‘Girding the Loins for Jesus: A Christian’s Guide to Weaponising Your Surgical Appliance’

Goodness! How quickly the year speeds by. Summer already, though you wouldn’t know it from the grey sky and daily precipitation. At least my butt is full to capacity, which means I am well-prepared for watering the pots when the sun finally makes an appearance.

The herbaceous borders are not the only things providing a splash of colour. Mr. Slope took leave of absence this week to go to something called ‘Silverbridge Pride’, which I assumed was some theological symposium exploring one of the deadly sins. He asked if he could borrow his lordship’s barouche and off he went. Imagine our horror when he returned with the carriage painted in every colour of the rainbow – no longer an episcopal conveyance but a fairground charivari. When I remonstrated at this vulgar display, he had the temerity to say it was all the rage, and he got the idea from a police inspector.

“Good heavens!” I exclaimed.

“Yes, that’s the fellow,” replied Mr. Slope.

He really does take the biscuit.

But not my hobnobs.

Yesterday, at Signora Vesey Neroni’s afternoon tea party, the subject of the Prime Minister’s judgement, or lack of, came up. The folly of calling an unnecessary election was touched upon, though that subject had been discussed before, but conversation focused more on the new alliance between Shariah Dismay’s ‘Conservatives’ and those bog-hopping Ulsterpersons, aka the Real Conservatives. The Signora, long a devotee of eugenics and opponent of the back-street coat-hanger trade, was thrilled by the opportunity offered to the errant colleen to nip across the Irish Sea for a taxpayer-funded sort-out. In her view, this was progress. I could not less this go unchallenged, pointing out that if we stopped this massacre of the innocents there would be little need to import so many denizens of the souk. The Signora dismissed this with a wave of her fan, but I think my point struck home. The Countess de Courcy remarked that this non-coalition coalition has provoked condemnation from Comrade Corbynov’s Brownshirts, proof positive it was the right thing to do. Her words reminded me of another politician who was fond of ‘the right thing to do’, one who sold us off to the Zollverein and who would have jumped into bed with the D.U.P. to save his administration. Politics is a dirty business.

I found the Archdeacon in jubilant mood the other day, which made a change from the usual. I took a deep breath and asked him what could possibly have brought about such joy.

“I have been reading The Jupiter, dear lady,” he beamed, “and there is much contained within to celebrate! The Bolshevik’s French pin-up boy, Monsieur Macaroni, has invited President Trumpelstiltskin to visit Paris; and across the Rhine, Frau Merkin has refused to sanction same-sex marriage, despite being the doyenne of Zollverein-ish liberal codswallop. Lefties across Europe must be hopping mad!”

At this point Mr. Slope interrupted.

“Pardon me, Archdeacon, but I think Frau Merkin allowed her party a free vote on the issue and same-sex marriage has been approved.”

“What! What! This is typical cabbage-troughing Poland-marching Hunnish double-dealin-duplicity,” he spluttered, looking much more like his volcanic self.

“Might I advise caution, Archdeacon,” continued Mr. Slope. “The Germans have also legislated about hate-speech.”

I left them too it. Having promised to call in on the Barchester Mother’s Union following their controversial decision to abandon non-violence, I felt they could use my latest tract: ‘Girding the Loins for Jesus: A Christian’s Guide to Weaponising Your Surgical Appliance’.

Until next week, when the news hound of determination digs up the long lost integrity of the Labour Party, I bid you all adieu.

  • michaelkx

    you lighten my week end madam, with your post.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Too kind, dear michaelkx

      • You have fortified his weak end, madam.

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          But not yours it seems…

  • dannybhoy

    Surgical appliances come in a bewildering variety of shapes and sizes m’lady.
    One hopes yours is well concealed by that bustle..
    ps Mr Slope’s latest escapade rather reminds me of an episode from Father Ted where a visiting bishop is converted by Dougal and leaves in a VW bus with a bunch of hippies…

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      A bustle conceals a multitude of sins…

  • David

    Ahh ! The awaited weekly news summary, from our most excellent correspondent Mrs Proudie, which is always deeply appreciated. Many thanks Mrs Proudie.

    I fear that the “news hound of determination” may have to dig down some way to rediscover the Labour Party’s long lost integrity. My ardent Methodist, Labour Party supporting, grandfather must be wondering just how his party got itself into the present muddle. I am so grateful that whilst being influenced by his Methodism, I listened to the other side of the family regarding all things political.

