Episcopal Eloi Morlock 2
Church of England

Primates' Meeting 2016: separating the Eloi from the Morlocks

 

Primates’ Meeting, Canterbury: stardate 2016. These are the continuing prophetic voyages of Justin Welby. His continuing mission: to explore strange new reconciliations; to seek out new wine and new creations; to boldly go where no archbishop has gone before..

..if the other senior bishops of the Worldwide Anglican Communion will let him.

But they are divided. You see, there are two kinds of bishop at the Primates’ Meeting: the episcopal Eloi and episcopal Morlocks. And whichever side of the theo-political-sexuality divide you happen to fall determines which primates you believe eat grapes and listen to harps in the Garden of Eden, and which ugly suckers live underground and sweat night and day to maintain the ancient machinery of a bygone civilisation.

The Eloi live in the light; the Morlocks dwell in darkness. And yet the two species are symbiotic. The Eloi get togas and grapes from the Morlocks, but the Morlocks don’t eat grapes; they eat Eloi. And then (just to complicate things) there are Über-Morlocks, who look a bit like angels of light, with telepathic and telekinetic powers for mind control and world domination. In their respective traditions and muddled existences, each finds goodness and right action. Morlocks are essentially providers, and Eloi are very tasty.

Much of the media commentary on this Primates’ Meeting focuses on this Manichæan division. To the liberal progressives who yearn for equality and justice, the traditionalists are Morlocks. If you seek to uphold biblical doctrine, church tradition and moral orthodoxy, you are an Eloi only in the Catholic Herald, and only then when it’s in heightened ecumenical mode. In the binary world of good vs evil, the Eloi are those who preach wisdom, love and the virtues of same-sex marriage. The Morlocks demand that Justin Welby uphold the Word of God without compromise. If he doesn’t make a stand for conviction and truth, they’ll eat him.

And so the world perceives the Anglican Communion, and not one morsel of it is remotely tasty. All the dedicated hours and days of thought and prayer about sacred mission and the deep contemplation of the things of God are subsumed to a BBC/Guardian report of gay Eloi trying on purple togas; or a Telegraph/Mail account of which Morlock got to eat which Eloi and whether it tasted of chicken or goat burger. But this Primates’ Meeting is make or break; even the promised end. We’ve heard of African and Asian bishops threatening to demand repentance from their North American brethren for ordaining active-homosexual bishops and seeing fit to join two men or two women in Holy Matrimony. And if there isn’t immediate repentance, they warn of boycott, schism and Anglican Apocalypse. If the Inclusive/Accepting/Changing-Attitude-minded recidivists refuse to turn from the sin of sanctifying Sodom and the pansexuality of the West, the GAFCON biblicists will walk straight out of Justin Welby’s Primates’ Meeting in Canterbury and hold their own authoritative council in Jaywick.

Advanced crosier-rattling, perhaps. How would such importunate penance be manifest? Flagellation? Reciting the XXXIX Articles? Saying five ‘Hail Cranmers’? God knows what Jesus would say. Imagine the followers of Apollos and the followers of Cephas gathered in the Canterbury crypt with the Son of God, but before anything could be uttered of the Great Commission, feeding the poor or healing the sick, the followers of Apollos demand that the followers of Cephas repent, for they are clearly in the wrong (cf Gal 2:1). ‘He that is without the need for repentance among you, let him first demand repentance’?

The Archbishop of Canterbury is not an Anglican pope (despite the best efforts of Rowan Williams to make him one, kind of). He has no powers to impose doctrinal orthodoxy, excommunicate dissenters or expel entire provinces. Nor does he have the authority to command another bishop from another province to believe or propagate any particular moral teaching, and it is religiously illiterate of the media (and certain Christians) to convey his ‘inaction’ as character weakness or ecclesial incompetence. Equally, the British Crown does not and cannot stamp its supreme-governance ecclesial authority on any church in the Worldwide Anglican Communion except that of England. All the other regions have developed their owns expressions of Anglicanism over two or three centuries, and they are reconciled in fellowship through humility, mutual respect and commitment to a common mission. It is an ecumenical body only because Henry VIII declared England an empire, and Britain went on to establish one. The Anglican Communion is just a loose federation of contextual ecclesiologies; a trans-national mechanism by which Anglicans may fellowship with one another across borders; a consultative spiritual authority without any legal authority at all.

That is the historic, legal and political reality. If there are inter or intra-continental disagreements over biblical interpretation, the bishops either sit down and talk about them like grown-ups, or they stomp out and slam the door like cantankerous teenagers. No one has any power to slap anyone else: the Archbishop of Canterbury is merely primus inter pares; a symbol of global communion. The Mother Church might glower and hiss at the rebels: “Wait ’til your father gets home.” But she is impotent to admonish and, ultimately, daddy never comes home. The Worldwide Anglican Communion is a no-parent family.

But family it is, in all its Protestant/Liberal-Evangelical, Conservative/Liberal-Anglo-Catholic diversity. These factions may squabble, scream and hurl the TV remote control at one another in anger. That’s what families do. They may lie as they vie for supremacy in the household; they may misrepresent, conceal the truth, poke the hamster or kick the cat. That’s what families do. It’s messy. We fall out, but we’re still family. We can storm out and hide, but we’re still family. We can move out altogether and set up a new home, but the ties of blood are stronger than a change of postcode. And in the obdurate ‘non-speaking’ phase between determined orthodox righteousness and dogged progressive rigidity, we may sit in our separate rooms of self-satisfaction and purity, but our thoughts inevitably drift towards each other, and so might our prayers, because we’re family, and you can’t ‘un-family’ yourself: it’s in the blood.

The media caricature of episcopal Eloi and Morlocks suits this ‘orthodox’ vs ‘progressive’ spat: it’s either homophobes vs reformists, or traditionalists vs heretics. Theological nuance and ecclesial viae mediae get lost in the fray. If you’re looking for prayerful reflection and profound consultation on the Apostolic Faith, you won’t find it on the BBC or in the pages of the Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Mail or Independent.. because that is not the drama the media want the Primates’ Meeting to be, not least because it is no drama at all. Stories of good disagreement just don’t sell copy.

If a bishop or group of bishops do walk out of this Primates’ Meeting, they are doing nothing but walking out of a meeting. It doesn’t mean they are walking out of the Worldwide Anglican Communion or abandoning the Anglican Consultative Council, because it isn’t at all clear on what legal basis they may do so, not least because the Communion and Council have no structural-theological foundation and no one is under any obligation to do anything except consult. The Christian family are all those who are washed by the blood and share in the baptism of Christ. Walking out of a meeting neither un-washes nor de-baptises; we remain eternally Christian and provisionally Anglican, awaiting the consummation of Christ, the great reconciler. We are one family whatever the magnitude of rightness or wrongness of any doctrinal issue, regardless of whoever throws the biggest hissy fit or mounts the most militant media campaign.

It is tediously boring and disappointingly undramatic to say so, but the most likely outcome of the Primates’ Meeting 2016 will be that the differences which obtained at the outset will remain at the end. There will be no agreed statement and no authoritative declaration on marriage and sexuality, principally because Justin Welby did not convene this gathering to formulate such, but instead to work through the question of how the Anglican family might live together through profound disagreement. In reality, of course, the Communion has been impaired since the 1990s, but it is still the Communion and all provinces are in communion with it. Some consider themselves to be in full communion with each other; others in partial communion. In some cases, the bilateral bonds of communion are broken entirely, but they remain in communion with the Communion, despite that Communion being broken by uncommunicative communicants.

If we are united, it is only in our shortcomings, failings and brokenness. And yet, despite this, there are many cohesive bonds between us which nudge us toward the edge of heaven. We should seek to hold, foster and strengthen such bonds wherever we can, and, in good conscience, do so. There is no pleasurable expository end to the exploration and exegesis of koinonia.

  • Anton

    The same ancient texts which tell us of Jesus’s crucifixion are the same texts which preclude liberal morality.

    There is always a tension within a family. But at some point some brave man of God will cry out for the scriptures, heedless of consequence, “Here I stand; I can do no other”.

    • Bob

      You’ve got the wrong church. Your words sound like the plaintive cry of the Catholic prelate who, having worked his way through all the altar servers, has quite literally arrived at the end of his ability to “do” anyone.

      • Anton

        My comment was for believers.

  • carl jacobs

    Fretting about the Anglican Communion in 2016 seems eerily similar to fretting about the League of Nations in 1938. The Institution goes forward because institutions tend to preserve themselves. But there is a hollowness at the core that cannot be denied. Form has replaced substance. Ritual has replaced conviction.

    The mortician puts rouge on the cheeks of the corpse and pretends to see some measure of vitality and health. But breath does not come forth. The eyes do not see. And the skin is cold to the touch.

    “Poor soul. Is it gone?”

    • steroflex

      If you strip away the vestments and the buildings, please tell me what remains?
      The bureaucracy that is what. And the quota.

  • Inspector General

    An interesting development has taken place these last few years. Up and down the country, all the gay bars are calling time. The one in Gloucester closed last year. It was the only one in Gloucestershire. No dark reason behind its demise, the incumbent wasn’t forced out – there just wasn’t the trade to keep the place going.

    In other words, homosexual types are abandoning their exclusivity (save in places like London, Brighton and Manchester) and are re-joining society. It’s as if they finally have recognition for whom they are, are satisfied with that, and are content.

    Could we then have a situation in the church that you have with heterosexual divorcees in say the RCC? Realising that they cannot go through with a new marriage having had their old one dissolved. And that homosexuals now recognise that the church is unable to grant them their every single whim?

