
            Yours obediently,
            Andreas Kristian P 🙂

          • Churches and denominations are only lampstands. They aren’t the light of the world, along with Christ. They are frameworks, support structures, to help the saints to shine.

            Churches have fallible “angels” in charge of them, whom Christ addressed in Revelation more than the churches themselves, or individual saints collectively, in the seven letters. By necessary inference, these “angels” weren’t glorious holy beings or demons. They were humans – a mixture of good and evil – who might not even be saved saints themselves. There have been church leaders galore, at the apex of hierarchies Christ himself warned against, with grandiose titles like “pope”, “patriarch”, “metropolitan”, “archbishop”, or “general superintendent”, “apostle”, or “senior pastor”.

          • Without going into the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity, which we cannot fully comprehend this side of eternity, suffice it to say that the Inspector denies Christ’s divinity and the Trinity.

            [A mystery beyond full human comprehension is not a paradox, although we, with our limitations, might see it as such.]

          • Inspector General

            If you are an angel (messenger) sent by God Almighty, then your divinity is unquestioned.

          • Angels are not God – they are created by God.

          • Inspector General

            They are divine for reason already given.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Supernatural and immortal but not divine because they can only do as God directs.

          • Or not …. with free will they can, and some did, rebel.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Some did and that’s all we know, but those in the Bible simply do as directed.

          • Anton

            Better define “divine” at this point.

          • Lucifer was God’s favoured angel. Is he divine?

          • Inspector General

            He’s still around. He seems to have a purpose, but it would be better if we weren’t
            there to see it…

          • Cressida de Nova

            You have to understand Jack, that Protestants regard calling out the truth’ elitist’ You are supposed to wring your hands in deference to any of the prevailing opinions of the time, like they do.

            Anyone who denies the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity is not a follower of the NT thus not a Christian.It is stupid vanity thinking the human brain can unravel these concepts. The mysteries of religion are just that….mysteries….Small glimpses of understanding are only obtained through the higher arts of poetry music and visual art…not science. Science is God’s gift to man for understanding earthly matters. It is not meant to be used as a cudgel to attack the existence of God, the Trinity or the Divinity of Jesus.

          • Anton

            Definition time? I don’t like “mystery” because its use in ancient Greek was something once hidden and now revealed.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Ah 1642, I think I found one:

            “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.”

            Well?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Plenty much clearer when talking about the Second Coming and praying to the Father on several occasions.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Does that mean it’s a good example demonstrating He did not know the Father’s plan? Day nor hour?

          • Inspector General

            Not happy about heaven passing away. Sounds like madness…

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Well, General, I suppose it’s a bit like a Shakespearean tragedy: we had our beginning, Eden and the Fall; the middle of the play that all history turns on, the crucifixion and the resurrection; and then the apocalyse and the Last Judgement when the curtain falls and many bow out.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Yep, but there are others. Use Jesus’ words, others are worthless other than the Father sending the Holy Spirit in the form of a Dovea t Jesus’ baptism and saying Jesus was his Son.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            You mean all I’ve got to work out is: if Jesus was God did He know the will of the Father all of the time and did He know the day and hour (for example)?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            No, I’m sure there’s more wiser minds than mine will see, but those statements of Jesus have always struck me forcibly.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Well, 1642 what is the debate?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Not sure, just that differing views on the precise nature of the Trinity are possible without leading to accusations of heresy I suppose.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Well it’s as plain as daylight, Jesus being God would have known all along God’s plans, day and hour. No question about it.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            So He was lying when He made that statement that He didn’t know the Father’s plans?

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Of course He wasn’t 1642. You know better than that.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I know He wasn’t. He can’t. So He said it for a reason. Like any of His statements I ponder it’s meaning frequently. I wrestle with His words.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            How do you know He wasn’t lying or misleading his hearers?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            What are you trying to achieve? Because He is without Sin and to Lie is to Sin.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Well, 1642. As I understand the debate; if I say He didn’t know then He wasn’t God with the attribute of omniscience; if I say He knew then I’ll be asked to explain why did He say no one knows the day nor the hour.

            Is that more or less correct?

          • len

            When Jesus became a man , he ’emptied’ Himself,

            Who, being in very nature[a] God,
            did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
            7 rather, he made himself nothing
            by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
            being made in human likeness.
            8 And being found in appearance as a man,
            he humbled himself
            by becoming obedient to death—
            even death on a cross! (Philippians 2)

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Thanks len.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Yes, unless you can show me another interpretation. It’s a paradox just like the rest of the Trinity. I have speculated one possible solution, but it’s no more than that. Because he was not fully consubstantial with the Father for a few years while in human form does not mean that He was/is not part of an omnipotent or omniscient Godhead before and since.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            1642, I’m no theologian; but I don’t believe that He did not have the attribute of omniscience for three and a half years.

            He was, simultaneously, God and Man. It seems to me that His God side chose not to reveal the day nor the hour to the Man side. His statement did not contradict His omniscience.

            When He was talking to Peter and the other chaps He simultaneously saw us all, right here, right now, thinking, writing and arguing: omniscience.

          • len

            Jesus operated as a man filled with the Spirit of God when on Earth.
            This is exactly what God planned for all of us when He created this Earth.
            The first Adam failed.
            The second Adam(Jesus ) is the perfect representation of what man was intended to be.
            Jesus is the standard by which God expects of man.
            That is why religious good works as a means of salvation are useless , no one can make the grade.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Excellent insight len. Thanks again.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            That’s possible but comes close to deliberately misleading Peter, something I struggle to believe of Him. I prefer len’s explanation below as it is more in the spirit of Jesus’ perfect nature and is advocated by Paul no less.

            Anyway, Goodnight CC.

          • betteroffoutofit

            That’s my approach too, 1642 … and it’s us lot all bound up in the flesh who have the limited perceptions.

            We just like to imagine we’re intelligent, and that’s the hubris of it all. I guess that ‘apple’ gave us the slightest glimmer that there’s something beyond – both within and without; but we sure need look at, and listen to, the Light of Truth!

          • ChaucerChronicle

            If He wasn’t fully cosubstantial with the Father for then we’re left with: mad, bad and liar.

          • betteroffoutofit

            But you just said: “He was, simultaneously, God and Man. It seems to me that His God side chose not to reveal the day nor the hour to the Man side. His statement did not contradict His omniscience.” I agree there.

            Flesh can veil Revelation. The principle could be like that where (man’s) sub-conscious and, also, the Spirit Within – need to process through Id, Ego, and Super-Ego on their way to consciousness! It doesn’t mean that the unconscious and the Holy Ghost are not present and working.

            He helped US to understand that when He said, to the omniscient Father, “. . . they know not what they do.” A similar formula could apply there, but on a scale completely beyond our imagination!!!

          • Inspector General

            “Treachery to Christ”. Strong stuff. In centuries past, a man so accused could expect to be racked, and that just for starters…

            Jack, you are not saved.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I wouldn’t go that far but he needs more humility to ensure he doesn’t step out of the Lord’s Grace.

          • Inspector General

            Together, we can do it, 1642!

          • It’s “humility” to deny the divinity of Christ?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Don’t twist my words. Of course not. But it’s not humility to think we understand the mysteries of the Trinity.

          • Inspector General

            We can’t agree on a definition of divinity. As for this man, if God called you into being as an arch angel, you are divine with a capital D

          • chefofsinners

            Can I just get this straight. You think, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, that Jesus was the archangel Michael?

          • Inspector General

            Not necessarily Michael.

          • chefofsinners

            There are no other archangels named in scripture.

          • Inspector General

            There’s a few others. But what about a new one born in a stable, who has to spend the first decades learning the ropes…

          • dannybhoy

            There’s also Gabriel, and others are mentioned in books not included in the canon of Scripture. There does seem to be an angelic hierarchy…

          • chefofsinners

            Gabriel is not named as an archangel.

          • dannybhoy

            Enoch says he is,,

          • Jack would never presume he was, Inspector.

          • Inspector General

            Just as well. Your rotten attitude to fellow Christians is quite frankly appalling…

          • Cressida de Nova

            Your betrayal of the religion you were born into is appalling as well.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            My, I never thought one could be born into a religion; or have I misread you?

          • chefofsinners

            Born of the Spirit, no doubt.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            She hasn’t advanced a clarification.

          • chefofsinners

            ‘Spect that Nova’s broken down again. She’s on a dark verge somewhere spraying the spark plugs.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Chef, I’ve come late to this discussion. Is everthing all right with the chaps?

          • chefofsinners

            Reckon so. It’s just Jack and the IG having one of their ding-dongs. They get on like North Korea’s ruling family. Everyone else is probably in bed. Hiding beneath the covers.

          • len

            Its all kicking off here CC, religious mania has set in with the RCC crowd .Bound to happen I suppose

          • ChaucerChronicle

            What do they want? Do you know? I can’t make head nor tail about it all.

          • len

            This happens quite often…the Inspector has some very strange ideas about Christianity, its a sort of’ make it up as you go along sort’ of religion the inspector has.
            The other RCC ‘ers find this embarrassing.

          • Dominic Stockford

            I don’t know why they get so wound up – my experience, which is real, is that most RCs haven’t much of clue about faith/religion. The lady who protested, after a sermon about the first line of the Creed, “But we don’t have to believe that do we?” is a perfect example (from many). They must encounter such people in the RCC all the time, I did then, and still do today…

          • len

            I think some of those in the RCC seem to see themselves as ‘policing ‘RCC dogmas to make sure everyone conforms to them.

          • “… my experience, which is real, is that most RCs haven’t much of clue about faith/religion

            Certainly true of you …. and with priests such as yourself, is it any wonder?

          • Inspector General

            You’ve a nerve, with your born again madness.

          • len

            Oh dear.
            If Jesus Words are’ madness’ to you, why call yourself a Christian?.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            All Christians must be born again IG.

          • len

            Ah the old days when you could tinker with an engine…

          • chefofsinners

            Tinker is a bad word nowadays. They’re Romany.

          • len

            I wondered if I was allowed to say ‘Tinker’…but what the……. (not allowed to say that either.

          • Cressida de Nova

            If you must know I am holidaying in the South Pacific and have just come in from a surf. I could say Wish You Were Here. But that would be a lie !

          • chefofsinners

            You did well to get the Nova that far.

          • Cressida de Nova

            007 Ultimate Bond Girl – YouTube

          • len

            Islam?

          • chefofsinners

            “circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews” Php 3:5

          • Inspector General

            Ah, it’s the personification of sugar and spice and all things nice.

          • Cressida de Nova

            True !

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Why not?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Of course you will be saved.

          • dannybhoy

            Well I for one as a Prod would say that if your faith is in Christ Jesus rather than your own efforts, (and yes I understand the different ways of looking at that), you are. as long as you look to Him for grace and forgiveness, saved.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I tend to your view IG. Much trouble has been caused by overly dogmatic speculation on the precise details of the Trinity, and Jesus’ inner nature. However Scripture is clear that Jesus pre-existed the universe, is somehow woven into the divine logos or order of the universe, and that the Holy Spirit descends from the Father.

            I think it clear that neither Nestorius nor the Monophysites believed quite what the enemies accused them of. Much is adiaphora and paradoxical beyond human reasoning.

          • Anton

            I strongly agree, and I have explained here in the past that Nestorius and Cyril differed only about HOW Jesus was both God and man, and not over the fact that he was. It is hubris to use the tools of Greek philosophy to psychoanalyse God. Down that road leads mutual excommunication over things that scripture is silent on, a tragedy that arose due to the absurdly inflated egos of certain early mediaeval churchmen.

          • The Church’s understanding of Christ, the Incarnation and the Trinity was formulated in the cauldron of resisting heresy and apostasy way before the medieval period – addressed by every one of the first seven Ecumenical councils. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a formulation of the being of Christ – that of two natures, one human and one divine, “united with neither confusion nor division”. It was Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century who provided the first systematic Christology that consistently addressed a number of the existing issues but the groundwork had already been done.

            Are you seriously accusing Saint ainflated egos of certain early mediaeval churchmen.

          • Anton

            Yes. He said so himself, in his comment about straw. He advocated the execution rather than excommunication of heretics.

          • Jack suspects that observation says more about your ego than about Saint Thomas Aquinas’.

            Something happened. There is a story that when Saint Thomas was praying before the crucifix, Jesus spoke to him: “You’ve written well of me, Thomas. What do you want as your reward?” To which St. Thomas answered, Non nisi te, Domine. Non nisi te. It’s speculatin; no one knows. St. Thomas emptied himself and yearned for God and nothing else. He humbled himself.

            When he stopped writing, he was not 50 years old. His last book, Summa Theologiae, lay incomplete. Thomas Aquinas had worked himself hard for many months, rising early in the morning for devotions, teaching, dictating to his secretaries, and then praying into the early hours of the morning.