    • Sarky
      • David

        Thank you. They have been talking about this merger for some decades. Joint mission Methodist/Anglican churches already exist, and I gave a sermon in one some years ago. A merger would strengthen both of these shrinking institutions.
        However it is not the institutions that concern me, as the fact that at present, only parts of both organisations contain truly Bible led local churches; a majority of the churches in each denomination having been led astray by the deceptions of the zeitgeist.

        • Watchman

          Quoting Isaiah and referring to the Pharisees Jesus said:
          ” These people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. They worship Me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commands of men.”

          This, I believe could be repeated of much of today’s church where there is no passion for the Word of God.

          I have also heard many prophetic words that a revival will take place in Spirit led meetings in people’s homes. It is easy to see that the current enthusiasm for suppressing extremism could lead to the registration of churches where what they are teaching can be monitored. I count myself among those extremists: a creationist, anti-abortionist on the side of God’s definition of sexual conduct and who is first loyal to Jesus and His Lordship. I also believe that the church thrives on persecution and grows when under such pressure. A state monitored church would be an empty shell, a sham and useful only for the state to use with the Brigade of Guards for ceremonial purposes (probably with a sermon given by an imam).

          • David

            Thank you. I agree with all that although I am neither a strict creationist, in the sense of a recent earth, nor a supporter of the Darwinian theory. The latter is lauded and taught as fact, because it suits the present rebellious age. God is of course the creator.

          • Royinsouthwest

            The evidence that evolution takes place is overwhelming. How else do you account for the fact that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics?

            Whether current evolutionary theories tell the full story is, however, another matter entirely.

          • Watchman

            Without believing the creation account you God is a lesser God than mine. My God can raise the dead and raising the dead is giving life to something that has not got life, even the dust of the ground.
            Genesis 2:7 HCSB
            ” Then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.” It’s almost as though He knew that mankind would come up with a crackpot theory which would exclude Him so He told us how He created man to leave it beyond doubt. An understanding of Genesis is, I believe, absolutely crucial to understanding the New Testament. Without the fall why do we need redemption? It is very apparent that Jesus believed the creation account because He was there!

          • Royinsouthwest

            There is only one God and He is not your property. God gave us brains and it is important to use them.

            If you want to learn chemistry you study chemical reactions and the properties of elements and compounds. If you want to learn physics you study the different forms that energy can take and how it interacts with matter. If you want to study geology you study rocks, their location, and sequence in order to work out how they were formed. If you want to study astronomy you observe the motions of celestial bodies and the radiation they emit or reflect. If you want to study mathematics …

            Many great scientists had a firm faith but they became great scientists by studying nature. Nobody would learn much at all about science by studying the Bible because it was not written to teach us science.

          • Watchman

            I’m a bit baffled by your response because you are putting forward all the arguments for the Creation. God is not bound by our science and the theory of evolution depends on science to try to explain the creation by means natural selection.

          • Anton

            You are still not responding to Roy’s question.

          • Watchman

            Sorry, I have now done so!

          • Antibiotic resistance is an example of natural Selection, but not of evolution.
            There’s a pile of articles on bacteria here:

          • Watchman

            Thanks, I nearly posted that. As I said earlier an understanding of Genesis I’d essential to understanding the NT.

          • Anton

            This is a difference of definition; the actual issue raised by Roy remains to be discussed here.

          • Watchman

            Sorry, I didn’t intent to ignore your question about antibiotic resistance, I think I was distracted by my astonishment at your comment that you actually believe in the theory of evolution and the fact that you claim overwhelming evidence. What evidence? (Apart from microbes)

            I do not know the answer to your question, I am not a microbiologist or geneticist or whatever one has to be to understand such things; if anything it increases my awe of a Creator. But can you explain to me how a cow turned into a whale without leaving a fossil trail of the intermediate modifications?

            If I want to know the answers to such questions I turn to people who know the answers without resorting to guesswork. I found this article helpful

            How do you explain the Fall if man simply evolved?

          • Anton

            Dear Watchman

            I am struck by these prophecies you mention of revival in house churches. Have you any references or links, please?

          • Watchman

            Anton, these prophecies arise as a result of the context in which I assemble together with other believers and occurred, I believe, as a result of people meeting who had a passion for walking in the footsteps of Jesus, wanting to bear fruit and seeking the will of Jesus for what He would have us do. There is a long answer and a short answer to this question, and I have given you the short answer. There are no links or references, because I mention this as a result of being there when the words of prophecy were given.