    Of course, the militants in the aforementioned cities will never lay down their arms, not until society is suitably gayed. But they are few in number and their wailings can be viewed in Pink News’ comments section. All bishops should go there and try to figure out the mindset of the contributors. They are ALL atheists to a man (it is all men who are outraged, the lesbians are somewhat wonderful in that they just get on with it). The ‘men’ include fake women as well – no hormone or surgery is ever going to change the effeminate yet still feisty male mind, Mr Emily…

  • disqus_N9Jawtu8Uw

    I’m sorry Dr Cranmer but what you have said is not really correct.

    All Ministers and Priests swear to uphold Scripture in the service and belief in Jesus’ words and they do so using the XXXIX articles. Yet there are priests who disregard parts of Jesus’ words and parts of the Scriptures that they personally don’t like, in spite of having sworn that they wouldn’t do that. Their oaths are therefore a clear lie.

    Worryingly, the media will probably use the term “African bishop(s)” to dismiss views that come from Scripture and let the reader wrongly assume that “African bishop(s)” are backward. The action of the media will almost certainly be thoroughly racist. Most African bishops have more degrees from UK universities and Western world universities on the subjects than the so-called intelligent westerners. I unfortunately expect the media to display such subtle but deep racism.

    The idea that upholding a Scriptural view that take in a comprehensive examination of Scripture is either homophobic, or hateful, or any other variant, is totally ridiculous.

    The word may accept us where we are BUT it calls us to CHANGE, not stand still and carry on. We are all unworthy like St Paul and we all constantly make mistakes just like St Paul (Romans 7: 14-25).

    My prayer is that the media will respect all bishops’ views, particularly African bishops, and avoid the racism.

  • The ivory handle of a Crozier used by St. Gregory, the pope who helped establish Christianity in England in the sixth century, has been loaned to Canterbury by the Vatican. It was Gregory who sent St. Augustine to England to help convert the Anglo-Saxons.

    The handle will be on view to the public and the 38 Anglican prelates gathering this weekend to attend what is seen as a make-or-break meeting of the 80 million-strong Anglican Communion. A Communion that is bitterly divided on the subjects of accepting homosexuality, the ordination of women as priests and their consecration as bishops.

    The Crozier handle is perhaps a reminder of the wider divide in the Body of Christ when one group of ‘progressives’ 500 years ago shunned unity under Papal authority and walked out of the Western Christian Church.

    • carl jacobs

      How’s that new Pope Francis Jefferts-Shori working out for you, Jack? Are you excited about submitting to his Papal authority?

      • He’s working out fine for Jack. Why do you ask? Popes come in all shapes and sizes.

        Papal authority is bound by the Word of God, past teachings, Sacred Tradition, and is exercised in communion with other worldwide bishops. In the event of a serious divide, the Pope, as Christ’s Shepherd, invested with His authority, will (very rarely) make the final decision on matters of faith and morals. In this he will always be constrained by the deposit of faith held by the Church.

        On the headline issues dividing the Anglican Communion the Catholic Church has settled and unchangeable doctrine.

        • carl jacobs
          • It will never happen, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

          • Administrator has also blocked youtube – something to do with an absence of security certificates.

          • carl jacobs

            It was a scene from “The King and I.” Very apropos, I thought.

            And what kind of Left-wing fascist is running your hospital’s internet link?

          • A national company called Smoothwall. It’s widely used by the public sector.

          • chiefofsinners

            Sorry to be reasonable, but I expect most of the blocked sites are because of children in the hospital. We wouldn’t want to expose them to the bile of Bob.

          • This is true, Chief. But the Rosary where all that is broadcast is the prayers the Our Father, the Hail Mary and the Glory be to God. This is incomprehensible to Jack.

          • CliveM

            They’ll be heretics and Protestants, Happy Jack. Probably Free Presbyterian……

          • Well, it is South West Scotland.

          • Btw, Jack is missing Mr M. as the Wifi administrator at the hospital has blocked the site. How is he keeping these days?

            Interestingly a number of Jack’s favoured sites have been blocked for odd reasons. “Pray the Rosary” has been blocked when all it does is recite the Rosary. Two of Cranmer’s articles have been blocked midway through too. One for being intolerant and the other because of alcohol and tobacco (!).

          • carl jacobs

            Haven’t checked Mundabor in a month or so.

            You should complain about the Wifi censorship. That isn’t right.

          • Apparently, the administrator role has been outsourced to a national company called “Smoothwall”. Censorship is left to them.

          • The Explorer

            Smoothwall. If that crops up as a name in the future, it’ll probably be Linus.

          • Martin

            HJ

            That’s rather funny as there is a opensource firewall called Smoothwall.

            Another idea to circumvent it might be to use a virtual private network to connect to the internet. It would also enhance your security, hiding your details from whoever else was on the network.

          • Maybe when Jack has more energy he will query the censorship and especially that of Christian sites. For now, he is grateful for access, albeit limited.

          • Hi happy Jack

            Even my well COOL blog has been censored by a library I use under the category of “Weapons, Violence, Gore and Hate”(?!!)

          • LOL …. That made Jack chuckle.

          • The Explorer

            Can you remember which thread was censored for intolerance?

          • ‘Rain, Floods and the Judgement of God’ for intolerance and the abused dog article for alcohol and tobacco. Jack can still access them via Disgus.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you. I missed the rain one, and will have to check it out.

          • Oh and Mr m is still on top form . His latest post is “Hershey and blasphemy from Francis own mouth”.

          • The Explorer

            Hershey?

          • I’m guessing I should have said heresy??

          • That’ll probably be because of Pope Francis’ recent video.

          • CliveM

            Do tell, why would that be a problem?

          • Watch it – Jack hasn’t been able to yet though he has read a transcript. It seems to be a series of vague and unclear statements. Here’s a Traditional take on it:

            http://thewildvoice.org/pope-francis-one-world-religion/

          • CliveM

            Ok I can see what concerns the traditionalists. Except for the use of the phrase “we are all the children of God” the rest is pretty anodyne.

            Which actually for me is the biggest criticism of it. I would hope for more depth.

          • There’s a danger in shallowness because it is open to all sorts of interpretations.

          • CliveM

            Or misinterpretation. He needs to be more careful in his language, or perhaps ‘precise’ would be a better word.

            He does seem to be winding up the traditionalists. Whether deliberately I can’t work out.

          • He’s no theologian and from what Jack can work out is trying to adopt more of a pastoral approach in what he sees as pagan times where people are ignorant of the Christian faith and the influence of Satan is great. However, Catholicism is a very rational system and its various elements cohere. He does need to be clearer as his words are often ambiguous.

          • CliveM

            I think to often, leaders in Churches worry that if the use difficult concepts and challenging language people will be put off.
            I think that’s wrong. Indeed I think by not being challenging, people are simply left bored and wondering “why bother”

          • He’s reaching out to “lost” Catholics who have become entangled in the secular world. However, Jack agrees with you the route adopted should never compromise or dilute God’s Truth.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Perhaps they use an external service.

          • Thank you, Martin. Jack is considering that. It is getting to be a bit of a pain.

    • disqus_N9Jawtu8Uw

      The Ven Bede records that one of the first things St Augustine did on arrival in England was to meet the Bishops.

      A wise person would ask “If St Augustine brings Christianity to England then who are these Bishops?” and then discovers that St Augustine didn’t bring Christianity but actually brought allegiance to Rome. Christianity was already here.

      • We know Christianity was present in Britain and in parts of England.

        • Martin

          HJ

          However not the power of the Roman bishop.

          • That’s the way God planned it, Martin.

          • carl jacobs

            At least according to a Roman bishop …

          • … not forgetting scripture.

          • carl jacobs

            Which of course says nothing at all about either Rome or bishops … at least until a Roman bishop said it did.

          • chiefofsinners

            I think scripture does say something about Rome. Revelation 17:9, a woman sitting on seven hills. Remind you of anything?

          • Hasn’t Rome got eight hills? The Janiculum is not included because it’s across the River Tiber from the ancient quarter. And Jerusalem has seven hills. So too has Sheffield.

          • Anton

            And Constantinople – my best guess for the endtime world capital. There’s even a list of cities built on seven hills, here:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_claimed_to_be_built_on_seven_hills

          • Jack notes Mecca is in that list too.

          • Old Nick

            And Torquay

          • dannybhoy

            Lol!
            No surprise there…

          • Pubcrawler

            Cambridge is missing: Senate House Hill, Market Hill, Peas Hill, St Andrews Hill, Pound Hill, Honey Hill, Castle Hill.

          • Anton

            Which is amusing given that apart from Castle Hill the place is flat as a pancake.

          • Pubcrawler

            There’s been some filling in over the last 800 years…

            And, as I’m sure you know, Pound Hill, Honey Hill and Castle Hill are all essentially the same hill.

          • Anton

            You too have crawled the pubs round there?

          • Pubcrawler

            Right next to the alma mater.

          • Anton

            Fitzwilliam? Magdalene? Clare annexe? St Johns? Are you old enough to remember the Cow and Calf on Pound Hill?

          • Pubcrawler

            One of those. And yes. Also the Merton Arms.

          • Anton

            The Merton Arms as run by Gordon; I remember him well. It’s now St Johns accommodation. And the Oyster Tavern next door (now a restaurant) which served Ruddles County. And the Rose and Crown opposite, which became the Town and Gown. And up the hill the Isaac Newton, still of that name but now sadly enlarged and modernised…

          • Pubcrawler

            The Oyster I just missed. The Town and Gown then became the Rope and Twine, then the Sino Tap, and is now called The Punter. The County Arms is now called the Architect.

          • Anton

            I’ve got your age! The Oyster became a wine bar called Crusts then a restaurant which has undergone various changes of style and name.

            That’s a lot of changes of name in a short time you describe for the Town and Gown, as not too long ago it was subtitled “the Camptown Races” and was I think a gay bar. I was sorry to see the County Arms change name, but there’s the Castle opposite.