            He was asked why he had stopped writing: “I cannot.” Thomas did not explain his deepest spiritual secrets, his profound weariness with the world, his horror at the anti-Christian heresies he had had to refute? “I can write no more. All that I have written seems like straw.”

            And on that enigmatic note, his life’s work ended; within months his great intellect was stilled in death. What he saw or experienced or thought on that day are guesswork.

            An “inflated ego”? One thinks not.

            Here’s one authors take on it:

            [THOMAS] had returned victorious from his last combat with [radical Aristotelian] Siger of Brabant; returned and retired. This particular quarrel was the one point, as we may say, in which his outer and his inner life had crossed and coincided; he realized how he had longed from childhood to call up all allies in the battle for Christ; how he had only long afterwards called up Aristotle as an ally; and now in that last nightmare of sophistry, he had for the first time truly realized that some might really wish Christ to go down before Aristotle.

            He never recovered from the shock. He won his battle, because he was the best brain of his time, but he could not forget such an inversion of the whole idea and purpose of his life.

            He was the sort of man who hates hating people. He had not been used to hating even their hateful ideas, beyond a certain point. But in the abyss of anarchy opened by Siger’s sophistry . . . he had seen the possibility of the perishing of all idea of religion, and even of all idea of truth.

            Brief and fragmentary as are the phrases that record it, we can gather that he came back with a sort of horror of that outer world, in which there blew such wild winds of doctrine, and a longing for the inner world which any Catholic can share, and in which the saint is not cut off from the simple men. He resumed the strict routine of religion, and for some time said nothing to anybody.

            And then something happened (it is said while he was celebrating Mass), the nature of which will never be known among mortal men.

            His friend Reginald asked him to return also to his equally regular habits of reading and writing, and following the controversies of the hour. He said with a singular emphasis, “I can write no more.” There seems to have been a silence; after which Reginald again ventured to approach the subject; and Thomas answered him with even greater vigor, “I can write no more. I have seen things which make all my writings like straw.”

            (G.K. Chesterton, Saint Thomas Aquinas: “The Dumb Ox” (Doubleday, 1956)

          • Anton

            Why not post an entire book, St Jack?

            St Anton

        • carl jacobs

          You know, Jack. I don’t know if you have noticed but I have generally stayed out of theological discussions on this weblog for several years now. That was a marked change from previous experience for me. And this sub-thread is a good example of why. The level of heterodoxy on the board is just too high. I felt bad for you reading this sub-thread.

          The reason I will occasionally address theology with you is because I know that you know what you are talking about. Disagreement is one thing. Ignorance is entirely another.

          FWIW.

          • Thanks, Carl. We have our differences but Jack has never doubted your integrity or your faith in Christ.

          • IanCad

            I’ll second that Carl. Not saying I won’t jump in when opportunity presents.
            Jack may sometimes be wrong but he knows his stuff.

      • Father Jack

        Drink! Drink!

        Heretic.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Go away you horrible man.

          • len

            an Alter Ego…. Beware

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Whose?

          • len

            Gotta be Jack

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Nah! It can’t be. Jack? Why no man; he’s not like that all.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Schizo?

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Jack’s not like that I tell you.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Then why the alter egos?

          • Grouchy Jack

            I have multiple personalities …

          • Father Jack

            Drink! Drink!
            So do I.

          • Behave yourselves.

          • Inspector General

            That’s Happy Jack. Cranmer was so annoyed by his multi egos he banished him for it, but just like the bad penny, Jack came back.

      • chefofsinners

        The gospels honestly describe the disciples struggle to grasp the meanings of the parables, the implications of Jesus’ miracles, His ability to forgive sins or the truth of the resurrection.
        When He said ‘He that hath seen me hath seen the a Father also’ it is unsurprising that, without the Holy Spirit, they were slow to believe.

  • chefofsinners

    The death has been announced of Norma McCorvey AKA Jane Roe of Roe v Wade.
    Onetime poster girl of the ‘pro-choice’ movement, worker in an abortion clinic and living with a female partner. Became a Christian, said she was no longer a lesbian, admitted she’d lied to the courts and said the abortion case was ‘the greatest mistake of my life.’

    A work of grace.
    There is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repents…

    • Inspector General

      Yes, that would achieve salvation. A miserable lying feminist finding God.

      • chefofsinners

        Something for you to aspire to.

        • Inspector General

          Rather than reply in same, here’s an opportunity for you to delete that.

          • chefofsinners

            Sorry. You’re not a feminist.

        • Something for all of us to aspire to.

      • A confused and vulnerable young woman manipulated by unscrupulous people pushing their abortion agenda. Thankfully, Jesus seeks and finds the lost sheep and brings them home.

        She was 21 years old, a high school drop-out and “street kid” who had lived in a Catholic boarding school and a reform school for delinquents, facing drug and alcohol addiction and abuse – when she found herself expecting a child. She’d already given birth to two children: a daughter Melissa, who was conceived during her brief marriage to sheet-metal worker Elwood “Woody” McCorvey, and who was being raised by Norma’s parents; and another whom she’d put up for adoption. She was desperate to obtain an abortion this time, although the procedure was illegal in her home state of Texas.

        Enter Sarah Weddington, a pro-abortion feminist attorney who saw Norma’s pregnancy as an opportunity to challenge the Texas abortion law, and to advance abortion as a choice available to all women. Weddington, who had aborted her own child, did not help Norma to obtain an abortion; rather, she used her to build a class-action suit defining abortion as a “right.”

        https://www.ncregister.com/blog/kschiffer/norma-mccorvey-was-wrong-then-she-was-right-may-god-welcome-her-home

      • Dominic Stockford

        God finding them…

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Other news from the USA, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against Baronelle Stutzman, the grandmother who de lined to sell flowers to a gay man for his “wedding”. She faces $1 million in legal fees, and will probably lose her business and her home. How can any reasonable person call that justice? It seems that Donald Trump needs to purge the Supreme Court of these so-called judges who are clearly lacking any sense of proportion. She is a remarkable lady who is unshaken by this trauma and has said she will only “change her mind when God changes his word”. I pray for a better outcome for her. She deserves none of this.

      https://stream.org/shame-silent-christian-leaders-refuse-stand-government-tyranny/

      • Paul Greenwood

        Funny how The Settlers were looking for freedom from religious persecution and State-intolerance and now they are deluged in it by a Supreme Court with not one Protestant but predominantly Jews and Catholics. Whatever the Founding Fathers envisaged is long gone

        • IanCad

          There will be one Protestant on the big bench if nominee Neil Gorsuch gets the nod. By no means is he a shoo-in; The Democrats will use his dead mother against him.

        • …but it is strange no Orthodox Jews ever have problems being sued by gay lobbyists.

          Strange. Yet surely you have a hypothesis you’re eager to share.

          • Paul Greenwood

            I am ready to share it with you and the world. Are such cases under-reported ? Are there perhaps no such cases at all ?

            What do you think Avi Barzel ? You sound like you have a viewpoint and I think it would be great if you could tell us from your experience !

          • I’m sure the world can’t wait, so don’t be shy. Or coy. Actually, I’ve never thought about the issue, if it’s an issue in the first place. Orthodox Jewish orgs have been challenged by LGBT lawfare activists for promoting, in a few isolated cases, “conversion therapies,” a Muslim barber was taken to court for refusing to cut a woman’s hair in Canada, and I’m guessing it’s only a matter of time before a kosher bakery gets challenged. Over to you, Paul.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Still not answered my query. Clearly you know of no cases.

          • Asked you first, but getting bored.

          • Paul Greenwood

            I was bored when you interjected without any constructive comment

      • Anton

        I’m not sure Trump *can* do that under the US constitution.

    • The Conversion of Norma McCorvey

      Rev. Frank Pavone
      Priests for Life

      Truth and sin have very little in common, but there is one characteristic they both seem to share: start flirting with either one of them, and they draw you all the way in.

      Norma McCorvey’s life and conversion, so powerfully summarized in her recent book Won by Love, illustrate this truth dramatically. The deceit of the abortion industry drew her in and brought her to the depths of anguish, misery, and confusion. Then she began flirting with the truth, a little here and a little there. She listened to my good friend, Rev. Flip Benham, admit in all humility that he too needs God’s forgiveness, and thus she allowed her stereotype of pro-life people as “self-righteous” to crumble. She listened to a little girl invite her to come to Church, and finally (after many invitations) thought it would do no harm to check it out. Little by little, truth drew her in and proved itself more attractive than the abortion industry.

      She finally accepted Christ in faith, was baptized, and became a believer. At the beginning, however, she still thought some early abortion would be acceptable. She was open to truth, however, and truth did not let her go. It drew her further, and she quickly became convinced that abortion is wrong at any stage, no matter what the reason. She even wears a tee-shirt at pro-life gatherings that says “100% Pro-life, Without Exception, Without Compromise, Without Apology.”

      The truth has continued to draw Norma further. In my contacts with her over recent years, I noticed her interest in Catholicism. Shortly after her baptism, she asked me to bless her home. (Not being used to the custom of Holy Water, she and her friend inadvertently drank the entire spare supply I left with them.) She attended with interest a Mass I celebrated in Dallas, and the following summer came with me to EWTN to tape a television interview. In the course of that interview, she asked me to bless the cross she wears, a cross which was made out of what used to be a pro-choice bracelet.

      Some months ago, Norma asked me to teach her to say the Rosary. As we continued to talk about her faith, I realized she felt very strongly the call to fully embrace Catholicism. I simply answered her questions, which she raised in her own time and her own way. Then one day she sent me an email in which she told me that “The Big Boss” told her she was to join the Church.

      I look forward to welcoming Norma here to Rome to complete her initiation. The warm embrace which the Church extends to her is a sign of hope to everyone, but I especially see it as a sign of hope to our brothers and sisters who are still enmeshed in the abortion industry. We vigorously oppose what they do, but we do not hate them. We embrace them, too. The door of the Church is open. Truth continues to lead her children forward.

      http://www.priestsforlife.org/columns/conversionofnorma.html

      Eternal rest, grant unto her O Lord
      and let perpetual light shine upon him/her.
      May she rest in peace.
      Amen.

      • Anton

        Perhaps you have heard the phrase, “Two steps forward, one step back”?

    • Dominic Stockford

      Indeed so. A wonderful example of the unbidden work of free grace in a person’s heart, bringing them to the truth.

  • len

    Jesus did not come to give us a new religion, a theology, or a dogma, or to start ‘a church’.
    Imagine you have a partner that you love very much, instead of a relationship your have ‘a theology’ about them…How sad…
    Jesus came to give us …Himself..

    • chefofsinners

      He came to win a bride.

    • Len, Jack has said this before to you but will say it again. To have a relationship with somebody and to love them, one needs to get to know them. If we don’t grasp the essentials of the Incarnation we cannot begin to comprehend the magnitude of Christ’s Incarnation and what He did for us.

      Now, you may spurn theology and doctrine but it represents 2000 years of great men and women in the Church dedicating their lives to these mysteries of our faith and developing our understanding of Christ and God. To Jack’s mind this is a treasure and not something to be dismissed.

      • len

        And look where 2000 yrs of doctrine(‘discord’ would be a better word) has got us..
        You seem to have put your underpants on the outside and are using the magisterium to bludgeon everyone.
        This seems to be the affect of what’ religion has on people, and its not pretty!.

  • Inspector General

    If the Inspector was given his time again on Earth, and asked if there was anything he wouldn’t do again, he’d say yes. Just one thing. He would never have replied to Blasphemy Jack this night.

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      Jack’s gone quiet, a sure sign he’s wasting his Saturday night trawling through the Vatican website to find some tome from the Magisterium to hurl at us!

      And now my wife’s patience has run dry!

      • Jack doesn’t need to. You own words were sufficient.

      • dannybhoy

        Ha!

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Now General, pull yourself together. The boys need you. We got a lot of fights coming up.

      All glory is fleeting.

      Gen George Patton, Jr.

    • Yes, you did rather expose yourself as an apostate who neither knows nor follows Christ.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        Jack, given that tne prodigal son returned home; the General shall one day return.

        • Which is why he should be admonished, not encouraged, when he fills his belly with husks suitable for swine.

    • Grouchy Jack

      Safer to bash the queers, eh?

      • Inspector General

        Only the anti Christs who terrorise Pink News comments. They’ve all fled of late. Issues about clickbait and the site troubling them with trivia, insulting to them, much of it, and poor journalism. Not that it is journalism. All they have to do is to copy and paste from other publications and put a militant LGBT spin on it, and they can’t even get the first two right.

  • ChaucerChronicle

    Oh Mrs Proudie

    Something intrigues me. It’s the picture. You’re in the foreground and the bishop is in the rear. It’s almost as if you’re the power behind him. Is that right?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      The bishop seems to have a furtive smile. I wonder if he’s just pinned a rude note on her back?

      • ChaucerChronicle

        Probably some visual play to project a message.