            I believe the context is important because of the circumstances that made me leave institutional church; and this becomes part of where I believe Jésus is leading His Church. By the way, I don’t like the term “house church” because this, in itself, has become an institution. Could I recommend this article as a starting point from which to consider what the church should be (apart from Acts 2 and the Pauline letters)

            I will leave it to you to enquire further of me on this. I am more than happy to elaborate but as the explanation would be lengthy and have to contain quite a lot of biographical information, I’m not sure that such public a forum is appropriate. I will gladly post one of my email addresses for you to contact me. In responding I have assumed that your interest is more than passing curiousity, but if it is so be it.

          • Anton

            Thank you. The background to my question is this. I am trying to future-proof the congregation I am in and am talking to our Elders about the question. (I give sermons and talks regularly but am not in pastoral leadership.) We have the scriptural structure (see my summary exegesis of scriptural church polity on the “Child Abuse in the CoE” thread posted by Cranmer on 3rd July), and I quit the CoE 15 years ago as a result of liberal theology both in the local congregation and in the hierarchy, together with my continued Bible study. The “cell church” (if you don’t like “house church”) model is scriptural and it uniquely is able to flourish beneath the radar of the authorities. Anybody with open eyes can see persecution on the horizon. Hence my question.

          • Watchman

            I’m sure you’re right about persecution, it will come simply as an extension of promoting “British Values”, we will find that the bible-believing church is outside the spectrum of respectability and the CofE will resort to being obedient to the liberal orthodoxy.

            Some 35 years ago I heard a well known bible teacher and CofE ordinand prophecy the demise of the CofE. I remember it because it was such an extraordinary thing to say particularly, at the time, it seemed in the realms of fantasy; whereas now it seems extraordinary that it could survive as anything that resembles Christian witness.

            I gave up institutional church many years ago after a disillusionment that nothing I saw resembled anything like the church should be according to the teaching in the NT. I grew sick of the cliquiness, the backbiting, the lack of love and the fight for supremacy in some of the members. Entertainment was called “worship” and their was no thirst for the meat of the word. I’m not just talking about one church but several. The only real growth in the men I knew took place as a result of being members of the FGBMFI where real love and concern met the standard Jesus set: “By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

            I’ll skip the circumstances which brought me to the point when I was able to discover the meaning of fellowship, growth, learning and bearing fruit except to say that a number of us were “called out” to leave our churches and meet together. These are all serious mature people with a love of God and a passion for the truth of His Word.

            Books kept appearing which we read avidly: by Frank Viola and Steve Maltz, among others which affirmed that we were on the right track and encouraged us to find a way forward, although some of us, myself among them had a background in the Brethren and knew well the priesthood of all believers. I have background in adult learning and the way that churches operate is the very antithesis of an adult learning environment, being almost totally inductive rather than deductive. To learn and change behaviour we have to take responsibility for our own learning to the extent that we have to “own” what we learn. This is not how most churches operate and even the ones that do allow small groups to provide a learning environment they often set the agenda. People only really learn what is important to them and have a stake in changing what needs changing.
            One of the difficulties of operating in this way, particularly with “churched” people is that they bring in a set of myths about how things should operate – years of suspect religiosity and institutionalised behaviours which can be destructive.

            The Church is growing all around the world except in westernised wealthy nations where other gods seek presidence. Countries which persecute Christians seem to be experiencing the most rapid growth and the model they are using is essentially the New Testament one, small groups meeting in people’s homes. We had one prophecy from a well known bible teacher that a major city in the south west would have a church in every street.

            At the end of the day no amount of administration and organisation can be a substitute for the submission to Him whose Church this is. Just as Jesus was The Servant King so must leaders in churches be the servant of the flock
            “And He personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the training of the saints in the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ,”. Ephesians 4:11-12
            Not many churches, in my experience take this seriously and have no vision for verse 12.

          • Anton

            Amen! Although you might not have answered my original question you have been a great help and I thank you for your words. I believe that near to the end of my life I shall be called to explain to Christians that persecution is not Christ turning his back on the church but Christ purifying his bride. That’s why I want the congregation I am in to be as prepared as possible.

          • Watchman

            Sorry, Anton, I should have explained that in the way in which we met such prophecy was part and parcel of our meetings. There is a sense that our meeting was a foretaste of things to come and a training ground for expecting a revival of faith – preparing for the expansion of the Church that would happen under persecution. I think all of us felt that we were preparing for a greater event, not just having a holy huddle!