            One of the most amazing pubs I was ever in was the Harvest Home in Fen Ditton in the early 1980s. Long closed, it was run by an elderly lady called Mabel who went down into the cellar to draw your pint. The clientele were wonderfully old-world without being fuddyduddy.

          • Pubcrawler

            Yes, the T&G did thrive on the ‘pink pound’. The last gay bar in Cambridge was the Bird in Hand, but that’s also now a restaurant.

            I first heard about the Harvest Home only recently, wish I’d known about it at the time.

          • Anton

            There was a gay pub not too long ago on the junction of Elizabeth Way and one of the roads parallel to Chesterton Road (the junction was closed to motor traffic). I can’t recall its name but long ago I think it was called the Fleur de Lys. In case you are wondering, a friend ran an electronics business nearby.

          • Pubcrawler

            It was indeed the Fleur de Lys. It later went a bit ‘bistro’ and the other Rose & Crown on Newmarket Road became the gay venue of choice before moving to the Bird. All are now closed: the Fleur demolished and replaced with flats, the Rose & Crown the offices of a lettings agency.

          • Anton

            Yes, I’d noticed that a block of flats was on the site. Next time I’m in Cambridge (every few weeks), shall I let you know here which pub I’m in when and you can inspect (and recognise me by) the 1979 pub map of Cambridge I’ll have on the table? An important document and we probably have mutual friends.

          • Pubcrawler

            Yes, let’s do that.

          • Anton

            Grand!

          • chiefofsinners

            No, Rome was not founded on eight hills. The old walls surround seven. Horace, Virgil and Cicero all refer to it as the city on seven hills, because it was widely known in this way at the time. We might also look to the Catholic Encyclopaedia which says “It is within the city of Rome, called the city of seven hills, that the entire area of Vatican State proper is now confined.”

            In Revelation the energies of the Satanic world come against the city of God, so the woman, the beast and the seven hills of Rev. 17 could not possibly be Jerusalem itself.
            While Mecca is an obviously attractive possibility in the current climate, in the language of the time Rome would be clearly understood to be intended.

          • “In Revelation the energies of the Satanic world come against the city of God, so the woman, the beast and the seven hills of Rev. 17 could not possibly be Jerusalem itself.”
            Why not?
            At the time Revelation was written Rome as the centre of Christianity had not yet been established. As well as Mecca, Constantinople is also built on seven hills.

          • chiefofsinners

            The city on seven hills is also called Babylon, figuratively of course since there was no Babylonian power at that time.
            Contrast the description of Babylon in Revelation chapter 18 with Revelation 20:9, where Jerusalem is described as “the camp of God’s people, the city he loves”.

            By the way Peter, finishing his first letter, writes “She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings.” This is generally thought to be a reference to Rome. If this is so then the case is closed – especially for Catholics, since it is Rome’s first bishop who was writing. Babylon=Rome=the city on seven hills.
            No offence intended to current Catholicism – we are dealing with corruption in the future. Some would even say the Treaty of Rome is more relevant than the Catholic church in this context.

          • Anton

            I disagree. The question is: which city is it, and who is the associated scarlet whore of Babylon with whom the kings of the earth commit adultery, and who persecuted the faithful? At the time of the Reformation, Rome and the Roman Catholic church were the outstandingly obvious best guesses, because Catholic monarchs were in process of winning a worldwide empire in which the Roman Catholic church was expanding, and it also persecuted many faithful Christians who wished to worship outside it.

            The world did not go Roman Catholic, however, and is looking ever less likely to; while even in those countries where Catholicism is the main religion, that church holds greatly reduced political power.

            The scarlet woman could alternatively be a New Age syncretist system centred on the Antichrist/Beast future world dictator, or a financial system (already globalised) based on fiat currency (always a con) that is made the sole legal tender by the Antichrist as described in Revelation. She is not Islam, which is clearly male. I believe she is one of these two and that time will (fairly soon) show which. I do regret that many exegetes consider only one possibility and do not consider the several proposals against each other in the light of scripture and world politics.

            As for the city, Constantinople is also built on seven hills, was once formally known as New Rome, has been capital of the Roman Empire and of the Islamic caliphate, is strategically sited on the boundary between the heartlands of Islam and secular humanism – the two spiritual systems which will fight out what might be termed the Adversary’s world cup final to rule the world – and is strategically sited geographically too: Napoleon once said that if all the world were one State then Constantinople would obviously be its capital. And look at the goods traded out of the city in Revelation: they have something of the Middle East about them, compared to Rome. Moreover it’s on the sea, as Revelation suggests., whereas Jerusalem (another proposal) isn’t.

          • chiefofsinners

            I think the woman is figuratively everything that Satan orchestrates against God in this world. In New Testament times this was embodied in the Roman Empire. Subsequently the centre of human pride has moved around. The USA is currently called the great Satan by some. The geography doesn’t really matter, it’s the spirit of antichrist.

          • It’s there in black and white in scripture ….

          • carl jacobs

            I do hereby declare, pronounce, define, and proclaim that Matthew 16 establishes in black and white that the Pope is the supreme head of the Church on Earth. If anyone does not give his assent to this declaration just because Matthew 16 doesn’t actually mention Popes or Rome, let him be anathema.

            It certainly does.

          • it’s not just Mathew 16, now is it? There are a number of scriptural verses supporting Peter as the Christ’s Vicar – His steward holding the Keys – invested with his authority. You either hold this died with Peter or this Apostolic authority was passed on. The early Church certainly accepted the bishop of Rome as the final authority in settling theological disputes. It was and is a part of the development of the Church.

          • carl jacobs

            No, it’s not just Matthew 16. But Matthew 16 serves as a representative template for the basic technique employed.

          • You don’t accept Apostolic succession?

            It’s a part of the creed that the Church is: one, holy, catholic and apostolic. This is professed today in the Nicene Creed, first expressed by the First Council of Constantinople in the year 381 in its revision of the original Nicene Creed. It is recited in the liturgy of Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and many other Protestant churches.

          • dannybhoy

            Galatians 2>
            “7 On the contrary, when they* saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James* and Cephas* and John*, who seemed to be pillars*, perceived the grace that was given to me, they* gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they* to the circumcised. 10 Only, they* asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.”

            *They, no him. No overall leader but a joint leadership, and in fact St Peter’s apostolic ministry is to the circumcised, not to the gentiles.

          • Then explain why Peter in Acts is clearly represented as first amongst the Apostles? Besides, the Church structure developed and very early recognition was given to the bishop of Rome as the arbiter and final authority in disputes.

          • dannybhoy

            I don’t have to, Jack. What you have to do is explain why St Paul write Galatians 2 without recognising St Peter as the sole Head of the Church.

            The Head of the Church is Christ Jesus, Jack.

            Colossians 1:18 (ESVUK)

            “18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.”

          • dannybhoy

            Re Peter in Acts 1, he obviously took the lead – we see that he was a natural leader from the Gospels. That does not prove however, that Jesus intended to build the Church with Peter as the first Pope.
            It doesn’t matter much to me, as a Catholic who accepts Christ as Saviour and who believes in sanctification through the Holy Spirit is a fellow Christian. It is not my job to change or condemn people, only to explain why I believe what I believe.

          • Here’s a good run down of the Catholic answer to your objections.
            https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4319

          • *sigh* … Jack, like all Catholics, is well aware Christ is the Head of the Church, Danny.
            However, He clearly left a Vicar and entrusted that person with His authority as His steward until He returns in glory. That’s what the Keys signify. As for scripture, there are many passages that seem contradictory which is one reason why a Magisterium is required to provide a clear understanding.

          • dannybhoy

            “However, He clearly left a Vicar and entrusted that person with His authority as His steward until He returns in glory.”

            (Danny’s sigh is even longer than Jack’s…)

            Mark 10>
            ” But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
            44And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
            45For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

            1st Peter 1>
            “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
            To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,”

            An apostle, not ‘the’ apostle..

            2>
            “4 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in Scripture:
            “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
            a cornerstone chosen and precious,
            and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

            No mention of Peter as being the stone or the rock there Jack.

            5>
            ” So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:

          • The pope is known as the Servant of the Servants. Jesus set the model at the Last Supper. You will have to answer the scriptural basis for both an Apostolic Church and a leader of this Church.

          • dannybhoy

            There is no need for a Pope, full stop.
            Those verses I included from Peter’s letter makes it abundantly clear that he was not aware of having any special responsibilities to the Lord other than that of being an Apostle.
            Furthermore, he was called to be an Apostle to the Jews, not the Jews and the Gentiles. His letter makes that clear, as does Paul in Galatians.

          • Lot of assertions in there, Danny. As bishop of Rome, where there was a large Jewish settlement, he would also be Shepherd to the gentiles. Do read scripture where it is abundantly clear Peter had a unique role amongst the Apostles – and one recognised by them too.

          • dannybhoy

            Right, end of discussion!
            I am not going to change my views based as they are on the clear evidence of Scripture.
            And you dear Jack, are as convince that your view is the correct one.
            To continue is to run the risk of defaming our faith, so let’s agree to differ huh?

          • It’s not defaming our faith at all to politely – even heatedly – dispute our differences. Read up on the early Church Councils where fisty-cuffs were not uncommon. It’s an Anglican and progressive ‘thing’ to be nice all the time.

            You really should seriously consider the Catholic apologetics on this matter. Jack has thought long and hard about the Protestant position. It is pivotal in the division between Roman Catholics, the Orthodox Church and Protestants. Jack has posted a number of articles on the subject. An excellent website is Catholic Culture.

          • dannybhoy

            ” Read up on the early Church Councils where fisty-cuffs were not uncommon. It’s an Anglican and progressive ‘thing’ to be nice all the time.”

            I am not an Anglican and I am certainly not nice – just most of the time.
            I am first, second and last, a Christian with no loyalties to any denomination whatsoever. A Christian seeks life, not conformity to a hierarchy.