      • dannybhoy

        I should imagine he’s admiring her bustle…

    • len

      Best not go there CC.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Well, the picture was concocted by my dear friend Avi, so best ask him. Obviously, I am but a shadow of my Lord the Bishop, there only to support him in his labours.

      • IanCad

        I hardly think that is correct Mrs. P. You are bathed in the light from the right and the Bishop is in darkness. Gross darkness, dare I say?

        • Holger

          She’s bathed in light coming from her left, whereas on the right all is darkness.

          The “artist” (within the limits of his meagre talent) has surpassed himself in a work replete with the symbolism of hopelessness.

          In this depressing work the hard, gaunt and shrewish features of a fascist virago are illuminated by the light of reason, which her screwed-up expression of bitterness and anger rejects in favour of the dark familiarity and superstition of her obscurantist origins.

          The ineffectual husband whose mediocre position in a tired and discredited hierarchy confers on this angry woman the only kind of power she has ever known hovers pointlessly in the background, his unwanted presence a necessary but insupportable evil in her life.

          Without him she is nobody. As his consort she can at least reign in terror over the dull and benighted inhabitants of a provincial backwater. A little power is better than none at all. But when one has ambitions as grandiose as this woman’s, a taste of authority merely serves to highlight one’s insignificance in the greater scheme of things. Hence the unhappy expression: she yearns for wider horizons, but knows that this is all she’ll ever have. Her lowly birth and mediocre (to be generous) charms entitle her to no more than she already has, and what she already has is quite simply not enough.

          No wonder there’s nothing but pure acid in her expression as she tries to ignore the light that rakes across her scarecrow features, throwing them into harsh relief and revealing all of the fury and hopelessness that define her existence.

          If she would only look into the light and realise that it offers her horizons far wider than humdrum nonentity of her current state of purdah, some hope might come back into those dead eyes. But she won’t. To do so would be to admit she’s been wrong – that all those years putting up with a fool of a husband in a pointless job have been for nothing. And this she cannot and will not do.

          Carry on ignoring the light of reason, Mrs Proudie. We see you outlined in it with all your faults and weaknesses starkly defined. The portrait is dismally realistic and no doubt you’d love to do a Winston Churchill and burn it in your garden. But you’re just a weak and feeble woman, aren’t you, so who’s going to entrust you with a box of matches?

          • IanCad

            Got to give it to you Holger; You write as well as Linus. Now, if you could come over to our side, I’m sure you’d make a mighty soldier for the cause of right.

          • William Lewis

            You paint a vivid picture of frustration, vitriol and malice, Linus.

          • Holger

            Yes, I do describe the situation of the conservative wing of the Anglican Church quite well, don’t I? Comes from knowing them much better than they know themselves.

    • Sarky

      Get thee behind me, satan!

  • Jack did notice. You know, until tonight, Jack believed most of the regular bloggers on here were orthodox about the Incarnation and the Trinity carved out at early Church Councils. It’s been an eye opener and not a pleasant one.

  • Paul Greenwood

    This thread has turned into a Chatroom

    • len

      Chatroom?. More like a battleground.Religious frenzy has been whipped up among some of the inmates(sorry bloggers)
      ‘Magesterium shaped cudgels’ have been used to batter those who who refuse to listen to RCC dogmas, thank goodness the stake and faggots are no longer acceptable in civilized society.(faggots pieces of wood,not anything else)

      Just hope HG doesn`t have a fit when he sees whats happened to his blog during the hours of darkness.

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        LOL.

      • Dominic Stockford

        It is interesting how the adherents of Rome are so ready to antagonism and aggression when confronted with Biblical views that differ from the teaching of their denomination. They seem to ‘easy in’ to hurling abuse, too.

        • Let Jack see if he understands you correctly.

          Are you saying Protestants don’t believe in the Incarnation, Hypostatic Union or the Trinity? That these are views not held by you and are Roman Catholic? That Nestorianism and Arianism is acceptable and doesn’t contradict scripture?

          Or, are you just trying to score cheap denominational points?

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      I know…and it’s not on!

  • Cressida de Nova

    Don’t flatter yourself. Jack has been a very good influence on you
    and shown remarkable tolerance. He has the patience of a saint.

    • len

      LOL.Which ‘jack’ to you refer to?.

    • Grouchy Jack

      Nah, he’s a wimp.

  • TropicalAnglican

    A bit OT, but if you would like to listen to the Lord’s Prayer said in a Slovenian accent, here it is:
    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/18/melania-trump-no-matter-what-the-opposition-of-saying-i-will-act-in-the-best-interest-of-all-of-you/
    As another aside, it may be of interest to the linguists here to know (if they didn’t already) that the nickname “The Donald” actually originated due to Ivana Trump’s (the first Mrs Trump) unfamiliarity with the English language. Apparently her native Czech language has no need of articles, definite or otherwise, so instead of learning when and when not an article was required, Ivana Trump simply stuck “the” before every noun, e.g.: “The Donald is fantastic in the golf and very good at playing the tennis” (source: Donald Trump: from real estate to reality TV / Sara McIntosh Wooten, Enslow Publishers, 2009).
    Now that I know where she is coming from, jolly good thinking actually! And The Donald may have a charge sheet against him as long as his arm, but surely not even the liberal press could accuse him of being a grammar Nazi …

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      Starting the rally with a Christian prayer will drive the lefties wild. They would however be ecstatic if it were a verse from the Koran.

    • David

      Interesting explanation for the “the” in “the Donald”.
      I’d assumed it was a reference back to the Scottish tradition of respectfully referring to the clan chief, of say the “Tartan” Clan, as the “The Tartan”, where the clan’s name, Tartan, is substituted for “Chief”. In the same way in the UK a group of subordinates might refer to the head of their organisation as “The Boss”.
      Either way I rather like it.

    • David

      I’ve just used your link – truly moving to hear America’s First Lady saying The Lord’s Prayer. So simple but so full of meaning and sincerity.

  • Phil R

    Very very funny…

    cheered up my Sunday morning

    Please write a book……

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Why thank you Phil, that is most kind. A book you say? Goodness…!

      • dannybhoy

        Who knows who you really are Mrs Proudie, but many here recognise you are gifted with a literary talent laced with wit and humour. What you do with it is between you and your Lord…

        • Peasant Farmer

          I’ve got an idea who she is, a shared love of Charles Simeon is the clue….

  • len

    Not sure how we arrived at this heated debate about’ the trinity’ but as usual when discussing theologies there has been a lot of heat and very little light.
    In my mind there can be no doubt that’ the trinity’ exists, indeed the first few paragraphs in Genesis 1 point to that fact.
    ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

    3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.’

    God , Gods Word, Gods Spirit. = the trinity.

    It is when we try and explain’ the super natural’ in human terms ,with human logic and human reasoning that everything becomes very confused.

    It is when Catholic dogmas are quoted (instead of sticking to scripture) that heat gets involved rather than Light.

    With that I withdraw from this saga.

    • dannybhoy

      Len, families squabble. Siblings fall out with each other. Only our glorious and holy God knows what is in the heart of a man or woman..
      Those here who believe in and follow Church teaching are to be respected, as are those like myself who struggle with ritual and dogma are also to be respected; because the heart of the matter is,
      “Have you come to believe you are a sinner estranged from God. Do you believe that our Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross at Calvary for you; and do you repent and ask God to forgive you, renew you, and bring you at last to glory through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit?”

      • That’s a “dogmatic” statement too, Danny.

        • dannybhoy

          Everything we men believe is to some extent ‘dogmatic’ Jaques.
          It depends to some extent on what we were taught as impressionable young people.
          You probably hold to your 2000 years of Church history, which I think would include the Scriptures, the deliberations of the Church fathers and tradition. I on the other hand hold to the Scriptures first and foremost, my own (subjective) experience of salvation, my life experiences and reflections, and interaction with other Christians of various denominations.
          I quite happily accept that I will have blind spots, incomplete knowledge and understanding of the faith and the lives of the saints. I rest happy in the understanding that in taking hold of God’s offer of salvation I should be bringing forth fruit of the Holy Spirit that comes without a complete intellectual understanding or grasp of Church history.
          John 15.. no intellectual attainments required, only honest repentance and obedience..

      • len

        Sometimes heat can produce light Danny (not always ,but sometimes) we must examine everything by the light of scripture.

        1 Thessalonians 5:21.

        21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

      • David

        Well said. Yes, the heart of the faith can be expressed in one sentence, as you’ve done. If someone accepts your compressed “creed”, then you’re a member of the Christian family, notwithstanding any differences.

      • Anton

        The All England short creed competition? I’ll enter this:

        I believe in Jesus Christ, crucified and died to save me from my sins and risen from the dead, divine son of the universal Creator.

        • dannybhoy

          Nice try Anton..

    • Just to remind you, the doctrines on the Incarnation, the Hypostatic Union and the Trinity are shared by all Christians and are not Roman Catholic teachings. The dogma referred to are reflected in our common Christian creeds.

      “It is when we try and explain’ the super natural’ in human terms ,with human logic and human reasoning that everything becomes very confused.”

      Our Christian faith is a rational faith and is, as such, capable of being explained.

      • Dominic Stockford

        The Bible says otherwise.

        For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
        neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
        For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
        so are my ways higher than your ways
        and my thoughts than your thoughts.
        Isaiah 55:8

        • Just how does that rule out a rational consideration of scripture? Is all we have individualism and subjectivism? God forbid. .

          Both Augustine and Aquinas stressed that the object of belief cannot be seen or directly perceived, nor proven by mere logic. If you can prove it, you don’t need to believe in it. However, we know enough about our faith to understand what it is all about. An altogether incomprehensible communication is no communication at all. For belief to be possible at all, it is assumed that the communication has in some way been understood.

          God has revealed himself in a way that is comprehensible to man (“divine condescension”). Even if man cannot fully comprehend the Incarnation or the Trinity, reason and logic can take man to the door of faith, but cannot carry him across the threshold. As the Catechism says: “What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: We believe because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (CCC 156).

          Pope Benedict XVI taught:

          “[The rationality of faith in God] has always rejected the so-called principle of ‘fideism’, that is, the will to believe against reason. … Indeed, although a mystery, God is not absurd. … If, in contemplating the mystery, reason sees only darkness, this is not because the mystery contains no light, rather because it contains too much. Just as when we turn our eyes directly to the sun, we see only shadow – who would say that the sun is not bright? Faith allows us to look at the ‘sun’ that is God, because it welcomes His revelation in history. … God has sought mankind and made Himself known, bringing Himself to the limits of human reason.

          “At the same time, God, with His grace, illuminates reason and opens up new horizons, immeasurable and infinite. Therefore, faith is a continuous stimulus to seek, never to cease or acquiesce in the inexhaustible search for truth and reality. … Intellect and faith are not foreign or antagonistic to divine Revelation, they are both prerequisites for understanding its meaning, for receiving its authentic message, for approaching the threshold of the mystery. … The Catholic faith is therefore rational and also nurtures trust in human reason. … Knowledge of faith, furthermore, is not contrary to reason. … In the irresistible desire for truth, only a harmonious relationship between faith and reason can show the correct path to God and to self-fulfilment”.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Beautifully and simply put. Thank you.

      • Grouchy Jack

        So wot are the 39 Articles you’re always banging on about, numpty?

        • William Lewis

          Popish pish posh prophylactic

          • The 39 Articles are Popish?

          • William Lewis

            … pish posh prophylactic

    • David

      That’s a very good piece of simple but effective Biblical textual analysis. The most direct approach is usually the best. Well done.

      • len

        Cannot lay claim to the analysis, but I am sure I heard or read it somewhere.

        • David

          Identifying and tracing the threads of understanding, that connect the very different parts of The Bible, of very different ages, works well, as it points us towards the book’s essential oneness, connectedness and coherence. Tracking our way along these pathways, these threads, we see God slowly revealing to a stubborn humanity His rescue plan for those who accept Jesus as their Saviour. This is what, in just a few words, your contribution has done.

    • The scriptural truths concerning the Incarnation and the Trinity are not “Catholic dogmas”. They are shared by all Christians.

      God has revealed himself in a way that is comprehensible to man. Even if man cannot fully comprehend the Incarnation or the Trinity, reason and logic can take us to the door of faith, but cannot carry us across the threshold.

      “What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: We believe because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (CCC 156).
      Or is that too “dogmatic”.

      • len

        Your arguments falls down on the fact that many saw Jesus in the flesh but failed to recognize the fact of whom He was.Even the religious Pharisees would not recognize Jesus for whom He was.
        Gods Hand is everywhere in Creation but people refuse to recognize the Creator.
        Reason [alone] cannot find God .
        To be continued;

        • *sigh*
          Do read what Jack has written ….

          Jack is talking about understanding God’s revelation – not “finding God”. He’s talking about the interface between faith and belief.

          • len

            You talk in riddles?.This seems to be going round in circles, think I might jump off here…Good luck with your quest(whatever it is?)

          • In your earlier post didn’t you apply reason to Genesis?