          • Anton

            I am expecting a revival, but of quality not quantity. Explaining to Christians that old-style revival belonged to the era of institutional Christianity which is gone is vital.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Thank you dear David

  • Chefofsinners

    Dear Lady, you open new vistas to the ravished imagination. How beautiful your full butt will be when we finally see the sunlight glinting off it’s glassy surface! Oh that the cloudy veil would part and the world should see that shining orb! One had always assumed that your loins were girt, but it is good to receive confirmation that everything is in proportion.
    One fears that Mrs Murkel is attempting to have her schnitzel and eat it, despite that being physically impossible, as anyone who has tried such contortions will know. I saw her standing grim faced, as she contemplated her latter end at the funeral of Herr Kohl. Which, being translated, is Mr Cabbage. The man’s coffin was shrouded in the flag of the European Union, which seems an appropriate use for the wretched thing. They have lived together, they have died together and they will be buried together. Such is life…

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      My vistas are my own!

      • Chefofsinners

        Ah yes, how pure. A vistal virgin.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Wonderful stuff as always Mrs P. I must say that the prospect of marauding gangs of nappy-wielding militant mums hurling their pushchairs at the MotherCare bouncers particularly disturbing. Time to bring in the Infantry perhaps.

  • Linus

    Ah the peevishness of these religious types whenever a new country comes to its senses and institutes equal marriage.

    It’s about time the Germans got their act together and defied their homophobic old Kanzlerin on this matter where her benighted religion had blinded her to the wishes of her people. More than 80% of Germans support equal marriage. One dumpy old homophobic Bratwurst could no longer stand in their way.

    Equally out of touch is the conference of German bishops and their desperate but vain attempts to block the legislation by calling for marriage apartheid. “Separate but equal” hasn’t worked as a slogan since the dying days of the White South African regime. Quite how they thought they could turn back the clock to that dark period is difficult to fathom. But then who can understand the workings of the mind of sky pixie worshippers?

    As we welcome Germany once more into the fold of civilised nations, our sights must now be set on the next domino to fall. Australia, probably. And then Italy. Now that will be a great victory. Same-sex marriages taking place on the Vatican’s own doorstep. From memory the Castel Saint’Angelo can be used as a wedding venue if you have the contacts.

    • Chefofsinners

      Only it’s not marriage, is it? Not in the eyes of the church or of God or of Christians, which is what marriage has traditionally been all about. It’s nothing more than a legal redefinition of a word. You have won the word but lost its meaning. A pyrrhic victory if ever there was one.

      • Linus

        So a billion Hindus have never been married because marriages are only valid if performed in church, eh?

        That’s not what your church says. Not even the Catholics claim that non-Christian marriage is invalid.

        As usual your prejudice is getting in the way of logic and reason. If gays can’t be married because your priests won’t chant their magic words over our heads, then only Christian marriage must be valid, so 4/5ths of the world’s population is living in sin.

        For example Margaret Thatcher was cohabiting in sin with Denis because they married in a register office, so when old queenie received them at Balmoral, as a good Christian she put them in separate bedrooms. Same with the Chinese premier and his wife. And all the Indian dignataries she’s ever received.

        Only she didn’t.

        Bad queenie! She’s clearly going to hell.

        • Chefofsinners

          Hindus have bigger problems than whether they are married. As do you.

          For a Christian, marriage is a divinely instituted union between one man and one woman for life. Non- Christians will each be judged according to how much light they have received.
          Governments have been interfering in marriage for millennia, but now we thankfully have clear blue water between the state’s bastardised version of marriage and the true institution, ordained of God.

          • Linus

            “Clear blue water” is something Conservatives like to put between themselves and others. But didn’t they introduce equal marriage?

            I think you’ll find that our current definition of marriage is lurking on your side of the channel too. You can’t cut yourself off from it with “clear blue water”. It knows how to swim.

          • Chefofsinners

            Clear blue water exists between the state’s definition of marriage and the Christian definition. I welcome this because the state has for years muddied the waters, by appropriating to itself an institution which it neither invented nor has any rightful claim to.
            Now we have state ‘marriages’ between two people (for the time being) of whatever gender and marital background, marked by state registrars in a religion-free ceremony. It is no more than a contract. And we have Christian marriage between one man and one woman for life, sanctified by the church to be a union in the eyes of God. I, for one, welcome the clarification. You, it would appear, prefer confusion.

          • Linus

            Marriage is a contract. That’s all it’s ever been. Christians have woven all sorts of mystical significance around it, but that’s their problem and nobody else’s.

            Here in France every couple, gay or straight, that marries must do so in front of a state official at a civil ceremony. If they then want to have a religious ceremony, it’s up to them, but if they do it has no legal significance. No priest or other witchdoctor can act as an agent of the state and perform a legally binding marriage. Why should they be able to? Their mumbo jumbo has no effect on civil law.