            2nd Corinthians 3>

            ” 17 Now the Lord[e] is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord,[f] are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.”

            As I have said many times now, when men organise themselves into an organisation with a hierarchy, inevitably empire building, rank pulling, corruption and coverups will follow.
            We see this especially in the Catholic and Anglican churches.
            As a general principle for disagreements amongst Christians, once both or all parties have made their positions and arguments clear, we should agree to disagree.

          • dannybhoy

            “The pope is known as the Servant of the Servants.”
            But he isn’t is he Jack?
            He lives in a grand palace, has people running around after him and so on and so forth.
            Are we to believe that the Apostles lived like this, or wore gold knick knacks on their person?
            Nooooooo!
            This all derived from the Ceasars and the Roman Empire Jack.

          • One is talking about an attitude and disposition. How the pope lives is hardly relevant. Think of the worldwide responsibilities he carries. He is also a Head of State. A bureaucracy is inevitable.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Really, can you show me where the Bible gives instructions for setting up hierarchies? All I can find is instructions for elders and deacons (plural in both cases) in each individual congregation.

          • We’ve been over this territory a few times and so has Albert. We’ll never agree so let’s accept we see Apostolic Church and ordained priests and bishops differently.

          • Martin

            HJ

            And you’ve never managed an answer.

          • Come now. An answer that satisfies you would be impossible, Martin.

          • Martin

            HJ

            A Scriptural one always satisfies.

      • Old Nick

        One of my few gripes with Bede is that he so clearly disliked the British (as opposed to the Irish) Church – largely, one suspects because much of his information about it came from Nothelm in Kent.

    • Anton

      Who gives a hoot about a crosier? Let the Bible that Augustine of Canterbury brought over from Gregory (kept in the Parker Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge) be put on display instead. Perhaps the bishops of the Anglican Communion might even read it.

      • Well, one doesn’t preclude the other. Indeed, the two may well go together. Jack was wondering if this Crosier head might be a signal from the Vatican about Apostolic authority. As for reading scripture, it’s the theological revisions that are problematic. Most revisionist modernists are very knowledgeable about the bible and adept at misusing scripture.

        • Anton

          I was having a dig at the liberals – who question the scriptures while being dishonest enough to deny the fact – and on this occasion let us unite across the Reformation divide against them, because you have them too.

          • Jack agrees, Anton. The Catholic Church is plagued with revisionist modernisers – and some in very senior positions too. They have to be tackled in all the Christian churches..

          • carl jacobs

            But … but … you have “the bishop of Rome as the final authority in settling theological disputes.” Bishop Francis. And his Synod on the Family. By definition, he can’t be a “revisionist modernizer.”

          • Why can’t the current pope “by definition” not be a revisionist moderniser? Or any pope for that matter. Let’s wait on the final outcome of the Synod. There’s nothing to say a pope cannot be a heretic. The question will be whether there is an attempt to impose a novel or contradictory teaching on the Church.

          • carl jacobs

            I see. So the Pope is the Final Authority … except when he isn’t. I get it now.

          • God is the final authority, Carl. The Holy Spirit has communicated His Truth to the Church and this is reflected in its dogma and doctrines. And this deposit of faith is entrusted to the pope to protect, develop and hand on to future generations.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            I just quoted you saying the Pope was the final authority for settling theological disputes. So if the Pope says he isn’t imposing a contradictory teaching on the church then by definition he isn’t imposing a contradictory teaching on the church. That’s what it means to be the final authority.

          • Bob

            Silly!

            Dodo is the final authority. He speaks on behalf of God, whether he’s uttering pretentious multisyllabic pseudo-theological jargon that means precisely nothing, or hurling playground insults at his enemies like a vicious little girl.

          • “hurling playground insults at his enemies like a vicious little girl.”

            Hmm …

          • Bob

            What, more like an adolescent girl, do you think?

            I’m not so sure. You’re too old for your behaviour to be dismissed as hormonal.

          • You do realise that your comments are actually more about your own inner demons and struggles and are projections onto others. It’s embarrassing to witness.

          • Bob

            How’s the health, Dodo? No relapses or further diagnoses of imaginary illnesses to report? Don’t feel the time is right to wring a little more sympathy out of the poor gullible fools you’ve tricked into trusting you?

            Ah well, more fool them, I suppose. But you can’t pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. You’re a proven fraud and liar Dodo. That much is established fact. Are you a reformed character? I don’t think so. All anyone needs to do is read your posts to understand what you really are.

          • Someone recently commented: “Anyone who reads his comments knows they drip with disdain, hatred and malevolence.” Oh, it was you.
            Simple projection.

          • Bob

            That’s right Dodo, trot out the psychology jargon and try to fool the sheep here into believing that your opponent must be sick in the head. What other reason could there be for anyone to doubt your word?

            Does the phrase “track record” mean anything to you, old fraud?

            Only the terminally naive believe in self-declared redemption. Dodo is still Dodo. As malevolent and self-serving as ever. Believe what he says at your peril.

          • “I’m fascinated by your ability to ignore the rage that so clearly motivates you … but I suppose those who suffer from such things are always the last to realise how afflicted they are.”

          • Bob

            Typical Dodo tactics. When the case against him is irrefutable, he tries to divert attention away from it by attacking and undermining his accuser. He never addresses the accusation. He just hopes it will be forgotten if the accuser can be silenced.

            Say what you like about me, Dodo. It has no bearing on the charges against you. Whether I’m angry or not doesn’t alter the reality and the enormity of the anger and hatred that motivate you.

            True contrition can be judged not by protestations of reform and repentence, but rather by real actions. Your manner of engaging with opponents continues to demonstrate your basic manipulative cyncism. Christ has not changed you. He’s just another weapon in the war you wage on all who oppose you.

            Once a liar and a deceiver, always a liar and a deceiver. Such is Dodo. His desperate attempts to silence his critics show him for what he is: incapable of answering a charge and therefore guilty as charged. Trust him at your peril.

          • So sad ….

          • Bob

            Yes Dodo, if I were you, I too would be sad. But it can’t be helped, not at this late stage of the game. You are what you are. There’s no return to innocence for someone like you.

          • “You are what you are. There’s no return to innocence for someone like you.”
            This is just more projection and goes to the core of your existential bitterness. Remember your Catholic education. There is always hope. Is this why you vent you spleen on Christians? You hate yourself because of the Cross you recognise yet refuse to carry and have retreated into self love and pride?

          • Bob

            Poor Dodo, he sinned, he was caught in the act, he pretended to repent, he was forgiven, and now he thinks he’s free to take out his hatred and anger on anyone who crosses his path by pretending to be interested in their spiritual welfare.

            You’re damaged goods, Dodo. Utterly unconvincing. Nobody with any common sense is going to let a convicted liar and deceiver like you anywhere near them. Concentrate on your own salvation – if you pray hard enough to that imaginary god of yours, you might be able to convince yourself that a lifetime of dishonesty and malice is forgiven. A clue though – whether god exists or not, repetance has to be genuine in order to procure peace of mind. So don’t waste your time. You don’t regret a single one of the evil, hurtful and selfish actions that constitute your entire life, do you?

          • You must stop this projection, Linus.

          • So long as it is consistent with past teachings. Remember the furore about “Humae Vitae”? Here was a pope operating within the confines of the deposit of faith despite many Western bishops and lay members of the Church wanting artificial birth control sanctioned.

          • No … except when he operates outside of the parameters of his role. He is the guardian of the deposit of faith. There have been popes with heretical ideas in the Church’s past. She survived this.

  • steroflex

    Seen from a Catholic point of view, the Church of England is too woolly.
    But isn’t it better to look at it as a Protestant church – like the Methodists?
    They split all over the place, but it really doesn’t matter much since at the end of the day they all sort of get on with each other.
    One thing that would be very nice is if the Anglicans could please abandon their out of date Victorian clothes. They look really silly nowadays and on women they look, frankly, very ugly and ridiculous.

    • dannybhoy

      Throw out ALL the regalia and they might then start focussing on what they actually stand for.

      • CliveM

        I like a bit of theatre and formality.

        I miss it at the Church I attend.

        • dannybhoy

          Humph!
          I so totally dislike it.
          Maybe I have a strong Puritan streak, but I like being a part of a congregation where the word of God is preached, I feel God speak to me through it, and then when we sing hymns and choruses we sense the presence of the Holy Spirit come down amongst us.
          I like it where there are freewill offerings, where personal needs are met through the congregation and secretly..
          I’d rather have that than all the robes and rituals in the world.

          • CliveM

            I don’t see the two as being mutually exclusive.

            Sometimes services seem to hectic to me. All Churches have their ritual, for me some aids the focus on God, some detract from it.

            I don’t thing ritual or the relative lack of it is a bid issue however. For some it helps, for others it doesn’t.

          • dannybhoy

            No they’re not mutually exclusive, but I tell you what Clive, a Christian’s loyalty must be to our Lord and the Scriptures; not to a denomination.
            Denominations that emphasise adherence and obedience to a hierarch are just as vulnerable to corruption and abuse of power as the less structured churches.

          • CliveM

            The Tempter is everywhere, wrecking where he can.

            Where humans are, there you will find failure. I agree it happens across the denominational spectrum.

        • Vestments and liturgy are not about theatre and formality, Clive. Both represent in ritual and symbol the faith we follow. They should also serve to create an atmosphere of Divine worship and reverence. However, if one doesn’t believe in the rituals, as outward signs of channels of grace, then they are hollow performances for the edification of man and not God.

          • CliveM

            I agree HJ, I clearly wasn’t following my own advice and being a bit lazy with my language.

    • Martin

      Steroflex

      Could be just the women, mind the men don’t look too good either

    • wyclif

      Proper Anglican vestments (choir dress) actually look quite dignified next to what passes for vestments at my local post-V2 Roman Catholic shack, where the priest wears a chasuble that looks like my granny’s tablecloth that someone cut a hole out of the centre and slipped over his head.