            All Jack is saying is that God has revealed Himself in a way that is comprehensible to man. Even if man cannot fully comprehend, reason and logic can take him to the door of faith, but cannot carry him across the threshold.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Agreed. The ‘laws’ of the universe are regular and ordered, a sign of the rationality of God’s creation.

          • Agreed, but Jack is referring here to our understanding of God’s revelation to us in scripture.

          • len

            Think we are getting somewhere here Jack?.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Of course, but God’s creation being rational reveals the nature of its Creator and hence His revelation to us can be expected to be rational. Not for nothing does John’s first chapter use the word ‘logos’ to describe Jesus, i.e. the reasoned intent and comprehensibility of God’s order for mankind and the universe. The English translation ‘Word’ only partly captures the much broader and more complex meaning of the Greek ‘logos’.

          • len

            Agreed.
            ’18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.’ (Roman 1)

          • Even more so since we now have God’s revelation in scripture.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Don’t waste your time Jack. Bricks and thick !

          • Lol ….

          • len

            Nice to see you too….xx

  • Inspector General

    Is it safe to come back on?

    • Sarky

      Not if you’re a heretic.

      • Inspector General

        Sarky!

        {draws sword}

        • Sarky

          What???

          • Inspector General

            {scurries away…}

      • len

        Best not kick that off again Sarky.
        HG must be on holiday or he might be here slapping a few heads?.

    • dannybhoy

      Come back on as what?

    • IanCad

      You’re a wild man for sure Inspector, but valiant hearts like yours are needed right now.

    • len

      If you could use your energies in pursuit of the Gospel I G instead of monitoring what PN is up to and reporting constantly?.

      • IanCad

        Len,
        He is a braver man than I am, who would never dare to trawl the sewers of PN, and reports to us accordingly.

        • len

          I have never ventured onto P N and never wish to.Some things I feel one is better off not knowing?.

          • IanCad

            I’ve never ventured there either; but there was a guest post on this blog, a few years back by Alexander Boot (I think?) and, out of curiosity, I Googled him and hit a bum banditry site that would make a sailor blush. My comment on the thread was to the effect that “Any residual neutrality on the question of homosexuality has now vanished.”
            I hold by that statement. The Inspector provides us with a service and does our dirty work for us so we don’t have to.

          • Inspector General

            Frequently up to one’s knees in it, old chap.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Think Dante IG.

          • len

            Ok well, rather him than me….I don`t need personally to go into a sewer to know s*** stinks but…….

          • Holger

            And thus any pretence of respect for LGBT individuals is abandoned.

            Our relationships are qualified as “bum banditry” and any attempt to engage in dialogue with us renders you “dirty”, therefore we ourselves must be filthy.

            This is the kind of hatefulness and prejudice you just can’t hide. It’s indicative of the deep vein of homophobia that runs through the Anglican Church and most others too.

            The only way to get rid of attitudes like this is to destroy the structures that nurture them. Undermining the Church and doing our best to ensure schism and the departure/expulsion of conservatives is therefore matter of self-preservation.

            Leave homophobes with a power base and they’ll use it as a launchpad for further attacks. Their aim is to eradicate us as the vermin they believe us to be. Our aim must be to root them out of any structure that participates in the life and institutions of the state and banish them to the extremist fringes.

            So let’s get on with breaking this church in two. It’s only a twopenny halfpenny organisation in comparison to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, of course. But if we can do to it what we’ve already done to the American Episcopalians, we’ll hone our strategy for bringing down bigger game.

            It was Voltaire who said: “écrasez l’infâme”. Smart man.

          • IanCad

            Holger,
            Not at all; the individuals who are attracted to others of the same sex demand our love and respect for them as unique and irreplaceable souls, created in the image of God.
            Where, however they resort to and participate in the vilest acts of human degradation as what I saw in the link I referenced to, then decency demands a forthright and critical response.

          • Holger

            A gay porn site gives you as accurate a picture of gay sexual practices as a straight porn site gives you of straight sexual practices. But of course you wouldn’t condemn all straights because of the actions of a few extreme individuals, would you?

            You are however ready to condemn all gays on the basis of what you saw on one website. That tells me all I need to know about your homophobic motivation and general level of anti-gay animus. You’re looking for reasons to hate us. Internet porn is just a convenient excuse.

            You’re no better than the vilest racist or the most evil anti-Semite. Prejudice and hatred are all that motivate you.

          • IanCad

            Granted I gave you credit – a few posts down – for your writing skills; However, your talent for English comprehension is sadly lacking. That is, unless you didn’t read my post to which you just replied.

          • The Explorer

            “Their aim is to eradicate us as the vermin they believe us to be.” Bit of an exaggeration surely, old chap?

            It might be feasible if gays produced gays, but they don’t. Gays come from heteros, and Nature ensures that a small percentage of new gays are produced by heteros in each new generation. The only way to ensure the extermination of gays would be to exterminate all heteros, and that’s not practicable.

            One could exterminate the RIGHTS of gays, certainly, but that would not exterminate gays; it would simply drive them underground. Myself, I would retain Wolfenden, and civil partnerships with inheritance rights etc.

          • Civil partnerships go beyond the tolerance of Wolfenden and into active approval and State legitimisation of homosexual relationships.

          • The Explorer

            Yes it’s the same sort of territory as arguments about legalising prostitution and cannabis. Germany, interestingly, has allowed civil partnerships, but not marriages: so preogression from one to the other is not inevitable.

          • Except the State wouldn’t confer special privileges through a ceremony on prostitutes or drug users.

          • The Explorer

            You optimist.

          • They don’t crave attention and normalisation, just space to do their thing without threat.

          • Holger

            The eradication of vermin has never been about killing them all, which is, as you say, entirely unfeasible no matter how much you’d like to do it.

            A more realistic goal is rather to scare them off so they hide away where they can’t be seen. As long as you don’t see them, you don’t much mind what they get up to. Out of sight is out of mind, eh?

            Your problem is that those you regard as vermin are no longer scared of you. We no longer have any reason to hide.

            We’re here and we’re not going anywhere. We’ve worked hard to deprive you of the former power you had to hurt us and we’ve been wildly successful at it. Never before in history has such a thoroughly despised minority succeeded in turning public opinion and policy around in so short a time.

            As long as you have a respected place in society however, there’s always a danger your implacable homophobia could harm us, so we’ll keep working to undermine you until you can do us no more harm.

            Because you’re right: we’re your children. We’ll always be around, but only if we consent to being hidden away like your dirty secret can you hope ignore us.

            We do not consent. Deal with it. There isn’t much else you can do.

          • The Explorer

            “We no longer have any reason to hide.” You will have with the growth of Islam. Gays in Amsterdam have found that out already.

          • Holger

            Back to banging your scary Muslim drum, are you?

            The Yellow Peril, Zionist Jews, Reds Under the Bed: the brutish and unthinking of every generation have their bogeymen. Ignorance has to have a hate figure to rally against otherwise it falls back into the apathy that is its default state.

            By all means, keep on hating Muslims. But don’t count on Geert Wilders or Ukip to come and save you from them. However well they do in the elections, nobody will enter a coalition with them, so they can’t govern.

            Who knows, ISIS could be massing at the end of your street right now. Beards twitching, scimitars sharpened and ready to sneak your head off your shoulders and force your womenfolk into sex slavery.

            Or maybe that veiled checkout girl down at your local Sainsbury’s is hiding a whole troop of Taliban warriors and several tons of chemical and biological weapons under her djellaba.

            Better carry a BIG cross and a few pints of holy water to splash about when they take you hostage. It’ll burn them like battery acid because they’re baddies and that’s how it works, don’tcha know? All you’ll have to do is chant “the power of Christ compels you!” over and over again and God will strike them down for you. Easy peasy. So I don’t know what you’re worried about. I mean, how can you possibly lose?

          • The Explorer

            I didn’t say I was at risk; I said you were. Christians have the option of dhimmi status; you don’t have.

            There really was a Yellow Peril: Singapore fell. Despite incredulity, Jews really were being sent to death camps. There really were reds under the bed. Whittaker Chambers was quite right about Alger Hiss. The Roesenbergs really were spies.

          • Inspector General

            No special privileges for LGBT. None at all, just as there are no special privileges for those who are right handed.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Filth. That’s what you are. Filth.

          • Inspector General

            That’s told him, CC. He’s also a corrupter of our young, and in league with those who wish to turn our under 10 boys into girls, if such a thing was possible.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Chaucer dear, that’s a bit harsh to say the least…Holger (Linus) is a human being, and though he despises me and my scribblings, he is welcome here as indeed are all His Grace’s communicants.

          • Inspector General

            The truth will out, dear lady. Let it flow…

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Mrs Proudie

            I like him.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Well that’s good.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Do you now see Mrs Proudie?

            Holger, wants to burn down synagogue and church: ‘This is what we’re doing and will continue to do. We’ll break your churches and we’ll break you. On that you can count.’

            I think he wants to kill me: ‘If you were to use such insulting and demeaning language to my face, you’d live to regret it.’

            He described His Grace as a ‘fake’ and free speech as a ‘fetish’.

            All I’ve shown him is ‘love’. Yes. I call it ‘love.’

          • Holger

            See how little provocation is needed to make the truly evil man reveal himself in all of his vile hatred.

            I pity you. Hatred in defeat is the bitterest fate that can await a man. One can only hope it teaches you something, although I doubt it. Spite like yours is generally incurable.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Shut it if yer know what’s good far ya.

          • Inspector General

            “Can I shoot him, Mr Mainwaring”

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Be my guest, General.

          • Holger

            And you’re going to make me shut it, are you?

            Bog off bully boy. You don’t scare anyone, except perhaps the women you lust after who’d much rather have a fun night out with their gay best friend than let you paw them. And even then it’s not so much fear as disgust.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Holger,

            You’re upset because I told you not to advance Queerdom on the backs of blacks: race is not the moral equivalent of the abomination you defend.

            So shut it.

          • Holger

            You accept that humanity displays varying racial characteristics and that no race is superior or inferior to any other. But you won’t accept that we also display varying sexual orientations, which are also worthy of equal respect.

            That makes you a homophobe. Your use of abusive, insulting and dismissive language makes you an aggressive homophobe.

            Far from shutting up, I’ll continue to speak out against you and condemn your indefensible point of view. Your beliefs are not the beliefs of society as enshrined in law. You’re just a noisy and abusive troublemaker seeking to defame those you hate and whip up public sentiment against them.

            If you were to use such insulting and demeaning language to my face, you’d live to regret it. Here because of the fake archbishop’s fetish for “freedom of speech” (otherwise known as the right to abuse with impunity) I can do nothing except express my utter contempt for you and your primitive, tribal beliefs. Extremist scum like you must be driven to the fringe and rendered untouchable by any decent member of society. This is what we’re doing and will continue to do. We’ll break your churches and we’ll break you. On that you can count.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            My dear Holger,

            Are you a plagiarist? Nothing original left to say? The only source of authentication left is the act on what should have been the marital bed?

            Isn’t it?

            For how else can you differentiate your ‘slot’ on the meaningless range of queerdom? Even in public you cannot authenticate yourself; for how can one demonstrate that which was completed in private without arrest, and official approbation?

            Isn’t this a quote from Nazi Gruppenführer Heinzbeens Karl Ficklesdorf?

            ‘This is what we’re doing and will continue to do. We’ll break your churches and we’ll break you. On that you can count.’

            Violence in the end for you is necessary: there is no other way to defend the Lie.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Appendix:

            1. ‘If you were to use such insulting and demeaning language to my face, you’d live to regret it.’ Ah such mercy! No piano wire?
            2. ‘you must be driven to the fringe and rendered untouchable by any decent member of society’, such tolerance! Such diversity!

          • Holger

            Who said anything about violence? Certainly not me.

            We’re breaking your churches merely by exposing the lies they tell.

            People can see with their own eyes just how ordinary gay couples are. They can also see how dishonest the church is when it shrieks about abominations and evil. Gay couples are judged and found to be perfectly normal. You are judged and then dismissed as religious nutcases with an axe to grind.

            We’ve already smashed TEC apart merely by showing ourselves as we really are and refusing to be intimidated. The CofE is next on the list. Then it’s Catholicism’s turn. One by one they’ll split apart leaving a tiny rump of homophobic nutters like you to tear your hair and gnash your teeth in impotent fury on the edges of a society that integrates us but dismisses you as the madmen you are.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            ‘People can see with their own eyes just how ordinary gay couples are.’

            They see them as queer.

            That’s why we try to keep our children away from them (including within church and queer parades) to suppress the risk of ‘gender’ confusion.

            For 2,000 years many regimes have attempted to suppress the church – it is still here: still standing.

            Time is on our side now. All it takes is another revival, for the pendulum to swing back.

            You haven’t advised which Gruppenführer you were plagiarising from. Any advance?

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Holger,

            I mean no disrespect. I just re-read your post. I smiled and then started laughing uncontrollably.