            Perhaps things are done differently in your primitive islands, but what’s that to me? I live in a civilised country where all are treated equally and state churches and pantomime monarchies are things of the far distant past. I wouldn’t expect you to understand that. You can’t take a sixteenth century mentality and expect it to cope with twenty first century life.

          • Anton

            Careful or you’ll get a 7th century mentality imposed on you.

          • Linus

            By whom?

            Oh, you mean by Muslims, don’t you?

            And how are they going to do that? Will 7% of the population rise up and enslave the other 93? Will ISIS charter some boats, land in Marseille and conquer France with a couple of hundred turbanned gunmen? Will there be a mass overnight conversion to Islam by a majority of the French? Exactly how will this 7th century mentality be imposed on me?

            Like all demagogues, you want to scare people into supporting your extremist views by conjuring up nightmarish images of domination by a hated minority (well, hated by you at least). The Nazis taught you well. Teach a nation to hate the Jews, or Muslims, or whoever, and your path to power is assured.

            Unfortunately for you, Hitler got there first. And once bitten, twice shy. The public doesn’t fall for your kind of manipulation any more. We’ve seen where it leads and don’t want to go there again.

          • Anton

            Time will tell…

          • Linus

            How much time?

            5 minutes? 5 years? Half a century? Half a millenium?

            In the first two cases Islam has no chance of changing the way our countries are governed and the freedoms we enjoy. There just aren’t enough Muslims to make a difference.

            This won’t change in 50 years. Current demographic predictions indicate that Muslims are very unlikely ever to exceed 10% of the population, so it’s hard to see exactly what they could change. Whatever they want, they’ll be outvoted 9 to 1. Hardly puts them in the majority, does it?

            500 years could bring changes though. 500 years is a long time. The Europe of today would be unrecognisable to someone from 1517, so who knows, perhaps Islam will dominate in the Europe of 2517. If so it will only have happened because of the mass conversion of native populations. And as with all religions, Islam will adapt to European cultural norms.

            In any case, who cares? The future will take care of itself. It will contain all sorts of challenges and problems that we can’t begin to imagine and the people who inhabit it will have to deal with them just as we have to deal with the challenges and problems that trouble us.

            The future beyond my lifespan isn’t my problem. If you fear that it will affect your descendants, that’s your problem, not mine. Worry all you like and demonize whoever you want to, but don’t ask me to play your game of paranoia. After all, your fate is a matter of supreme indifference to me. So why do you think I’m going to be concerned about your far distant progeny?

          • Anton

            Please show your demographic projections.

          • Chefofsinners

            “Marriage is a contract. That’s all it’s ever been.”
            There you have it. Your sterile, loveless, Godless utilitarian world summed up. And the French are thought to be so romantic.

          • Linus

            N’importe quoi !

            So when Christians marry they do so without any form of marriage contract or settlement, do they?

            No they do not.

            The sterile, loveless, god-infested bastards!

            Marriage contracts are standard issue in any society where marriage implies the pooling of resources.

            God or no god, marriages have been going wrong since marriage was first thought of. And even when they don’t, one spouse almost invariably outlives the other, therefore assets must be divided between the surviving spouse and any heirs.

            Going into amarriage without a contract is the real proof of emotional sterility and lovelessness. One makes provision for those one loves. That’s what marriage is: society’s way of regulating property rights and their transmission by creating a legal entity to handle pooled resources.

            Because of course if marriage is just about love then when/if the love disappears, so does the marriage. Right?

          • Anton

            The State does have a right to know who is married, because it has the responsibility of deciding what constitutes adultery and who is the legitimate heir, for instance, in certain legal cases. That means it is going to have to make public its criteria for what constitutes a marriage. Happy the land whose criteria match God’s, and wretched the land whose criteria don’t.

    • bluedog

      Any society which equates sterile unions with fertile unions has clearly lost confidence in its future and any sense of value in its own children. Even more so when the birth-rate of said society is already well below that needed for replacement, let alone growth. None of us are here today because our great grandparents procreated on the basis of 1.3 children per woman. Your fate will be to spend your declining years asking Mouna and Bilal to turn you over in bed before a bankrupt state demands your euthanasia.

      • Linus

        I see. So the man who lives with Theresa May should be referred to as her “partner” rather than her “husband”. After all, theirs is a sterile union and therefore not of equal worth to one that has produced children.

        If I ever run into her, I’ll tell her that’s what the Christian part (small though it is) of her electorate thinks. She’s not really married. She’s just living in sin with a man who hasn’t fathered a child on her. Because that’s what marriage is: a babymaking arrangement. No babies = no marriage. People who can’t have babies should live alone and if they won’t, their relationships should be scorned as inferior. They must never be allowed to think of themselves as your equals. They are not.