  • The Explorer

    The censoring of Mr M at the hospital is a case of a Hershey bar.

    • ROFL! I don’t even know if it’s kosher….

    • Anyways , about to start a game of cludeo : which I fully intend to win this time.

      • The Explorer

        It was the Inspector, in the Library, with a whiskey bottle.

        • carl jacobs

          An empty Whiskey bottle, I trust. Wouldn’t want to waste any through spillage.

        • magnolia

          Who was the victim? I think I could hazard a little guess…

          • carl jacobs

            Mr Boddy, of course.

          • CliveM

            Wishful thinking……..

      • carl jacobs

        btw … the game is properly called “Clue.” I knew that you would want to be informed about this important mater.

        • chiefofsinners

          What is this mangling of our tongue?
          Presumably then the Inspector mourns someone called Do-. Americans live in the state of Colora, often in a home called a con.
          Does Hannah’s religion make her a Jewdo?

          • carl jacobs

            We Americans try to help where we can. But there is only so much we can do to repair these unwarranted disruptions that the British inflict upon the English language.

          • carl jacobs

            I actually think that Jewdo is a new martial art form developed in Israel.

            Thank you very much. I’m here all week.

          • Anton

            See Krav Maga.

  • The Explorer

    Is the chap in the middle wearing a mask, or has he just spent too long as a liberal bishop?

    • It’s Linus in his next incarnation.

      • The Explorer

        Love it! (But I suspect Linus may not.)

        • Bob

          Yep, that’s about your level. How nice to have all my suspicions about the childishness and immaturity of thwarted and powerless Christians confirmed.

          • The Explorer

            Interesting that Bob is presuming to speak on behalf of Linus. I thought Bob was shy about conceding the association.

          • Bob

            What, I can’t comment about your childish nastiness towards other people?

            Poor Linus, if he exists, that is. You Christians have form when it comes to making up fictional characters (or caricatures, more like) and then heaping abuse on them. Judas Iscariot is a case in point.

            I’ve never seen a post by this mythical Linus. I doubt he ever existed except as a sort of mass hallucination dreamed up by mentally unstable Christians with a persecution complex.

          • The Explorer

            Either that, or he deleted his identity. As did Tutanekai.

          • Bob

            There’s obvious truth, which people like you never want to face and label as “nastiness” when it gets in the way of your childish whims and fantasies, and there’s levity, when the level of crazy reaches proportions where the only response possible is derision and laughter.

            The Christian response to both of these is to completely abandon what they claim to believe in and behave like enraged infants.

          • The Explorer

            I’m fascinated by your ability to read rage into statements. It must be a reflection of your inner condition. As Wilde put it, Caliban wanting to see his own face in the glass.

          • dannybhoy

            Bob posts here because it’s cheaper than primal therapy and doesn’t upset the neighbours..

          • The Explorer

            In his Linus identity, Linus could afford primal therapy. In his Bob identity, maybe he can’t.

          • dannybhoy

            I wish he’d stuck to Linus. Linus was much more interesting.

          • The Explorer

            He had to get rid of him in order to deny making some of the statements he made. Linus said it? Prove it.

          • dannybhoy

            Very machiavellian. Do you think his husband knows?

          • The Explorer

            Who knows if he actually has a husband? Prove that he ever said he had one.

          • Pubcrawler

            The Internet never forgets, and HG did say he has everything in the archives.

          • Pubcrawler

            Perhaps this is the husband, deployed like some ventriloquist’s dummy.

          • You don’t actually believe that *story* about a faux ‘marriage’, do you?

          • dannybhoy

            I’m a very simple man Jack. I don’t expect people on a Christian blog to lie to me.

          • Bob

            I’m fascinated by your ability to ignore the rage that so clearly motivates you. Rage at anyone who questions your god-given right to impose your moral imperatives on everyone around you. It’s a pretty typical middle-aged male impotence syndrome, but I suppose those who suffer from such things are always the last to realise how afflicted they are.

            If you like Wilde quotes, how about this one: some cause happiness wherever they go, others whenever they go.

            Sound familiar? Ever heard relieved and nervous laughter break out in the room you’ve just left as you’re closing the door? If not, try replacing the batteries in your hearing aid.

          • The Explorer

            Pardon?

          • The Explorer

            Nice one. Haven’t used that Wilde quote before, so it’ll be a case of, “You will, Oscar, you will.”
            As a matter of interest, where am I imposing my moral imperatives on everyone around me?

          • Bob

            You routinely threaten people with dire consequences if they won’t believe what you believe. That’s called trying to impose your moral imperatives on them. It’s also called religion.

          • Martin

            Bob

            And you never do such a thing for your religion.

            On the other hand, TE could be just warning of the results of an action.

          • The Explorer

            I deny the charge. For a start, you said “everyone around you”. Most of the contributors on here are fellow believers. so I have never had cause to threaten them. Where there is difference of interpretation, I welcome their insights, and often concede that they might be right and I might be wrong.

            I agree that if God exists then atheists will meet him one day. That is a truism. Lucretius said as much, and he was an atheist.

          • “I’m fascinated by your ability to ignore the rage that so clearly motivates you … but I suppose those who suffer from such things are always the last to realise how afflicted they are.”

            ROFL … and another classic.

          • CliveM

            You couldn’t make it up!

          • Bob

            Dodo is angry?

            Not for the first time…

          • Projection … so sad.

      • Pubcrawler

        He got purdy hair. ..

        • chiefofsinners

          How dare you bash the bishop in this way? He is the primate of all pissoirs.

          • CliveM

            Bash him, I thought he fancied him :0)

            PC only joking!

          • Pubcrawler

            Don’t fret, I’m not the humourless one round here.

          • CliveM

            Oh I know……

            Still when you make that sort of accusation one needs to be careful!!

          • Pubcrawler

            Everyone needs a hobby…

      • Bob

        Poor Dodo, reduced to childish one-liners that even a brat in a playground might be ashamed of. Can his drug addled brain no longer form complex thoughts? It looks as though he’s operating on little more than brain stem functions at the moment. Anaesthesia can do that to you.

        Oh no, I forgot … there was no anaesthesia, was there? All this talk of ill health and operations is just Dodo code for “I want attention, but I’m sick of being beaten up on when I act like an adolescent bitch and scratch everyone’s eyes out, so please feel sorry for me and let me defame anyone I like. God told me to do it…”

        • The Explorer

          Are one liners not permissible? They might be limiting if they were the only method of communication, but HJ has also written full paragraphs.

          None so blind as those who won’t see. A great one liner, and fully applicable to you.

          • Bob

            Dodo has cut and paste full paragraphs from the CCC, you mean. Apart from the bitchy one liners, that’s about the limit of his intellectual and theological reflection.

            Maybe he is the pope after all…

          • carl jacobs

            Interesting. Having been confronted with the deceit inherent in his own duplicate identities, Linus VI launches an attack on the long since discarded and repented identity of another. He doesn’t even know Dodo. He has no experience with him. And yet he seeks to instruct us about him. He doesn’t understand that Jack is not Dodo by another name.

            I knew Dodo, Linus VI. You are no Dodo.

          • IanCad

            May he surfeit on quail.

          • Bob

            You believe me to be Linus posting under an assumed identity. Dodo was Jack (you know, the am-dram ham who’s pretending to be at death’s door) posting under an assumed identity. The principle is the same, although in my case you have no proof or you would have already posted it.

            When Dodo was caught red-handed, he pretended to repent, was forgiven and the slate was wiped clean. But according to your bible, repentance has to be genuine in order to merit absolution. I don’t believe that Dodo truly repents his actions. All he’s sorry for is being found out.

            Would a truly repentant Christian be telling porky pies about the state of his health? You may believe him when he puts the back of his hand to his forehead, squeezes out a crocodile tear and claims to be in the grip of a life-threatening disease. I do not. He has a track record of deceit, so why believe him now?

            No, Dodo is not to be trusted. If he was truly contrite, he’d be brimming over with the fruits of the Spirit. Anyone who reads his comments knows they drip with disdain, hatred and malevolence. How could he possibly be of the Lord?

          • IanCad

            Bob,
            Jack was/is in Ward 4 of the Western General Hospital. It is a cancer ward. I know, my uncle was in the same unit two years ago.
            Some of us have sent him cards. He has acknowledged them.
            Withdraw or shut-up.

          • CliveM

            I wasn’t going to tell him.

          • Bob

            So that’s where Dodo works, is it? As a barely educated porter, perhaps? Or is he the Catholic chaplain venting all the bile he’s not allowed to express openly for fear of annoying his bishop?

            I’ll give him this: it’s an elaborate ruse. But nothing yet proves it to be anything more than that.

          • Hi

            You’re being extremely vindictive and nasty to someone about whom you’ve known on a blog for all of five seconds. (Given when you started posting Jack was away for most of it).

          • Bob

            Yes, it’s amazing how corrosive Dodo’s bile is and how little provocation he needs to vomit it all over someone he hardly knows.

            Rather like one of those Alien movies, isn’t it?

          • The Explorer

            The Aliens had acid for blood, but I don’t recall an alien vomiting. Not in the first two, anyway, which are the only two I’ve seen.

          • carl jacobs

            “Alien” is perhaps the best Sci-Fi movie ever made. You should really watch it. Don’t watch any of the sequels. Just pretend they don’t exist. But “Alien” is stellar.

          • CliveM

            Oh the second one was good as well.

            It all went rapidly downhill after that however.

          • carl jacobs

            Oh the second one was good as well.

            I bet you thought that the 1984 version of “Dune” was a classic, didn’t you?

          • CliveM

            No! But I thought Bladerunner was.