          • Anton

            Only one cure for spite. Chaucer knows what, or more accurately who, it is. Even Christians can lose it in the heat of the moment.

            We’re hypocrites? There’s room for one more…

          • Holger

            I see. So Chaucer’s venomous abuse is supposed to persuade me there is a God who fills him with peace and love and goodwill to all men, is it?

            I wonder why I’m not feeling persuaded. Any ideas?

          • Anton

            No. *My* post is meant to persuade you.

            Ignore those Christians who tell you that God loves the sinner and hates the sin. God hates sinners. He says so in a couple of psalms (5, 11). That’s why he sends sinners to hell, unforgiven ones anyway.

          • The Explorer

            On the subject of bum banditry – since the term has been used – it’s not true of all homosexuals, certainly, but is thought to apply to about 80%.

            Years ago there was a film by Woody Allen ‘Everything you ever wanted to know about Sex’. I missed the film, but as a young adult I encountered the book by Dr David Reuben on which it was loosely based.

            It’s a long time since I read it, but as I remember, Reuben said males were programmed to respond to curves and holes. For most males, the latter was catered for by the vagina, but for homosexuals (gay wasn’t yet in vogue then) alternatives had to be found. Since the alternative was no substitute for the reality, homosexuals were involved in an endless search, like a sort of male nymphomania, for satisfaction.

            It was Reuben’s explanation for the distressing level of homosexual promiscuity. What do you think?

          • Inspector General

            “Curves and Holes”. Wasn’t that the name of the dance troupe on Top of the Pops?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            LOLzzz!

          • The Explorer

            Pass.

          • Holger

            I think if you give credence to 60s and 70s pop psychology from the craziest nation on earth, you’ll never want for moonshine.

            If these vaginas you wax so lyrical about are so satisfying, how come straight men never seem satisfied with just one? Adultery among straight men is hardly an uncommon phenomenon. And those who don’t actually do it seem to spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about it, at least if the exponential growth of the porn industry is any indicator.

            Seems like these super-satisfying vaginas aren’t quite so satisfying after all.

            All men are wired for promiscuity. But we also don’t want to waste our lives bringing up other men’s children. Our culture has therefore evolved to discourage cuckoos in the nest by frowning upon adultery, so traditional ideas of marriage necessarily involve a concept of fidelity.

            Gays grow up with these expectations of marital fidelity just like everyone else. Our marriages however are generally not reproductive in nature, therefore infidelity may seem to be less of an imperative for us.

            Having said that, few marry with the intention of cheating on their spouses. Be they straight or gay however, the world is full of opportunities. And if you believe the consequences of acting on those opportunities is less catastrophic for you than for others, you might be more tempted to do it.

            In my experience, straight fidelity has more to do with lack of opportunity than extraordinary virtue. Many fat and slovenly straight men never commit adultery because they never get the chance: no woman in her right mind would put her vagina anywhere near their heaving and malodorous bulk. We gay men on the other hand tend to look after ourselves a little better than you do and may therefore be seen as more attractive sexual partners.

            I’m always fending off potential affairs whereas most of the straight men I know just lust after women who wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole. There are some exceptions to that rule of course. For example (or at least allegedly) François Hollande and Julie Gayet … (I mean, come on … what was she thinking? Is power that much of an aphrodisiac?) But in general, adultery and attractiveness follow predictable curves and the better looking you are, the less likely you are to remain faithful, be you gay or straight.

            If infidelity is more prevalent in the gay community than among straights, look for the explanation in simple biological imperatives rather than hokey theories dreamed up by shrinks with an axe to grind.

          • The Explorer

            Entertainingly argued.

          • Anton

            I think the explanation is shallow tosh. It is based on the visual. People retain their preferences in the absence of visual stimulation.

            Very funny film, which I struggle to repent of watching in my secular days.

          • The Explorer

            Very funny book too, as I remember. Never owned it, just read it overnight while staying at a friend’s house. Very wide ranging – something else that sticks in my mind is homosexual sado-masochists as the best medieval torturers – but more breadth than depth.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            ‘Our relationships are qualified as “bum banditry” and any attempt to engage in dialogue with us renders you “dirty”, therefore we ourselves must be filthy.’

            We’re advised not to associate with you. We advise our children the same: so that the risk of ‘gender’ confusion is suppressed.

            I do feel sorry for you. I do not know if you were abused as a child. From the Church’s point-of-view you are already under judgment: the instrument being the practice of homosexuality.

            Again, I feel sorry for you. As you age your attractiveness fades in the eyes of other homosexuals; for you all, the beautiful male physique is the reference-point for judgment and inclusion or, finally, exclusion at the ‘gay’ bar.

            It must leave a terrible void in your soul as you realise, after each encounter, the sheer meaninglessness of it and the failure to authenticate your manhood. Then, late at night, the administration of drugs and alcohol in a vain effort to heal the emotional pain.

            Then the following weekend, the search for the ‘solution’ begins all over again. ‘Maybe this time,’ you say to yourself, ‘I’ll find it.’ You never do.

          • Holger

            Save your pity for your own sad situation, you ignorant snivelling idiot.

            This is what happens when you shun people and don’t get to know them and how they live.

            Sorry to burst your vile little bubble of blatant homophobia, but I’ve been married for years. Every night I come home to the same man. There’s no infidelity, just a perfectly ordinary domestic setup where two people share their lives. We live together, eat together, go to the cinema and on holiday together and we have sex together – just the two of us, completely on our own with no third party involved.

            Your hatred of us makes you imagine us as stereotypical sinners who can’t be happy because your wretched little book of spells and incantations says we must not be happy. Talk about bending reality to fit a preconceived set of totally spurious ideas

            Oh well, the crazier and more blinkered you are, the easier it is for us to discredit you and your religion. And the more imperative it becomes to do just that.

      • Someone with a strong stomach has to wade through all their sick ramblings and whinging comments to find out what the buggers are getting up to and report back.

        • len

          It seems to have had a detrimental effect on I G?.
          One can be obsessed with what mankind is doing rather than the spiritual entities behind them?.

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          Police officers on the Vice Squad are rotated regularly I understand such are the morally corrosive things they witness. Perhaps someone will relieve the IG?

          • Are you offering to be the next PN monitor to save the Inspector from
            the forces of evil?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            The Lord Protector is willing to wade through gallons of blood and piles of body parts to advance the cause, but not through heaps of perversion Dear Lady.

          • Oh I don’t blame you.

          • Allosexuel

            L’inspecteur a besoin d’être soulagé?

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Filth. That’s what you are. Filth. This is a respectable blog.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Please stop them, please. Blessed are the peacemakers; please Marie.

    • len

      Long as you have you tin helmet on and watch out for muggers…..

      • IanCad

        “M” is not adjacent to “B” on the keyboard Len.
        You been drinking?

        • len

          Not yet LOL.

      • Allosexuel

        It is alwoys sensible to wear prootiction wen explooring such things.

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      Whatever you said last night IG seems to have triggered Jack’s disintegration into three divergent personalities. The poor man has obviously been under some strain as a result of finding his world view meeting with reasoned challenge.

      • len

        LOL, I suppose it had to happen one day.
        Probably end up in a strait jacket telling everyone he is the rightful Pope….

      • If a man with multiple personalities threatens to kill himself, is this a hostage situation?

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          No, just a sign to call for the men with the restraint jacket for his own protection.

          • Would the psychiatrist charge a group rate for treating multiple personalities?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Not my field but if you want me to negotiate a rate for you?

          • We don’t have multiple personalities. Doctors say we do, but we disagree.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Oh dear.

          • Anton

            I’ve known MPD people (nowadays called DID) and I know how they get like that, and horrendous it is beyond belief. Carolyn Bramhall’s autobiography is the only full reintegration I’ve heard of.

          • We always feel sorry for poor “normal” folks who will never know the rich community of interaction that goes on in our heads. They have no idea what they are missing out on.

          • Anton

            What they have missed out on is being systematically tortured as infants. That’s what causes it. Not a laughing matter, although I appreciate that you might not have been aware of this.

          • Do you consider yourself an expert on all matters?

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Jack, Jack, me old mate, cock-sparrow; they’ve stopped shooting. Everything is as it ought to be.

      • Anton

        Dear 1642
        On another subject, of which I have previously made you aware, let me know if you would like a copy of a talk I gave recently praising the Puritans and pointing out that their views flowing through English church history made the Balfour Declaration possible. If so, you can email the address on my science/religion essay or I can post you a hard copy at the brewery.

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          I’ll be in touch directly. I need to go again through your paper. Much is agreeable but some very speculative and contentious. It might benefit you to update yourself on the excavations at Gobleki Tepe, the works of new chronologists such as David Rohl, and the latest DNA studies of human expansion in the near east. Progress is very swift and challenging but all are converging on Armenia (greater, ancient) being the origin of civilisation.

          • Anton

            Yes, it’s contentious. All points of view can get hits on the others in this subject. NB I’ve read all of Rohl’s books and am less excited by them now than I was once.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            The evidence in support just keeps piling up, eg completely unrelated archaeologists working on the first Egyptian Pharaoh Menes concluded he was 300 years later than traditionally thought, thereby syncing with the new chronology. As a Hellenist I was never convinced by the so called Greek Dark Age. The new chronology reduces it to a mere disrupted generation or two and also supports the Greeks’ own views on their previous history.

            The greatest Sumerologist NS Kramer believed the Hebrews were descendants of the Sumerians who believed they have migrated from Armenia, all in the mountains and plains of Armenia and modern Kurdistan.

          • Anton

            I know. I agree with the questioning of the Greek Dark Age but I heard some devastating knockdowns of Rohl’s Egypt by Garth Gilmour, an Oxford University archaeologist of the Holy Land and a very serious nonliberal evangelical Christian. What he said about where Rohl goes wrong was material that would not have been workable out by nonspecialists. There is almost complete polarisation in this field between badly informed fundamentalists and liberals who take the secular view; Garth is neither.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            It’s not just Rohl but a whole load of scholars in different disciplines. He’s an Egyptologist who saw problems in Egyptian chronology and received some support from others, and then synced it with other specialists in other fields and even used astronomical observation analysis provided by other specialists. He doesn’t claim to have got it all right, but the establishment’s tactics have been to ignore the challenge and indulge in ad hom attacks rather than engage with the evidence, all of which suggests they know there are major problems in the orthodox chronologies (there are already two).

            Oddly, some of the most hostile defenders of the established chronologies have been evangelical Christians (Kenneth Kitchen, Gilmour) which just shows how wedded they are to the chronologies they imbibed as undergraduates.

          • Anton

            Garth thinks for himself. Contact him about it and mention my name (inc surname).

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            One of Rohl’s problem’s is that he’s a UCL graduate and a supporter of the old UCL dynastic race theory of Egypt’s origins, something he advocates strongly on the basis of his discoveries on the Eastern Desert Survey. This theory is profoundly unPC and therefore its proponents loathed by much of the establishment. It’s pretty convincing to me.

          • Anton

            Talk to Garth. I don’t remember the fine detail of his reasoning, but I know bullshit when I hear it and there was none of it; he was highly cogent in an extended private conversation. Nice guy and ruthless against what he thinks is wrong at the same time.

      • Inspector General

        None of them much good, neither…

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          That is unkind. Rise above him Sir. He hurts only himself and is capable of so much better. But think on some of the discussion.

  • IanCad

    What with the heresy of questioning the Trinity, and the blasphemy entertained in my doubts that rugby is a suitable game for straight males, this thread seems to have run its course.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Interestingly there are those in the US who have threatened the Trinity from an Arian perspective. They say that the Athanasius Creed, and the orthodox position, is not true, and that Jesus Christ is not ‘eternally co-equal’ with the father. Wayne Grudem is one of the leaders of this, along with such as Gavin Peacock. Mike Ovey taught this in this country, and sadly ‘young men’ are now jumping on and taking up this foolish heresy.

      • IanCad

        Yes Dominic! Everything that can be shaken will be shaken. It is hard to boil down the Trinity into a few words, but the following statement does it quite well:

        “There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. God, who is love, is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.”
        (Gen. 1:26; Deut. 6:4; Isa. 6:8; Matt. 28:19; John 3:16 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2.)

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          The New Testament is explicit on this – we don’t understand how it works but there’s no doubt that God is Triune.

      • carl jacobs

        Wayne Grudem is one of the leaders of this

        Yes, I doubt this very much. Do you have a link supporting this?