        See what happens when you add breeder narcissism to the Christian variety? You get a bunch of people so enamoured of themselves that all others seem worthless in comparison. And they must be made to realise their worthlessness too. Because self-worship just isn’t enough for you people, is it? All others must bow down in adoration before you too.

        What a joke. You believe you should be worshipped for doing what any farmyard animal can do. But towering figures like Leonardo da Vinci or Charlotte Brontë are second-class citizens whose relationships must be denigrated because none of their achievements come anywhere near rivaling your exploit of mindlessly depositing your sperm where it met an ovum and ended up resulting in a live birth.

        Such delusions of grandeur are quite mindboggling until you realise that religion is a mental illness and those who suffer from it are victims to be pitied rather than scorned. So go ahead and imagine yourself as a genius and a hero for fathering children on a woman you own because a witchdoctor chanted a few words over you. Words that make you better than others, and that somehow raise the dubious exploit of blowing your load from a commonplace physiological response to a divine act of genius. You climaxed inside your wife and an automatic biological process gave you a child, therefore you are god and all others are inferior to you. As far as narcissistic delusions go, it’s up there with thinking you’re Bonaparte or even Jesus Christ himself. Only so, sooo much more mundane.

        • bluedog

          If you read my post again you may possibly realise you’ve gone off at a tangent. Not for the first time. The fear of your own mortality and the likely circumstances of your death seem to be getting to you. But you do have a choice.

          • Linus

            Your basic premise is that any society that recognises non-reproductive marriages will disappear. This is so patently ridiculous that it hardly seems worthwhile commenting on it. For the record however, I will just say this, which should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, but I won’t make the mistake of overestimating a Christian again:

            Populations can fall without bringing about their extinction. In fact there seems to be an optimum level beyond which it’s unwise to go from a resource management point of view. We have clearly passed this level in many parts of the world. Unrestrained childbirth leads to famine, disease and environmental catastrophe.

            But none of that concerns rich Western Christians. They’re mainly elderly and this is what defines their attitudes to birth rates. Their primary concern is a selfish one: who’s going to look after them when they’re too old to look after themelves? They shriek about demographic doom not because there’s any risk of our society disappearing, but rather because they want the young to subsidize their comfortable lifestyles. It’s all about them. It always has been and will be until the day they die.

            That’s the core of your concern and it’s a purely selfish one. Every foetus aborted could have paid taxes to support you in your retirement. Every pregnancy prevented by contraception could have produced a nurse or doctor to look after you in your dotage. Every gay relationship recognised lessens your ability to condemn, persecute and exclude others for being different. That’s all you care about: your own comfort and power. Nothing else matters.

            I’m glad to see populations contracting and self-satisfied old people worrying about where their next luxurious summer holiday is coming from. Every time I hear an elderly couple complain that their children aren’t at their beck and call to be ordered about like unpaid slaves, I smile at how reality obtrudes into all fantasies, even those of deluded patriarchs who consider themselves to be the centre of the world and worthy of all praise.

            If your children don’t want to be around you, you never seem to ask yourselves why. The sign of the true narcissist. It’s always everyone’s fault but yours.

          • bluedog

            ‘Your basic premise is that any society that recognises non-reproductive marriages will disappear. ‘

            Correct. It is a biological and mathematical inevitability that any such society will trend towards extinction once the birth-rate falls below the level of replacement and remains there. As the numbers fall, those demographics with rising numbers will dominate. At a personal level, the last thing you will probably see is a Muslim doctor holding a syringe in his hands.

    • Anton

      Christ values freedom more highly than good behaviour. But only this side of the grave; be warned.

      • Linus

        A grave has four sides and a bottom. Once filled it, it also has a top.

        So which side of the grave are you standing on? Right or left? Head or foot? And why does your imaginary messiah think more of freedom when standing (or to be accurate, when not standing) on one side of a hole in the ground as opposed to another?

        Bit of a weathervane this Christ of yours, isn’t he? If his judgment can be so profoundly influenced merely by the relative position of an excavated trench, I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near him if something startling happened.

        What might happen if a dog barked or a car backfired? Armageddon? A zombie apocalypse? Will the magical land of Narnia be overturned and perish in fire and water? Choose your fantasy. It’s all in your own head anyway.

        • Anton

          I don’t fall for wind-ups.

          • Linus

            Wrong! Christianity. The biggest wind-up of them all. And you have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. Totally taken in by the mother of all frauds.

            Gullible fool.