            Btw it is generally accepted that Dune was a failure, however this is not the case for Aliens.

            I stand by my comment……..!

          • carl jacobs

            And you liked “Starship Troopers” as well, I’ll bet.

          • CliveM

            I can’t remember if I say it. Was this the Alien bugs?

          • carl jacobs

            Yes. “Bugs, Mr Rico! Millions of ’em!”

          • CliveM

            It was dreadful.

            Quite enjoyed it though!

          • carl jacobs

            You could only enjoy that abomination (well, it would be an abomination if it actually existed, but since it doesn’t we are speaking hypothetically) if you have never read the book.

          • CliveM

            No I’ve never read the book.

            I will admit it a piece of rubbish!

          • Hi

            It also comes with a ridiculously cheesy song:

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KIsv1YOFNys

          • Hi

            Starship troopers was well cool, but I thought the hero got the wrong woman as Dizzy was much nicer than Carmen.

          • carl jacobs

            It was in truth a trick question since there is no movie called “Starship Troopers.” If you ever went to a movie theater and thought you saw a movie called “Starship Troopers” you were the victim of a terrible deception by the theater management, and you should demand they return your money.

            If there was such a movie, and it happened to resemble that deception that you only thought you saw, then it would have been the Worst Movie Ever Made in the History of this World or any other Hypothetical World that Could be Imagined.

          • CliveM

            You never saw Night of the Lepus?! I may have the title slightly wrong.

          • carl jacobs

            I might have to watch that movie.

          • CliveM

            Giant killer bunnies. It was meant to be serious!

          • carl jacobs

            I gathered that. That’s why I might have to watch. I have tasked my daughter with previewing it for me.

          • CliveM

            If you think Stormtroopers is the worst film ever, you haven’t seen this!!

          • Hi

            I’m getting dune tomorrow (apparently it’s a whole series of books: person at waterstones thought I meant the month!) along with a John Lewis sautee pan and the complete kitchen pan set.

          • CliveM

            I loved the first. Hope you enjoy then.

          • dannybhoy

            You’re going to cook and read Dune at the same time??
            (Danny’s eyes start spinning around)

          • dannybhoy

            Bladerunner was good too. Again some amazingly atmospheric scenes like in the toymaker’s pad.

          • CliveM

            I have all versions on DVD!

            Like the final death scene.

          • dannybhoy

            I only have the Director’s Cut
            (I’m not an obsessive Clive..)

          • CliveM

            I got a commemorative box set. It had some very interesting deleted scenes……….. Ahem.

            Which probably earned me an extra decade in purgatory (if it exists)!!

          • Hi

            I liked aliens verses predators thou….

          • carl jacobs

            I liked aliens verses predators thou…

            [My Head] —-> [Any Convenient Wall]

            [Bash! Bash! Bash! Bash! Bash!]

          • CliveM

            Hi

            Never saw it. I wrote it off as a money making piece of exploitation!

          • dannybhoy

            Fantastically atmospheric and gripping.
            John Hurt leaking hydraulic fluid was so sad..

          • Hi explorer

            The aliens had acid for blood and I think that when you get the “facehuuger” which impregnates an alien into you and then it dies,. But when the alien hatches it rips itself out of your stomach you probably vomit then.(I think that was the John hurt character).

          • The Explorer

            Right. I’m probably confused, but so is Linus/Bob. Human vomit in the film was not corrosive, but alien blood was. When they cut the alien with a scalpel, as I remember, alien blood came out and dissolved metal. They know there’s a bleeding alien above them in Aliens when the ceiling starts dissolving.

            So when Linus/Bob talks about Dodo vomiting corrosive bile he’s confusing two species and two substances.

          • Hi Bob

            Sadly for you , you’ve used up the allotted quota I give to you for my attention (as I do with most crazies).

          • CliveM

            LOL :0)

          • Bob

            It’s no skin off my nose if you want to let vermin like Dodo burrow their way under your skin and slowly release their poison into your bloodstream.

            He wants to destroy you and as he’s crafty enough to have won your trust, he’ll probably end up achieving his goal.

            Fine by me. All I can do is warn.

          • carl jacobs

            I am the individual who publicly exposed Jack as the re-incarnation of Dodo when Jack first appeared on this board. I was on this board in 2011 when Dodo was still posting, and I am the individual who publicly and bitterly criticized Dodo’s atrocious behavior at that time. I also remember the third short-lived interim identity between Dodo and Jack. Do you know it?

            Because of this, when I say that Jack is not Dodo, I speak with unimpeachable authority. I have tremendous respect for Jack because I saw saw how behaved then, and I see how he behaves now, and I have seen the amendment of his behavior. I have seen it over several years of time. You have no standing to criticize him. What he did was wrong. He admitted it was wrong. And he changed his behavior. He then gave evidence of the change by maintaining it over time. Where have you admitted your deceit? When have you changed your behavior? You, with the log in your eye.

            You are Linus. There is no reasonable doubt in my mind. I proved it to myself the same way I proved that Jack was Dodo reborn. If you do not see how I did it, then you are blind.

          • Bob

            And yet all you can do is state your belief that I’m Linus without presenting any proof.

            “He is Linus! He is! He is! I just know it!!!” I hear you cry as you toss your petulant head in a tantrum of biblical proportions.

            Unfortunately for you, the presumption of innocence rests with me. Accuse me of whatever you like. Where’s your evidence?

          • carl jacobs

            If I told you how I identified you, then you would be able to adjust your behavior the next time you decide to delete your account and recreate yourself. I have no intention of doing that. I also feel no compulsion to prove to you what we both know to be true.

          • Bob

            Just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s true.

            As I said, believe what you like. But your beliefs remain mere hypotheses if you can’t support them with evidence. Just like your religion.

          • carl jacobs

            I won’t make the case for you. I have no need to make it for the others on this weblog. Your identity is already widely recognized here. It is enough for me that I know the truth, and that you know I know the truth.

            Have a nice day, Linus VI.

          • Bob

            What you call the truth is merely your belief. As, despite all your posturing and utter confidence in what you imagine to be your own superiority, you are nothing more than a fallible human being, anything you believe that is not backed up with hard evidence must be considered as suspect and therefore unproven.

            In all civilised societies a presumption of innocence operates until guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt and supported by convincing evidence. Your unwillingness to acknowledge this basic principle of justice marks you out as uncivilised.

            If you have proof of my identity, let’s see it. If not, stop whining. Put up or shut up.

          • Let’s be clear here.
            Are you denying having posted on this weblog he past using other identities and, in particular, the name Linus?

          • Bob

            More diversionary tactics from the usual suspect. Anything to shift the focus from you to me, eh?

            What I want to know is where’s the proof of this life-threatening illness you claim to be suffering from? Can’t offer any? Then as a proven liar and deceiver, don’t expect to be believed.

          • “More diversionary tactics from the usual suspect.”
            ROFL ….

            Answer the question:

            Are you denying having posted on this weblog in the past using other identities and, in particular, the name Linus?

          • Bob

            You have to give it to Dodo, he’s nothing if not single-minded in his pursuit of opportunities to defame his opponents.

            Let it go, Dodo. Whether I am Linus or not doesn’t alter the fact that you are an established liar and deceiver. Do you think that trying to drag everyone down to your level will relieve the humiliation of being known for what you really are?

          • CliveM

            There is only one person humiliating them self here and thats you.

            Remember you keep changing your name because you continually flounce off after having your ass kicked.

            Calling yourself Bob is proof of this. And everyone here knows it.

            Only the truly cowardly and contemptible attempt to bully the sick.

          • Bob

            Who’s sick? Dodo?

            You’ve seen him in his sick bed, have you?

            I’ve seen no evidence of any illness. Just unsubstantiated claims. The man is a proven liar and deceiver, so everything he says is suspect and should be doubted until solid evidence is provided.

          • “Whether I am Linus or not doesn’t alter the fact that you are an established liar and deceiver.”
            Stop wiggling around and answer the question.

          • Bob

            Whether I wiggle or not has little effect on Dodo’s moral turpitude. If I am Linus, he doesn’t stop being a liar and a deceiver. And if I am not Linus, none of that changes. He’s damned if I do and damned if I don’t. But I didn’t damn him. He did that all by himself.

          • Never mind the dearly departed Dodo who you seem to have an obsession about. Why is that? You actually know nothing about him or the nature of his deception or the motive behind his false identities.

            Now you are being tedious in the extreme. Just own up to your own deception and lies, apologise to your fellow bloggers and give the reasons for it.

            Put up or bugger off.

          • Bob

            Oy vey, another Christian blogger with delusions of authority!

            Is there any end to this guy’s issues? No wonder he speaks fluent psychobabble. All those years in a straitjacket listening to men in white coats discuss his many and varied neuroses. The jargon has rubbed off on him.

          • Who are you talking to, Linus?
            Answer the question or bugger off.

          • Bob

            Poor Dodo, his entitlement syndrome extends to the delusion that he controls who can post on this blog.

            Awful frisky for someone who’s supposed to be at death’s door, isn’t he?

            More evidence that he’s making it all up? Looks like it to me.

          • Talking to yourself, Linus?

          • Bob

            I was talking about you, Dodo. Surely even your limited intelligence could figure that out.

            How’s the imaginary illness coming along, btw? Have your imaginary doctors pronounced you fit and well yet? Or must we expect an imaginary relapse and requests for prayer leading to a fictitious miracle cure?

            Of course this will all be swallowed whole by the undiscerning and gullible Christians who post here, and soon enough they’ll be declaring the cause of the world’s first virtual saint: Dodo The Confessor (of other people’s sins, but never of his own).

            Remember though, once you’ve manufactured the first miracle, there’s another to fabricate before sanctification can be pronounced. Better get cracking, no? Even though this present illness is clearly fictional, at your age time is running out, so you’d better get cracking or you may find yourself stuck in the limbo of beatification for all eternity.