        • Some claim he argues that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father.
          He disagrees that this is his position.

          http://www.christiantoday.com/article/complementarianism.and.the.trinity.is.wayne.grudem.a.dangerous.heretic/89445.htm

        • Dominic Stockford

          There is no doubt at all. It is part of the justification for their ‘complementarian’ theology. I have no problem with that matter, but to justify it they argue that Jesus was eternally subordinate to the Father.

          https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/grudem-and-ware-double-down-on-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son/

          And

          http://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/submission_in_the_trinity_a_quick_guide_to_the_debate

          And

          “All quotations from “Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine” Wayne Grudem, Zondervan, 1994. HT: Persis Lorenti

          Dr. Grudem teaches in his Systematic Theology that eternal subordination is necessary in the Trinity and is part of Nicene doctrine since the 4th century:

          “If we do not have ontological equality, not all the persons are fully God. But if we do not have economic subordination, then there is no inherent difference in the way the three persons relate to one another, and consequently we do not have the three distinct persons existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for all eternity. For example, if the Son is not eternally subordinate to the Father in role, then the Father is not eternally “Father” and the Son is not eternally “Son.” This would mean that the Trinity has not eternally existed.

          This is why the idea of eternal equality in being but subordination in role has been essential to the church’s doctrine of the Trinity since it was first affirmed in the Nicene Creed, which said that the Son was “begotten of the Father before all ages” and that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Surprisingly, some recent evangelical writings have denied an eternal subordination in role among the members of the Trinity, but it has clearly been part of the church’s doctrine of the Trinity (in Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox expressions), a least since Nicea (A.D 325). (251.)”

          At first glance, it would seem that Dr. Grudem is affirming the orthodox teaching of ontological equality and economic submission. However, when he explains that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father because He is the Son, Dr .Grudem is making a statement about the nature (or ontology) of the Son and the Father. The Nicene teachings of eternal generation of the Son and eternal procession of the Spirit are not about subordination or hierarchy. That is a misrepresentation of Nicea and a misunderstanding of the definition of the terms.”

    • len

      This thread could go on forever Ian …Next subject is the Pope Catholic….or not?.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Sir

      Please, please stop them. They’ve been shooting at each other for two days.

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        Nearer two thousand years surely?

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Maybe that’s why they said these are the last days.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Who knows? Only the Father for sure.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            No 1642, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            LOL.

          • It is fashionable in trendy theological circles to deny the omniscience of Christ, especially concerning the last days. This was the Arians’ position. The early Christian fathers knew otherwise.

            Athanasius

            “Let us examine what he said: ‘But of that day and the hour no one knows, neither the angels, nor the Son.’ After saying, ‘nor the Son,’ he relates to the disciples the things which will precede that day and says that this and that shall be and then the end. Now, he that speaks of what will precede that day also has full knowledge of that day which will follow upon the events foretold. And if he had not known the hour, he would not have signified the events preceding it, not knowing when that hour would be. He says in the Gospel, concerning himself in his human character, ‘Father, the hour has come, glorify your Son.’ Certainly, then, it is plain that as the Word he knows also the hour and the end of all things, although as man he is ignorant of it; for ignorance is proper to man, and especially in these matters. This, moreover, pertains to the Savior’s love of man; for, inasmuch as he was made man, he is not ashamed, because of the ignorant flesh, to say, ‘I do not know,’ so that he may demonstrate that, although as God he knows, according to the flesh he is ignorant. This, then, is why he did not say, ‘nor does the Son of God know,’ lest the Godhead appear to be ignorant; but simply, ‘nor the Son,’ so that the ignorance may be of the son as born of man”
            (Discourses Against the Arians 3:42-43 [inter A.D. 358362]).

            Gregory of Nazianz

            “Their tenth objection is ignorance, the statement that the final day and hour is known to none, not even the Son, except the Father. But how is it possible that Wisdom should be ignorant of any of those things that are? How indeed could he know so accurately those things which are to precede that hour and which are to take place at the end, but be ignorant of the hour itself? This thing would be like a riddle, as if one were to say that he knows accurately everything that is in front of a wall, but does not know the wall itself; or that he knows well the end of the day but knows not the beginning of the night, whereas knowledge of the one necessarily brings with it knowledge of the other. If, then, we may proceed from the example of what is seen to what is known, is it not perfectly plain to everyone that he does know as God, but says that, as man, he knows not?
            (Fourth Theological Oration 30:15[A.D. 380]).

            John Chrysostom

            ” ‘Of that day and that hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven nor the Son, except the Father.’ By the saying ‘neither the angels’ he stopped their mouths, lest they seek to learn what even the angels did not know; and by the saying, ‘nor the Son’ he forbids them not only to learn but even to inquire. He refers this knowledge to the Father both to make the matter more awesome and to preclude their inquiring about it. If this is not the reason, and he really is ignorant of the day and the hour, when will he come to know it? At the same time we do? … He says, ‘When you do not expect it, he will come,’ because he wants them to be anxiously waiting and constantly engaged in virtuous practice. What he means is something like this: ‘If the generality of men knew when they were to die, they would strive earnestly only at that hour’ “
            (Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 77:1 [A.D. 370]).

            Jerome

            “Of the Son it is said, ‘Of that day and hour no one knows, except the Father, not the angels in heaven and not the Son.’ If we receive baptism equally in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, we must believe there is one name for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is God. If God is one, how can there be a diversity of knowledge in one divinity? What is greater, to be God or to know all things? If he is God, how does he not know? In the apostle we read about Christ: ‘In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.’ See what he says, ‘all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.’ Not that some are and some are not: all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; but they are hidden. So what is in him is not lacking to him, even though it be hidden from us. But if all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ, we must ask why they are hidden. If we men were to know the day of judgment, which is the subject of the statement, and that the day of judgment is to come after two thousand years, knowing that it is so far in the future, we would only become more negligent. We would say, ‘What difference does it make to me if the day of judgment is to come after two thousand years?’ When it is said that the Son does not know the day of judgment, it is so stated for our sake, so we do not know when the day of judgment is to come. Finally, see what follows that statement: ‘Take care, watch and pray; for you do not know when that time will come'”
            (Homilies on the Gospel of Mark 10:13:32 [inter A.D. 410-420]).

            Augustine

            “When God is said not to know something, either it is said in reference to what he does not approve, that is, of something he does not acknowledge in discipline or in doctrines, as when it is said, ‘I do not know you,’ or in reference to that which it is useless to know and from which he draws an advantage for those who do not know. It is well accepted, therefore, that when it is said that the Father alone knows, it was so stated because it is he that makes the Son know, and when it is said that the Son does not know, it is so stated because he makes men not to know, that is, he does not avail them of a knowledge which it is useless for them to have”
            (Eighty-Three Diverse Questions 60 [inter A.D. 389-396]).

            Cyril of Alexandria

            ” ‘But how,’ the heretics ask, ‘will the Son be like the Father in respect to essence, when he says that he knows not the day of the consummation of the age?’ It is easy to see that as God he does know both the day and the hour even if, referring to what is human in himself, he can say that he does not know. For if he clearly specifies all the things that are to happen before that day and hour and says, ‘this will be, and that will happen, and then the end,’ it is clear that if he knows the things that are to happen before that day, he knows also the day itself. For after the things predicted by him, he specifies that this is the end. What else, after all, would the end be, except the last day, which, he says, in view of his incarnation, he does not know, thus preserving again in his humanity the rank befitting it? For it is proper for humanity not to know the future”
            (Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity 22 [inter A.D. 423-425]).

            Gregory the Great

            “Whence also this can be understood in a more subtle way, that the only-begotten, incarnate and made perfect man for us, did indeed in his human nature know the day and the hour of the judgment, but nevertheless did not know this from his human nature. What he knew in it he did not on that account know from it, because God-made-man knew the day and the hour of the judgment by the power of his Godhead”
            (Letter to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria 10:21 [A.D. 600]).

            The answer is: Jesus is both God and man and during His ministry in Jerusalem, He was cooperating with the limitations of being a man.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            You’re clever, Jack. Real clever.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Which is exactly the point I made. Thanks for the support. PS My argument was far more succinct.

          • Except Jesus is now no longer subject to the voluntary limitations of being a man.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Again as I surmised. It’s the only logical position without saying that Scripture is wrong or Jesus was misleading Peter etc.

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      With the second heresy you really have gone too far Sir. 🙂

  • ChaucerChronicle

    This is all Jacobs’ fault. Have you all noticed how, like a fox, he has slinked away?

    Oh he appeared all right to speak with Jack last night – go on have a look at the thread. Late it was. 2 AM.

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      Why does your photo exclude Oliver’s head? I can give you a complete one if you want.

      PS Jacobs is going RC…

      • ChaucerChronicle

        WHAT?

      • ChaucerChronicle

        How do you know it’s my lord Oliver?

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          I have made a study of the great man and that’s his statue outside Parliament.

          • bluedog

            Great man? He blew it when Tumbledown Dick followed hims a Lord Protector. Then it became clear that Cromwell was just another dynastic tyrant who could make even the Stuarts look good.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        I’m surprised Jacobs is crossing the Tiber. Many are converting to Islam voluntarily. They want ‘rigidity and solidity’ in a world of flux:

        Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

      • carl jacobs

        That will be a cold day in Hell.

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          But how else is one to interpret your billet-a-doux with Poison Cressie?

          • carl jacobs

            Cressida hates my guts. She has hated me ever since I took Hannah’s side when Cressida was trying to drive her off the board with abuse. I don’t interact with Cressida.

          • It was the threat to shave her head that clinched it ….

          • carl jacobs

            No, I said she was the mob that shaved heads …

          • It did all get a touch heated.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s what I said to Hannah to get her to ignore what Cressida was saying. That’s when I thought Hannah would leave.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I think she hates me more, she’s been unrelentingly abusive since I started posting… Does she hate everybody?

          • carl jacobs

            She’s French.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I wondered if she was Norty Nina’s RC alter ego.

          • carl jacobs

            No, Cressida is just unpleasant. Nina is malignant.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Malice is common to both.

          • carl jacobs

            Cressida could be a good commenter if should would learn to be kind. Then she would be just another Vatican minion. We can live with those.

          • Cressida has a very independent mind and does not blindly follow anyone. In my experience, she hates bullshit and nonsense and speaks as she finds. She is not malignant or malicious at all.

            The “men” on here should really stop gossiping behind her back and, dare Jack say it, “grow a pair” and stop acting like snowflakes.

            And, for the record, she gets on very well with Avi Bazel, Bluedog, Dannybuoy, Clive, Chef of Sinners (under review), Sister Tiberia, Explorer, Grutchyngfysch and others. The beliefs she dislikes are those of the Puritan and Calvinist, principally because of their coldness and barrenness in worship.

            She reserves a special dislike for the Inspector General because of his racism, homophobia and misogyny.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Witness at first hand suggests otherwise.

          • Inspector General

            On the subject of racism, the BBC Radio News are trying to revive interest in Stephan Bloody Lawrence. Had to turn the set off.

          • dannybhoy

            Well said Jacques…

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            She hates Anglicans too.

          • She doesn’t actually …. only those of a certain persuasion.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I’m a married man Jack!

          • You’re a Puritan who has infiltrated the Church of England.

          • carl jacobs

            You say that like it’s a bad thing.

          • It is.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Most Puritans were CoE.

          • Wrecking it from within and agitating for a Civil War.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Nonsense.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Male order brides were on special that week.

          • IanCad

            Very Funny! A laugh to start the day with.

          • Lol …. very good!

          • Cressida de Nova

            Not of any persuasion.

          • Cressida de Nova

            She doesn’t hate anyone. Not even you Bozo !

          • bluedog

            Not true.

          • carl jacobs

            I’ve said nothing she hasn’t said publicly. Her comments to me have been very personal. And they were all of them unprovoked since I don’t respond to her. Your testimony of her is false.

          • She doesn’t like you Carl. So what? What is false about what Jack has said?

          • Cressida de Nova

            What’s to like?
            I know someone has to make an attempt to civilise these people , Jack, but your progress is very slow.

          • Here’s an American Calvinist, Cressie. He’s imbued with a sense of American Exceptionalism, learnt from the Puritans.
            It’s a thankless, hopeless task.

          • Cressida de Nova

            I regret they were so restrained. Pity you deleted all your provocative posts.

          • Cressida de Nova

            People can read here Carl. For a person who does not respond you seem to initiate and respond

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I quite like the Inspector even if I don’t agree with everything he believes or does still owe me a bottle of 18 year old Talisker.

          • CliveM

            Most people like the Inspector, but I hope no one agrees with what he says.

          • Cressida de Nova

            No ,that is not quite correct. From a recent email from HG I have since learnt and it comes as a surprise ,that the Inspector is capable of genuine compassion , hitherto not always apparent on this blog.

            1642 has managed to outrank any dislike I have for the Inspector. We have never had the level of narcissism and conceit that the beer swiller displays on this site. Carl of course remains a contender for the most repellent and a serial liar to boot.l

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Independent as in ‘whatever the Vatican programmes her to think’ Jack?

          • CliveM

            I like Cressida. She has personality and wit. Yes she can be caustic in her responses, but she adds to site.

            I have to admit I wasn’t around for her battle with Carl, so can make no comment on that.