          • Anton

            Time will tell…

          • Linus

            Will it though?

            In time you will die. And your consciousness will die with you. When you don’t wake up in the paradise you dream of … when you don’t wake up at all … you’ll be conscious of nothing because you’ll no longer exist.

            Your last coherent thought will probably be something along the lines of “bring it on”. But if you no longer exist, how will you know that nobody ever will?

            Even if you’re right and there is a heaven, time is a property of creation. God exists out of time. So time can tell you nothing about what lies beyond this universe.

            Either way, time will most certainly NOT tell.

          • Anton


    • IanCad

      Linus, given that two of the essentials of civil society are the enforcement of contracts and equality under the law – then Yes! I have no disagreement with you in that “Marriage” should be available to all. The problem arises when progressives wish to conflate civil “Marriage” with what is a foundational ordinance of the Christian faith.
      Sure! if you wish to contract with another of the same sex – or otherwise – then best wishes for a long and stable relationship.
      Do not however, seek to require that a blessing be bestowed upon your union by a Christian.

      • Linus

        You think I want a Christian witchdoctor to chant his magic gibberish over my head?

        Why would I want that?

        Marriage is a civil ceremony presided over by an official of the Republic. No other ceremony is necessary.

        I leave all the religious nonsense to the idiots who believe in it. If they include gay Christians who want a religious ceremony in addition to the legally binding civil one, I tell them to change religions to one that allows gay marriage.

        The masochism of gays who believe in a god who hates them and wants to punish them with a lifetime of solitary confinement has never generated much sympathy in me. If self-inflicted punishment is their thing, let them get on with it. There are too many people in the world with real problems for me to waste my time on those who go out of their way to suffer.

        • IanCad

          Calm down! Calm down! You are perfectly free to marry/contract as you wish. We who believe in the Creation Ordinance are also free to follow the plan of God and confine the union to a melding of male and female as we were so created.
          Speaking for myself, I do not consider the vicar, priest or pastor, officiating at the marriage ceremony to be a witchdoctor. Neither do I hold those who consent to bless same sex marriage to be inherently evil. Merely misguided and wholly unfamiliar with the teachings of scripture; as well as ignoring the necessity of fruitfulness as a means to maintaining a stable population level.

          • Linus

            No, you are not free to confine marriage to the union of a man and a woman. You are only free to choose for yourself. You cannot define marriage for anyone else.

            There’s no real difference between a priest and a witchdoctor. They both call on non-existent spirits for healing and the granting of wishes and desires. The fact that a priest does it in a church and a witchdoctor in a grass hut doesn’t change the essentially identical nature of the proceedings. Primitive superstition is primitive superstition whether it uses sticks and beads or finely worked gold and stained glass as props.

            And as for those who officiate at same-sex weddings being unfamiliar with Christian scripture, why would they be anything else? Non-christians don’t read the bible. Some of us may have done so when we were young and our parents sent us to Christian educational institutions to be brainwashed into faith as they were in their day. But they forgot that education had moved on since the learn-by-rote days of the 30s and 40s, and that students are now encouraged to question, doubt and debate rather than accepting the most blatant propaganda unquestioningly.

            We read the bible and found it unconvincing, boring and irrelevant in the extreme. And we understand that unending growth is not a sustainable goal when it comes to population levels. Unlike Christians, we learn from the world around us and not from an obsolete legendarium dating from a pre-scientific age.

    • prompteetsincere

      As the EU Cultural Marxist Universe is unfolding as it Will, the world headquarters of alleged homophobia is no longer the Eternal City: Sacked CDF Cardinal Mueller can attest; Cardinal Schoenbern, Austria – not Australia, joyfully would agree.

  • bluedog

    ‘A Christian’s Guide to Weaponising Your Surgical Appliance’

    The mind boggles at the possibilities. For the devout Muslim the possibilities might be limited to exploding pace-makers or colostomy bags. But for the devout Christian, a first step may be to convert the personal mobility scooter into a Carroccio. One can imagine the sight of such a vehicle storming the aisles at the local Waitrose. Those of lesser means could focus on appropriate modifications to the zimmer.

  • Thank you Mrs Proudie once again for an excellent account. I don’t know about weaponising your surgical appliances, but things are getting out of control.
    People are getting crazier by the day, the latest wheeze being that the NHS are to offer free womb transplants to trans-gender women. It can’t afford to provide cancer care, but it can afford to pander to these mentally ill trans-gender saddos.
    Never mind the fact that a boys/mans body and skeleton is not designed for pregnancy they will somehow be stuffing dead women’s wombs into men.