          • Are you denying having posted on this weblog in the past using other identities and, in particular, the name Linus?

            Such wriggling and squirming.

          • Bob

            Poor Linus, what can he have done to get you all riled up like this, Dodo?

            I suppose if I could find any of his posts, I might be able to figure it out.

            As it is, I’ll just have to dismiss you as a mad old man obsessing about someone else whose existence you can’t prove. There aren’t any posts here by god. And none by Linus. Did he ever exist, or did you just dream him up as a sort of atheist bogeyman you can rant and spit at to your heart’s content?

            It’s very sad. Is this what religion reduces you to?

          • Lol … point proven.

          • Bob

            Ah, so you admit to being a mad old man obsessing about someone whose existence you can’t prove!

            Very good. Facing up to your problems is the first step on the road to solving them.

          • ” … hurling playground insults at his enemies like a vicious little girl.”
            Linus, some of your comments are so self-revelatory.

          • Bob

            My name is Bob. If that last comment was directed at me, I agree that my comments are revelatory of your self, although anyone with even the most rudimentary ability to read between the lines of your posts won’t need me to explain what you mean by them.

          • “My name is Bob.”

            (For now until you recognise you have embarrassed yourself (again) and scurry off and return with a new identity.)

            Linus, Linus, Linus, you mean your current avatar is named Bob. Jack will continue to address you by the name you first used when posting here.

          • CliveM

            Why not, no one else is interested in anything he has to say.

          • “Anyone who reads his comments knows they drip with disdain, hatred and malevolence.”

            Hmm … another classic.

          • The Explorer

            Just as anyone who reads my comments knows that they are full of rage: especially when anyone disagrees with me. I’m the only one who can’t see it. (Presumably because rage blinds me to the truth.)

          • Bob

            Classic Dodo, I agree.

          • Projection …. again.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Dodo was great… humorous and a tad wicked. Sadly you did not appreciate or understand the joke, being a humourless American ,puritanical and stuck fast in a pre pubescent level of emotional response.This sanctimonious stance you are taking is ridiculous. It was so obvious that HJ was Dodo.He did not even bother to hide his style of writing. You were just too dumb to work it out earlier on. It is not a crime or morally wrong to adopt another identity,,, well not in the sane world at least.

          • carl jacobs

            I exposed Jack not because he was yet another incarnation of Dodo. I exposed him because he was pretending to be a Seeker becoming a Roman Catholic. In fact he did change his writing style. That was the major point of the creation of Jack in the first place – to force a change in style. But he tended to revert in any given discussion within a particular sub-thread – especially on subject matter in which he was comfortable. I know very well that others knew Jack’s identity at the time. Avi knew. DanJ0 knew. But I was the one who put the case down on the thread when Jack denied it and others refused to believe it.

            There was much more to Jack’s alternate identities than just “adopting another identity” and you know it. When I talk about Dodo’s bad behavior, I am not referring to the alternate identities. I am referring to the vulgar and otherwise highly-sexualized humor that he inserted onto this weblog at the time. It was completely unfitting for someone who claimed to be a Christian and it damaged all of us. He doesn’t do that anymore. That is the principle change I have seen in Jack. The new personae became the avatar of change – the representation of Dodo being put away. That’s why Jack isn’t Dodo and why Dodo must never come back.

            Call me a Puritan if you like. Makes no difference to me.

          • Cressida de Nova

            What a hypocrite you are ! The filth that has been expounded on this blog by Danjo in the past was incomparable to Dodo’s
            humour. It didn’t seem to upset your faux Christian sensibilities
            then.
            You yourself have been known to be vicious and vile in your remarks in the past so don’t set yourself up as righteous demi god spokesperson for Christianity. It is Christian phonies like you who engender hatred in crackpots like Bob and there are far too many of you around.

          • There was/is only one Dodo the Dude. Only one.

        • dannybhoy

          Onto your list if issues Bob, you could add “Prat Ist Class”.
          You don’t make fun of people who have been unwell for any reason.
          You are a disgrace to this blog, and a disgrace as a human being who likes to lecture others on morality and compassion.
          Go sit in the corner until you can apologise.

          • CliveM

            Do you know the amusing thing is the proof of HJ’s health problems reside right here on these blogs. Thing is, Linus is to bitter, vindictive and plain nasty to spot it.

            He’s simply a Troll. A liar and a moral coward. How low are you to attempt to bully someone over their health?

            Thankfully Happy Jack is made of stern stuff.

        • IanCad

          We are counseled not to judge, but really Bob, I have to say that you are low-life.

          • dannybhoy

            That’s not judging, that’s observing, and Bob or whoever he is is way out of line.

          • Pubcrawler

            His goading is getting more desperate as he fails to elicit the reaction he wants. Watch the bile escalate as the frustration and rage of his impotence increases. A familiar pattern. Do not feed.

          • Bob

            You have to say it, do you? In other words, your own judgment is worth more than the express command of your god.

            So, as nobody worships a god whose judgment he considers to be inferior to his own, the only conclusion we can draw is that your real god is you.

            I rest my case, Christianity is the worship of the self.

          • IanCad

            We are also told to stand up for injustice. As well, we are told not to rebuke the unwise scoffer, but do so to the wise.
            Take it as you will.

          • Bob

            You’re told to stand up FOR injustice?

            Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings…

            Honestly, you couldn’t make such stupidity up. It has to be genuine!

          • The Explorer

            “Christianity is the worship of the self.”
            Does that mean you define yourself as a Christian?

          • Bob

            Is that the best you can do?

            Good imaginary Lord, don’t they cave easily?

            That’s the sort of thing I’d expect from an adolescent who knows he’s lost the argument but has to find something defiant to say.

            Really scraping the bottom of the barrel there, aren’t you?

          • The Explorer

            And in the bottom of the barrel was Linus/Bob.

            No it’s not the best I can do, but since it was in response to a comment of yours I was constrained by the subject matter.

          • CliveM

            And why waste your best on Linus? Hardly required.

        • carl jacobs

          I want attention

          Good grief. Project much?

          • “I act like an adolescent bitch and scratch everyone’s eyes out.”

            Classic ….

          • carl jacobs

            Exactly so.

          • The Explorer

            Whenever Linus invokes the word ‘bitch’ you can be certain you’ve really got to him.

          • CliveM

            As remarkable as him accusing someone of not having a sense of irony……….

            Unbelievable.

          • CliveM

            “I’m sick of being beaten up on”

            This particularly caught my eye.

          • Bullied as a child and made fun of by his sister and her friends, is Jack’s educated guess. Wanted to be a girl and was jealous. Poor male role models and a dominant mother figure.

          • CliveM

            If so, we must show him understanding.

          • He certainly warrants our prayers and really we should avoid feeding his poisonous comments.

          • CliveM

            You are of course correct.

            Its just…………….!

          • Yes … it’s called temptation and it is difficult to resist the urge to slap the man – metaphorically, of course. And remember one of his aims is to draw out negative and abusive comments to justify his claim that all Christians are hypocrites. What he doesn’t get is that we remain human and subject to the inclination to sin and sometimes it is right and proper to fight fire with fire.

          • CliveM

            Sigh……………….. :0(

            Ok must write out 100 times, “must try harder”.

          • The Explorer

            There have been a couple of references over time to playground bullies. If that was his experience, then I have every sympathy. Being bullied – and God doing nothing to stop it – may be a child’s first real experience of the problem of evil. I recall reading Philip Yancey about being bullied as a child: praying to God for help, and nothing happening to stop it.

            If the child is father of the man, it might account for some of Linus’ adult attitudes towards God.

          • Agreed but it runs far deeper, in Jack’s opinion. When he first started blogging on an Anglican site – Peter Ould’s Jack believes – his angst was being born with same sex attraction, rejected by the Church and condemned to hell if he lived a homosexual lifestyle. Classic Catholic guilt in play.

            He was raised a Catholic and probably instructed at an expensive school too. He directs considerable hatred towards all things Catholic. It seems he was never really taught or else failed to understand, Catholic teaching on sin and forgiveness or on homosexuality. There’s a lot of pain and anguish behind his personal attacks on Christians.

          • The Explorer

            Yes. I could wish you didn’t have the burden of your cancer, or me the burden of my heart problem, or Linus the burden of his sexual orientation. You and I would concede that our conditions are symptomatic of illness. Linus would not concede the same about his condition: and neither would the modern world.

          • Objective disorder …

          • The Explorer

            That was it. Thank you.

          • Pubcrawler

            Mine too, though perhaps for a different reason. It’s not the only predominantly US-an idiom that’s appeared recently.

          • CliveM

            To be honest didn’t know it was an Americanism, thought it was simple sloppiness.

            Interesting.

          • Pubcrawler

            Both are true 🙂

            Bobolino displays a number of distinctive linguistic habits.

          • CliveM

            There are ‘distinctive traits’ in everything he says and does.

            Could practically write his posts for him :0)

          • Pubcrawler

            Yes. The same old tired tropes and hackneyed turns of phrase keep recurring like an indigestible repast. But there are some particular idiomatic idiosyncrasies — some might say solecisms — that match Bobo to Lino like a fingerprint. (Of course, I’m not revealing what they are.)

            I think I suggested before that someone could quite easily construct a game of ‘Linus Bingo’ to be played with his comments. But it wouldn’t be a very long game.

          • CliveM

            Your right not to do so, but I am curious.

        • chiefofsinners

          Poor Bobo, reduced to picking on the sick. Like many who have never known the love of God, lacking compassion.
          Presumably the name ‘Bob’ indicates being a shilling short of a pound.
          Feel the love from the rest of us, Jack.

        • Anton

          What prevented you just denying that you have posted here as Linus?

        • Get thee behind me ….

      • Martin

        HJ

        He’s a god?