            Anyway we should all be gentlemen here and cease talking about a Lady behind her back :0)

          • dannybhoy

            Quite so Clive. There are not enough females commenting on this blog, which I think is sad. A man is incomplete without the love, support and insight of a good woman..

          • Cressida de Nova

            There are many “men” here who would not agree with you.

          • dannybhoy

            They might be a bit bashful about admitting it that’s all..
            I must say that my wife is a wonderful woman with some admirable qualities .
            We’re a team, but she’s the best part of the team…

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Ladies don’t use her sort of language.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Decent men don’t tell women to blow it out of their behinds….Only dross !

          • And certainly not an “unhinged bitch”.

          • And you, who has been on here 5 minutes, know this? How?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Piffle !

          • It isn’t, actually. Malice is a desire to visit harm on another.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Exactly and it is.

          • No. Calling a person an “unhinged bitch” is malice.

          • dannybhoy

            Why is she unpleasant?
            I like her, even though she is a devout Catholic.
            And she’s better looking than Jack..

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Have you seen the way she talks to people?

          • To some people ….

          • dannybhoy

            So, we’re blokes ain’t we? I think she’s very good at winding us up and putting us on the back foot..

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I don’t talk to anyone like that.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Your remnant of a brain has become befuddled by brewery fumes
            and you have lost any ability to verbally spar without resorting to
            unseemly tactics. I am surprised you are allowed out of the house or permitted to talk to anyone at all.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Doesn’t wind anyone up, just comes across as an unhinged bitch. And I don’t like bullies.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Sad small person in every sense of the word
            Fac ut vivas !

          • Cressida de Nova

            Tsk…Boo hoo
            I suggest you revisit all your insulting posts to me.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes. But so..? If you don’t respond, who’s she then showing up, you or her and her Catholic Christian faith..?
            Have you seen the way Linus talks to people? But there seems to be no lack of folk willing to waste their time engaging with him. At one point he was turning into a major celebrity here: people waiting with bated breath for his next incarnation..
            What did that achieve? It only encouraged him, so best not engage with him.
            If Cressida gets it into her head that she wants to have a go at me – and I wouldn’t rule it out; I shall have to ignore her and concentrate on the positive comments.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I ignore Linus for that very reason – attention seeking perverts don’t deserve attention. I rarely respond to Poison Cressie either these days for a similar reason and I see no grace of the Holy Spirit in her at all, unlike Jack for all our differences. That said I despise bullies and I bet she was a right one in the schoolyard.

          • dannybhoy

            Well we don’t know if she was a bully. We don’t know anything about her apart from what she chooses to reveal. Same with you, same with me.

          • “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

            “attention seeking perverts” … “Poison Cressie” … “unhinged bitch” … and you talk about the Holy Spirit.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Sometimes you need to get the horsewhip out so that these people reilase that they just can’t go on and on insulting and trying to bully people.

          • len

            Cressida is Catholic and French ,be nice to her she has enough problems as it is …

          • Cressida de Nova

            When you find all your tyres let down and a potato up your exhaust pipe tomorrow…you wont be surprised I guess.

          • len

            Call in for a coffee and we will talk it over xx

          • Cressida de Nova

            Stop this kissing immediately. It is sexist, chauvinistic politically incorrect and harrassment. The inspector is right. You have changed of late.Are you sure it is coffee you are drinking?

          • len

            Cressida,
            Things have changed.xx

          • dannybhoy

            Very good Len!

          • carl jacobs

            Maybe you should go read every single post she has made to me over the past five years. Or when she was referring to Hannah using some word that meant “disease ridden whore”. You cross her and you will find out.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Which word means “disease ridden whore”? I am not aware of one. Enlighten me. Sounds more like your style ( lack of) than mine.
            You must be mistakenly thinking of your own verbally abusive exchanges with the unfortunate women in your life.

          • dannybhoy

            Oh come on Carl! You’re one of the most respected, sober. and weightier intellects on this blog. What are you doing getting into a five year slugfest with any commenter here?
            When one recognises that someone is out for a fight, an argument, a slanging match, you don’t engage. You ignore them.
            Proverbs 15> New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

            “15 A soft answer turns away wrath,
            but a harsh word stirs up anger.
            2 The tongue of the wise dispenses knowledge,[a]
            but the mouths of fools pour out folly.
            3 The eyes of the Lord are in every place,
            keeping watch on the evil and the good.
            4 A gentle tongue is a tree of life,
            but perverseness in it breaks the spirit.”

          • carl jacobs

            There is no slugfest. I don’t respond to her. This is entirely one-sided.

          • dannybhoy

            You don’t now respond to her, or you never did?
            Five years is a long time to keep up a one sided conversation..

          • Cressida de Nova

            Oh if only this were so. People can read here Carl.

          • “I like her, even though she is a devout Catholic.”
            Interesting comment.

          • dannybhoy

            A leg pull Jacko.

          • len

            That explains a lot…

          • …. or Italian.

          • len

            yes ..except papist Jack.

          • bluedog

            No, of course not. Cressida is a very loyal person and strongly defends those she likes. It helps to be a cradle Catholic but she makes exceptions for Protestants who are neither Calvinist nor virulently anti-Catholic. The latter point puts len at an immediate disadvantage. Cressida has an enhanced bullshit detector and doesn’t tolerate those she regards as poseurs.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            She can’t hate anybody for long.

          • carl jacobs

            You don’t know Cressida very well, do you.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Then hate will eat her crom the inside out.

          • len

            Cressida hates everyone’s guts ….except Jacks….who can do no wrong however he manifests himself.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Phew. I thought it must be something I did at Drogheda or Wexford. All an unfortunate misunderstanding of course, but some can never let go…

          • len

            Cressida hates Protestants and most everyone else too apparently…Thinks she like the Pope though and Papist Jack.

          • Anton

            Her avatar has no warts.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            LOL. Vanity is a minor sin?

          • Didn’t you have a “thing” going with Cressida at one time?

          • len

            Deny all knowledge of any [alleged]relationship with Cressida Jack.
            (I think she dumped me anyway)

          • Jack recalls rumours of moonlight swims …..

          • len

            Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

          • …. with dolphins.
            Your secret is safe with Jack.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Nursie in on her way to Scotland as we speak.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Do you remember what Nurse Ratchet said she would do if you persisted in this kind of thing?

          • dannybhoy

            You’re too modest Carl.
            Surely there must be others?
            ;0)

        • How do you know what God has predestined?

          • carl jacobs

            My Sheep hear my voice and they follow me. They will never follow another.

          • Indeed.

          • carl jacobs

            So no Pope for me then.

          • Who knows, Carl?

          • Interesting omission there Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            You realize people will stare blankly at this comment and have no idea what you are talking about.

          • It was predestined, Carl, predestined.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            You want to start another battle about free will and pre-destination? Boy, are you RC’s fond of punishment?

          • If it’s predestined, then who’s going to stop it? You?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I quite like some of his poems and he translated Homer…

          • Anton

            Pope Alexander (the sixth) and Alexander Pope are both entertaining in their own way.

    • Maalaistollo

      Isn’t it slunk?

      • dannybhoy

        slunk away -correct.
        slank away – interesting..

    • carl jacobs

      It was not 2:00 am where I live.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        All right. What time was it?

        • carl jacobs

          I’m six hours behind.

          • Six centuries, more like.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            I was waiting for that. You didn’t let me down!

          • Anton

            Five centuries, as of October 31st.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s one of the nicest things you’ve ever said to me.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    Right, dear hearts, this forum has wandered into many furrows and byways, so perhaps it is time to call a halt. Pour yourselves a decent libation and put your feet up. Put aside all asides…and brace yourself for His Grace’s next offering, which will be along shortly I’m sure.

    • Jack says this should be discussed.

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      The Lord Protector feels most alive in the fiercest corner of the battle Ma’am.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      Most excellent Mrs Proudie,

      I am reminded of a wall picture in Pompeii, where a man, possibly a bartender, is pushing away two men who are arguing, and saying ITIS FORAS RIXSATIS (Go outside and quarrel.)

      However, there are two things I would suggest that all interested parties read:

      Popery, Psalms and Protestant Pharisees

      Chesterton Reformed: A Protestant Interpretation

      And please THINK before you all reply, maybe on one of His Grace’s forthcoming posts.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        I knew it! Chesterton was a secret Protestant! No wonder much of his thinking accords with the Protestant world-view.

        I think there is a developing case for claiming him for our Cause.

    • Anton

      Anyone for tennis?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      I suspect dear lady, that it is the over-liberal use of libations that has allowed this thread to meander into its many recesses. Like those people who hang around the public house and refuse to leave long after it closed, we ain’t got no homes to go to.

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        Would you like to move near one of our pubs? We love customers like you.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          Done. Can the eight kids and all the in-laws sleep on your floor?

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Are they all hard workers?

    • Anton

      This thread has attracted more than double the comments of any of your previous; should you not be rejoicing, Mrs Proudie?

  • Inspector General

    Cat leaves gay puppy called Bandit to die in a ditch…

    • carl jacobs

      Well, that’s a cat for you. Except:

      1. There is no such thing as a gay puppy.
      2. The cat probably mortally wounded the puppy before leaving.

      • Inspector General

        Cat comes back. Saves Bandit. Bandit bites her and tells press she’s a homophobic cat.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      According to the BBC the cat voted for brexit and supports Donald Trump

  • Rhoda

    Too many men with too much time, arguing and avoiding their wives and girlfriends

    • len

      Welcome, to our endless blog about world affairs and stuff like that.

      • ChaucerChronicle

        ‘Now all the Athenians and the visiting strangers spent their time in nothing else than to tell something and to hear something new.’

        • 1642+5thMonarchy

          That’s called Facebook these days?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      My wife is sitting right next to me. She often tells me what to write

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      My wife says it keeps me out of worse trouble.

    • Inspector General

      Good Lord, madam! This IS an on-line gentlemen’s club, if you don’t mind…

    • dannybhoy

      We’re pretty good at it though, doncha think?

    • chefofsinners

      Any man who has wives and girlfriends is not welcome here, madam. We are good Christian folk.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      They nag us and repeatedly ask the question: does my rear look too big in this?

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        The sort of question to which there is no right answer, just harbingers male doom…

  • Maalaistollo

    This is just to make it 720 comments. That’s all.

  • 1642+5thMonarchy

    Bored, bored, bored…

    Can’t someone say something controversial to get Jack going, Linus shrieking or Martin denouncing everyone as #FakeChristians?

    • It’s not that controversial but here goes:

      “Cromwell. To the eternal condemnation of Oliver. Seditionist, traitor, regicide, racialist, protofacist and blasphemous bigot. God save England from his like.”
      (Sir William Waller)

      “…the English monster, the center of mischief, a shame to the British Chronicle, a pattern for tyranny, murder and hypocrisie, whose bloody Caligula, Domitian, having at last attained the height of his ambition, for five years space, he wallowed in the blood of many gallant and heroick persons….”
      (Gerard Winstanley)

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        At last. Waller quotes a fraud, not contemporary language – fascists in the 17th century I ask you – try harder Jack! Winstanley was a proto-commie so who cares about him!

      • len

        Not as bad as the Popes though Jack..And their were lots of them who committed every crime known to humanity.
        Lets have the truth across the board here.

        • Jack has never denied there have been wicked, sinful Popes, Len.

      • Ivan M
      • ChaucerChronicle

        Jack,

        He fought against tyranny: monarchical and religious.

        It was his regime that laid the modern foundations to enable dictators to be prosecuted.

        • Ivan M

          Like I said there is no bullshit like Proddie bullshit. I still recall that movie with Richard Harris glowering as the lead. I imagine I could have leapt out and punched his f*ck face. Communists have nothing on Proddies when it comes to propaganda.

          • Anton

            And where did the commies get the idea of Thought Control from? It wouldn’t be the Inquisition, would it?

          • Ivan M

            I would have thought that the Sola Scriptura guys with their everything is in Bible as translated by Tyndale and Luther were behind it. The Renaissance was a laid back period until the Sola Scriptura guys came along. Very nice of you to revive Dostoevsky though.

          • Anton

            History shows which so-called churchmen were doing it first.

          • Ivan M

            You referred to the Inquisition. There were at least two. The Spanish one was to deal with enemies of the Spanish state, principally Jews and Muslims who often were in a confederacy to oppose the Reconquista. I don’t blame Jews or Muslims for opposing the Catholics. They wanted to live but so did the Catholics. That Inquisition was to defend the Spanish state from subversives. It was stupid of the Catholic Church to imagine that it could convert Jews and Muslims to reconcile them to their loss. They should have left it to the organs of the Spanish state. But this is not “thought control”, it was in modern parlance an anti-fifth column activity, which had not the Church been involved would have taken many more lives.
            The other, the Roman Inquisition only gained life as an effort to assert Catholic orthodoxy. Now there are a couple of noteworthy elements about this. First it was in reaction to the so-called Reformation where Proddies went around claiming that they were the ‘real Christians’. The other is the bad rap the RC got for the Galileo affair. Ironically enough the RC was defending both the literal interpretation of Scripture and the scientific method. For Galileo did not have convincing observational support for his theory. Teaching heliocentrism as an hypothesis was never an issue since Copernicus was published by the Church itself, but Galileo apart from his irascibility didn’t have enough evidence on his side so the Inquisition was only acting as a severe referee. Giordano Bruno with his pantheism would not have survived with the Protestants either, just look at the trouble they gave Kepler. So no, Thought Control didn’t come with the Catholics. Severe administrative measures for reasons of state, yeah okay.