    ” Professor Steven Weyers, of Ghent University Hospital, in Belgium, is starting a womb transplant programme involving 20 women later this year. He said he believed transplants for trans-women would happen in ‘maybe a decade’.

    Dr Alghrani, director of Liverpool University’s Health Law & Regulation Unit and a trained barrister, makes her case in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences, saying that once women started being offered womb transplants, ‘questions will arise as to whether this should be publicly funded’ for trans-women too. She says this would ‘revolutionise reproduction’.

    It could lead others to demand transplants, including straight men, ‘allowing for couples to jointly share the reproductive burdens and joys of pregnancy’. And she says: ‘Homosexual couples may also wish to procreate in this fashion, while single men may opt for it to avoid surrogacy.’ ”


    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      I am appalled, truly appalled…

    • Linus

      So will they just get the womb or will it be the full works: ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina, vulva and clitoris? If not and it’s just the oven, one wonders how the bun will find its way in. And, even more critically, out … ?

      If it is the works, I expect many trans women will be overjoyed to get a fully functional foufoune as opposed to the artificially constructed approximation they get today. But how many cis men are going to want a female reproductive system and all the hassle that goes with it?

      I can’t see it catching on as a general trend. For certain people it could be a great thing however. And if it causes Christians to hyperventilate, tear their hair, gnash their teeth and rend their nasty supermarket clothes, well that’s an added bonus, isn’t it?

      • They are trying to sell the idea to normalise it, the real use for it being that you homosexuals can have children as well as the tranny women.
        I don’t for one minute think men will want wombs to be able to share reproductive ‘burdens’.

        Hopefully it will prove impossible because there is no room in a man’s body for a foetus to grow, so you’ll be the one scratching your glitter off in disappointment.

        • Linus

          There’s no room inside a woman’s body for a foetus to grow either. That’s why the belly expands during pregnancy.

          In any case, I don’t see what all the fuss is about anyway. As advances are made in biotech, it seems logical to me that the real demand will not be for transplanted uteruses, but rather for exowombs. A portable pouch that combines biological and electronic elements for gestation outside the body.

          It’s science fiction at the moment of course. But demand will drive its development as the technology becomes available. Having children will then be possible for all couples/throuples/partnered communities. Or even for single people, perhaps via cloning or parthenogenic developments.

          Reproduction as a thing that invades and damages a woman’s body is likely to become obsolete. But not tomorrow. Although possibly the day after. What can happen will happen whether Christians bleat about it or not. That’s the lesson that history teaches us.

          • Of course women’s bodies are designed for purpose from the expanding hips to the curved spine and larger bottom that lends balance to the skeleton when the tummy is fully distended.

            So you suggesting we become like Kangaroos, I don’t think that would work. Why not grow humans in the laboratory as Aldus Huxley suggests. Then you can order different types of humans for different things. You can order a brown eyed, dark skinned, dark haired baby girl of high intelligence destined to become a design engineer and live to 210!

          • Linus

            Personally I would have nothing against growing foetuses in hatcheries, however I think it’s likely that parents would want to be more involved in gestation, so a portable exowomb device they could lug about and go coo-coo at would probably prove a popular choice. If nothing else, it would get them used to heaving the weight of a child and its car seat about. Good training for parenthood, don’t you think?

            As for ordering up the kind of baby you’d like from a menu, that goes without saying. One could imagine collecting one’s exowomb from the exowomb store preloaded with the embryo of one’s choice.

            But then who knows what the future will bring. I speak of possibilities rather than certainties. Time will tell what actually happens.

  • len

    It seems some will do anything to prove how’ liberal’ they are, even painting their vehicles with rainbow colours.
    Following without knowing where one is going seems to be all the rage nowadays?.

    • David

      The blind are leading the blind.

    • IanCad

      But Len !! They Do know; and that for sure. Their certainity is of an abiding faith in the wisdom of man.

  • David

    Now that much of society has cast off the wholesome framework and guidance of the Christian world view, hedonism, confusion and delusion are leading to a dark destructive instability. The rejection of faith has also led to the rejection of reasoned thinking.
    Humans are made in the image of God, so when we forget who God is and what His laws say, we also lose sight of who and what we are. Steadily humanity, which is trying to reinvent itself, is in fact becoming a parody of what we really are. The result of all this puny human effort is to create a hell on earth, hell being in many senses the absence of God. Our present age is beginning to feel like the one described by Augustine in “The City of God against the Pagans”
    But amidst all this chaos the conservative, traditional Church still stands as an oasis of hope and truth. As always we will survive and eventually flourish again as God’s truth is eternal. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.