          • Anton

            Rot. The RC was defending Aristotelianism, not a literal interpretation of scripture. All you get in scripture is The Sun Rose, and since everybody understands that that phrase means that the sun rose relative to the earth’s horizon, scripture is silent on the issue.

            I am well aware that there were several Inquisitions, but the earlier ones were Catholic, were they not? And they made the penalty for heretics execution rather than excommunication, did they not? Can’t think where protestants and communists got this bad idea from, can you?

          • “So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.”
            (Joshusa 10:13)

            As for the Inquisition and “Can’t think where protestants and communists got this bad idea from, can you?”, possibly the Old Testament and the Mosaic Law.

          • Anton

            Take that up with God; he wrote it. The church is meant to be a volunteer grouping, and as soon as the penalty for dissent from its tenets becomes execution rather than excommunication then something has gone terribly wrong.

          • Well you raised it and Jack was just pointing out that God inspired man to express this and man had to use his restricted faculties to put this into words and concepts he and his contemporises understood. We now understand these verses better because of our greater knowledge about the physical world and our experiences of it. Integrating revelation with scientific discovery, and such human enquiry and experience, is an ongoing process.

            The ‘job’ of the Church, its mission, however you understand this term, is to ensure our increasing insights are moulded by scripture and remain true to its defined dogma and doctrines. Then to preserve truth among its members, teach it, inform public debate in the public square and find ways to reach those individuals in the world who are called and have strayed from the path.

            Imagine have that level of responsibility! It’s mind blowing! But we are not alone. Enter the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus to lead us into all truth, ensuring our growth and protecting us until His return. But, like those authors of scripture, the Spirit works with as we are, as a Body, and He chooses to whom and how He gives the necessary graces and gifts.

            To a Catholic – Roman, Reformed or Orthodox – this process is conducted and orchestrated through the Magisterium of the Church and the Bishops, the successors of the Apostles, whole carry ultimate authority and responsibility, and who are God’s instruments.

            So, when you refer to the past and the human errors of this Church, remember to consider their decisions in context and take note of the political, economic and social conditions of their time and how the Church understood herself and “signs of the times” made known to her. Jack’s understanding of the Protestant mind-set and appreciation of what drove and is driving it, is developing. Perhaps yours should about Catholicism? This means setting aside prejudices on both sides and having a rational discussion. Or, we can continue throwing stones at one another and calling each other names.

            What’s that expression? Ah, yes: “First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
            We all have “beams” ……

          • Ivan M

            Edward Teller, one of the hydrogen bomb men, wrote somewhere that the Church in asking for Galileo to wait for further evidence before teaching heliocentricism as a fact was only acting as a conservative review board. The same buggers in science, who shout hoarsely about the Church’s treatment of Galileo have no compunction restricting the science and destroying the careers of those who go against their orthodoxies.

          • Anton

            I haven’t actually mentioned Galileo or Bruno on this thread! Galileo was a loyal enough Catholic who was a superb scientist, saw the Catholic church making incompetent dogmatic pronouncements on the subject, and wanted it not to make an ass of itself. But he couldn’t resist writing satire about his opponents, which got up their nose, and they abused their power in order to harass him.

          • Except Roman Catholicism is not monolithic in matters other than settled doctrine. Apart from that, there is considerable room for theological discussion within established parameters and in unity with the bishops. For example, predestination and the atonement are not closed off to debate and development, nor is the Incarnation and the Trinity. That’s how the Church grows in truth and always has. Should issues become divisive, requiring resolution, then the Magisterium will exercise its teaching role.

          • Ivan M

            You are apparently happy applying Mosaic punishment for the misdeeds recounted in Leviticus. I don’t see what cachet you have making exceptions for your own hobby-horses.

          • Anton

            Mosaic Law is divine precedent for what the laws of morality should be; can there be a better? As I live in a democratic system, I am free to to advocate for them. In my nation, not in the church. Simple.

          • Ivan M

            Don’t you know that Joshua’s ‘long day’ was just an excuse to push Aristotle down the throats of the scriptural-minded. Those evil Catholics, whatever will they think of next.

          • Ivan M

            I didn’t know till just now, that it was Galileo himself who introduced Joshua into his polemics. So there there you have it, Galileo put the Church on its back foot by introducing Joshua and not the other way round. The man was a deceptive polemicist.

            http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/evolution/galhrsy.htm

            From which I pinched Arthur Koestler’s account from his book The Sleepwalkers

            The final section of the Letter to the Grand Duchess is devoted to the miracle of Joshua. Galileo first explains that the sun’s rotation around its axis is the cause of all planetary motion. “And just as if the motion of the heart should cease in an animal, all other motions of its members would cease, so if the rotation of the sun were to stop, the rotations of all the planets would stop too,” Thus he not only assumed, with Kepler, the annual revolutions of the planets to be caused by the sun, but also their daily rotation around their axes — an ad hoc hypothesis with no more “rigorous proof” than the analogy with the animal’s heart. He then concludes that when Joshua cried: “Sun, stand thou still,” the sun stopped rotating, and the earth in consequence stopped both its annual and daily rotation. But Galileo, who came so close to discovering the law of inertia, knew better than anybody that if the earth suddenly stopped dead in its track, mountains and cities would collapse like match-boxes; and even the most ignorant monk, who knew nothing about impetus, knew what happened when the horses reared and the mail-coach came to a sudden halt, or when a ship ran against a rock. If the Bible was interpreted according to Ptolemy, the sudden stand-still of the sun would have no appreciable physical effect, and the miracle remained credible as miracles go; if it was interpreted according to Galileo, Joshua would have destroyed not only the Philistines, but the whole earth. That Galileo hoped to get away with this kind of painful nonsense, showed his contempt for the intelligence of his opponents.

          • Ivan M

            It was the science of that time with its parameters restricted or moulded or mediated as the case may be an understanding of Scripture. Protestants and Communists were such innocent lambs that they had to learn everything bad from the Church. There was no way to look to ancient Sparta or Persia or Babylon to get some ideas.

          • Anton

            You’d like to quote reliable sources that they had religious inquisitions?

        • ChaucerChronicle

          To Ivan:

          You can see that I’ve blocked your incoherent nonsense. Yet you still persist: madness.

          So: ‘jaldi, jaldi!’

          • Ivan M

            Your nonsense appeared in mine and I responded. This is not a private blog, all can respond. It is for you to ignore it.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Ivan:

            The message states:

            ‘This user is blocked.’

          • Ivan M

            You seem to have difficulty understanding that since I have not blocked you, or anyone else for that matter, I can read what you write.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Ivan:

            I can only see about the first half-a-dozen or so words. I would’ve thought transmissions would be difficult from the Khyber Pass.

            In any event, I thought the Khyber Rifles had sorted it all out?

            Now, please desist. Pretty please.

        • dannybhoy

          Yes, he fought against the idea of the Divine Right of Kings and the corruption that went with it.
          “King Charles
          James I died on 27th March 1625. Charles married fifteen-year-old Henrietta Maria by proxy at the church door of Notre Dame on 1st May. Charles met her at Dover on 13th June and was described as being small-boned and petite and “being for her age somewhat little”. (20) Another source said she was “a gawky adolescent, enormous eyes, bony wrists, projecting teeth and a minimal figure”. (21) Caroline M. Hibbard provides a more positive image arguing that she had “brown hair and black eyes and a combination of sweetness and wit remarked on by almost every observer.” (22)

          Many members of the House of Commons were opposed to the king’s marriage to a Roman Catholic, fearing that it would undermine the official establishment of the reformed Church of England. The Puritans were particularly unhappy when they heard that the king had promised that Henrietta Maria would be allowed to practise her religion freely and would have the responsibility for the upbringing of their children until they reached the age of 13. When the king was crowned on 2nd February 1626 at Westminster Abbey, his wife was not at his side as she refused to participate in a Protestant religious ceremony. (23)

          At this time King Louis XIII was involved in a civil war against the Protestants (Huguenots) in France. Parliament wanted to help the Huguenots but Charles refused as he did not want to upset his wife or brother-in-law. Eventually it was agreed to send a fleet of eight ships to France. However, at the last moment Charles sent orders that the men should fight for, rather than against, Louis XIII. The captains and crews refused to accept these orders and fought against the French. (24)”
          http://spartacus-educational.com/STUcharles1.htm

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Danny, it’s terrible. Holger wants to throttle me.

            Holger, wants to burn down synagogue and church: ‘This is what we’re doing and will continue to do. We’ll break your churches and we’ll break you. On that you can count.’

            I think he wants to kill me: ‘If you were to use such insulting and demeaning language to my face, you’d live to regret it.’

            He described His Grace as a ‘fake’ and free speech as a ‘fetish’.

            All I’ve shown him is ‘love’. Yes. I call it ‘love.’

          • dannybhoy

            Danny and wife in their capacity of Godparents spent Sunday morning service comforting Mum and sorting out young daughter..
            Mum sat with the wife, daughter sat with me. (Actual Goddaughter was being ‘good’…)
            I came from a very argumentative, unpredictable, sometimes violent background.
            I learnt almost subconsciously how to stir things up, get siblings into trouble and polished my skills at sarcasm.
            As a born again Christian I turned my back on all that stuff and try very hard to be a peacemaker.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Danny,

            In this case peace kills. There can’t be peace without justice. If ‘peace’ were to be imposed without justice then we’ll have turned this land into a desert (pace Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome).

          • Pubcrawler

            Agricola, not Annals

      • Anton

        Did you say you have Jewish blood, Jack? Who let the Jews back into the British Isles in the 1650s?

        • The intent was important as the act – commercial gain and to convert them so Christ would return. How did the latter workout?

          • Anton

            At the Westminster conference convened by the Lord Protector it was the merchants who were most vehemently against readmittance. He was sympathetic. Given that your existence follows from his decision, a little gratitude might be in order.

            How did it work out? Puritan philosemitism flowed into the wider British evangelical movement at the Restoration and, 250 years later, made the Balfour Declaration possible. Back in the land that is still theirs under the Abrahamic covenant, belief in Jesus is at last growing among the Jews.

            In 1999 the only detailed demographic survey of the Messianic movement in the Holy Land to date took place, by Kai Kjaer-Hansen and Bodil Skjøtt. They found about 5000 believers in roughly 80 congregations. Since then there has been great growth; in 2013 an estimate from a conservative source was 10,000-15,000, and an alternative estimate was as high as 23,000.

          • Jack does not owe his existence to Cromwell.

          • dannybhoy

            Agreed. I see no resemblance whatsoever..

          • Anton

            Nicely blurred, Jack.

          • dannybhoy

            They didn’t cooperate. Said He wasn’t the genuine article.

          • So Plan B was concocted.

          • dannybhoy

            There’s always a plan B my Catholic friend.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      I’ve heard that Mrs Proudie, as I write, is on the warpath. She is sending us all to bed without supper. Any further disobedience from us and Mr Slope will make an entrance too.

      • One is sure the Inspector will receive him warmly.

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        LOL. Don’t I get my Ovaltine and Damson Gin tonight?

      • len

        Hobnobs are off the menu as well ’till further notice.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        Warpath? Me? Certainly not…I merely raise my eyebrows…

        • len

          Sometimes that’s all it takes Mrs Proudie…
          Hobnobs all round then?

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Comment 750

    • William Lewis

      Succinct and apposite.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Succinct.
        Apposite?

        • William Lewis

          In view of the number of comments I think that PI hit the nail on the head.

  • William Lewis

    This comment thread:

    http://i.imgur.com/MSBHr1u.gifv

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      Upticks x 100!

  • len

    Going at this rate Mrs Proudies next ‘Portrait of the Week’ should be appearing on this thread soon?.Where is H G ?.Has he been kidnapped?.

    • Anton

      Perhaps writing up something abut the blasphemous event which I presume took place in Canterbury Cathedral on Saturday?

      • len

        Hope so this thread is dying…What event was that, I have been busy doing some plastering?.

        • Anton

          He’s just uploaded his next column.

        • Anton

          I’d have said this thread was in rude health…

          The masonic service of which His Grace wrote a few days ago.

          • len

            That’s right!.I remember now…The Masons..

          • len

            Well ‘dying’ was perhaps a bit over dramatizing the situation.

    • The shape shifting Lizards have taken him over.

      • len

        Carried him off to the Vatican I suppose…Poor sod.

        • The location of the Mother Ship is a closely guarded secret.