        • The Explorer

          ‘Incarnate; does not have to have a religious connotation. You can incarnate an idea for instance, by putting it into concrete form. Those who believe in reincarnation do not think they are becoming part of the divine until they have escaped the process.

          • Martin

            TE

            I was thinking “in his own eyes”.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you. Yes: himself as the only sort of divinity he acknowledges. Or, at the very least, humanity as the only divinity there is.

        • … more like a demon, Jack would say.

  • Martin

    No, actually you aren’t a family. If you were a family you would have a genetic relationship, when clearly there is nothing connecting some except the desperate need of others to say that you’re all one big family and the tradition of saying you’re a family.

    If the ABC were worth his salt he’d say, OK, I can do nothing about those who have thrown away the Bible, but I’ll just not have anything to do with them and regard them as a cult like the Mormons. He would then welcome those who have held on to the Bible and treat them as part of the church. Simples.

    And when those who have thrown away the Bible get up to speak they should be loudly heckled and told to take their heresy elsewhere. When they try to take communion they should be refused it and treated as if they were lepers. They might then get the message. No one should ever just walk out unless they are in so small a minority they won’t be heard.

    Of course, they could come out and join us in independence.

    • dannybhoy

      The Anglican community is most definitely not a family.
      Perhaps a hippy community, or a collection of disparate but very polite, and sometimes delightfully vague people united around the principle
      “Thou shalt offend no one…”

      • Martin

        Danny

        How well you put it. 😉

        • dannybhoy

          Thanks Martin.

    • Dreadnaught

      I haven’t got a dog in this fight, but you really are a reprehensible wretch.
      You make a statement like this ‘they should be refused it and treated as if they were lepers’. as though you are some ignorant fundamentalist Christian when there is so little of Christian spirit about you. Many good people not always Christians devote their entire lives to easing the suffering and treating these poor unfortunate people. You on the other hand, sit at your keyboard and see their suffering as a useful form of distasteful shorthand that represents your crazy world view. I trust you will have hard time entering the gates of your imagined heaven and if you do, I hope they put you to task emptying bed-pans.

      • Martin

        Dreadnaught

        Now you are being silly in the moronic way that many liberals will do. Stop being silly and grow up. You know what a part of speech is, you have no excuse.

        • Dreadnaught

          So you think I’m a liberal? I am as much a liberal as you are a christian.

          • Martin

            Dreadnaught

            It’s the liberal PC argument, what ever you are.

  • bluedog

    His Grace observes, ”To the liberal progressives who yearn for equality and justice,”.

    Make that social justice and not natural justice.

    • Martin

      BD

      God’s justice, rather. And I’d question what they mean by equality too.

    • More like socialist justice.

  • chiefofsinners

    Is it really worth these fancy dress artists spending half the GDP of their struggling countries on a first class air ticket to London, just for the inevitable argument? Geographical distance between family members can be a very good thing indeed, part of God’s purpose, as Abraham and Lot discovered, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers, Noah’s sons, etc., etc.

    • dannybhoy

      Yes, the problems really start when your run out of space or distance. Interesting that all the Bible saints had times when they retreated into the wilderness and met with God. Our Lord of course being the supreme example.

    • IanCad

      First Class!! – Really??

      • chiefofsinners

        Have you ever found yourself sitting next to an archbishop in the cattle truck?
        I imagine they need extra legroom to accommodate the symbols of office: mitre, crozier and massive ego.

        • IanCad

          I’ve done a fair amount of flying and have seen – and spoken with – priests and nuns; A rabbi and some plainclothes preachers, but the mitred friar has not yet crossed my path. At least, not after turning right.

  • BaronHardup

    The issue isn’t simply about what are perceived to be sexual ethics with regards to people whose sexuality is other than heterosexual. If the messages from the New Testament such as ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, or ‘Love one another’ are what we are instructed to do, then surely this means re-thinking contrary messages contained in the Old Testament. Remember , too, that Jesus never mentioned anything about gay relationships, If he thought the issue as important as some of his followers seem to, then surely he would have pronounced on the subject.

    • Martin

      BH

      There is no such thing as sexuality and sex is forbidden outside the marriage of one man to one wife. it is that simple. Jesus reiterated it and your claim that He never mentioned homosexuality is a red herring.

      And the message of the New Testament is the same as that of the Old, “Be Holy as I am Holy says the Lord”.

    • The Explorer

      Are we still allowed to use the term ‘sexual’? I thought ‘sex’ had become a banned word. Gender ethics? Genederual? Who knows? I certainly don’t.

      Do unto others as you would have them do unto you must have a context. Without wanting to be trivial, suppose you’re a masochist and crave being whipped. Swinburne, for instance, the poet of “Sweet Mother of Pain”, made a weekly visit to a brothel in order to be flagellated. He rejected Christianity and all its works, but if he’d tried to follow Christ’s injunction he’d presumably have been whipping people?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Neither did Jesus say anything about terrorism or drug-dealing, so are we supposed to treat those acceptable?
      The New Testament did not dispose of God’s law. It was not a licence to sin, as the quote below from Matthew shows. The New Testament is about a new way to meet the requirements of God’s Law. Homosexuality is among the few sins explicitly mentioned in the OT which is an indication of it’s importance.

      “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

      • BaronHardup

        Your post demonstrates what is wrong with some of the Christian thinking on humansexuality. You cannot possibly equate terrorism and drug dealing with sexuality. Two men or two women or a man and a woman who love each other and include sexual intimacy in their love for each other are expressing their innate sexuality. It is harmless and, quite honestly, morally neutral. If some Christians insist on seeing sexuality as a restrictive part of the human psyche then they are not being very Christian. For there are some branches of Christianity for whom sexual expression is seen as a joyous thing and is recognised as a gift of the soul.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          No I am not equating homosexuality or any other sexual practice with terrorism or dtug dealing. I am pointing out the fallacy of the argument that because Jesus didn’t explicitly state something is sinful then its not sinful. If Jesus wanted to abolish everything that wsd written in the OT he wouldn’t have said what He did about the fulfilment of the Law.

  • Martin

    Justin Welby could make a start by pointing out that the signees of the recent ‘Archbishops’ letter’clearly have a very poor theological understanding of what a Christian is. It is not possible to call yourself LGBTXYZ and still claim to be a Christian. As the Corinthians were told:

    Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
    (I Corinthians 6:9-11 [ESV])

    Either they are Christians, who have left these sins, or they are still in their sin and therefore not Christians.

    • IanCad

      Can’t argue with that Martin.

  • prompteetsincere

    “God knows what Jesus would say”:
    Said. Biblical Authority, His, trumps “biblical interpretation”;
    and by infinite and eternal extension, all “historic,legal and political reality”.
    “He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My Words+,
    hath One that judgeth him:
    The Word that I have spoken,
    the same shall judge him in the last day.” + John ch. 12

  • Politically__Incorrect

    The Archbishop of Cantebury may not have the powers of a pope, but he does have the authority to pronounce the word of God. It’s not his job to condemn or punish, but neither is it his job to endorse what is clearly contrary to God’s will. There is a question of motive here too. When the Anglican community in america endorsed gay “marriage”, were they actually seeking the ways of God, to seek out his truth and righteousness, or was it yielding to secular pressure? If the latter, then they are badly misguided, whether it is about marriage or anything else: “Whatever is not from faith is sin”.

  • Jill

    I hope nobody was under the illusion that this was going to be a clean fight. I wonder if the signatories to the Open Letter to the Archbishops (https://lettertoarchbishops.wordpress.com/) realise that they can only justify their position by breaking the ninth Commandment, and misrepresenting ours.

    Disgraceful!

    • IanCad

      Bad link Jill.

      • Jill
        • IanCad

          Thanks for that Jill.
          So one hundred and five senior clerics sign a letter that contradicts biblical truth and denies God’s act of creation.
          Well, it’s happened before with no consequences. How long O Lord, How long?
          How many members are there in this club? Those who did not bow the knee to Baal?

        • Uncle Brian

          I wonder where Dante would put the 105 “senior Anglicans” who signed the crappy letter.

          • The Explorer

            I wonder where Chaucer would put them. Hopefully, where he put the friars.

          • Anton

            I know where I’d put their letter.

        • What an august bunch! Much too good for the rest of us! Why don’t they push off and start their own church?
          Our Lord said, “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’

    • CliveM

      Ok can I ask everyone, what was it that they specifically said that upsets so much?

      Or am I missing something?

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      How so, Jill?

      • CliveM

        GM

        you’ve not been around for a while. I’m not being rude, but do you only comment here on sexuality?

        Which would be a pity.

  • preacher

    As I see it, The Church in the World is essential. The World in the Church is not only not scriptural but ultimately destructive.
    From the very start we see warnings of Wolves among the flock posing as sheep & Church members bringing sin into the meetings without compunction, regret or penitence, even encouraging others to join them in their rebellion against God.
    Personally I don’t see the difference between the denominational labels that men attach to different communities. Most are the product of times when men have seen error & corruption in the Church & having spoken out are persecuted rejected & martyred because the ” Executives ” at the top are in fear of losing their positions & a lucrative income. Thus new ‘ branches ‘ come into being & prosper until they too are subjected to the invasion of the well meaning but non scriptural souls that through error or deceit start the whole process of deterioration again.
    Scripture is clear on what is expected of followers of Jesus Christ who decide to meet together to pray & worship God in Spirit & in truth. It is not up to any leader to change the rules to allow all comers to join & corrupt the life of that community, whether that man dresses in vestments or holds the title of Bishop, Archbishop, Pope or Pastor. He is responsible to protect the members under his charge from influences that would destroy them or the faith that he & they profess.
    The Church is not a business, it is much more than that, dealing with eternal consequences for humanity. All mankind are free to choose their destiny, but the job of all true Christians, from top to bottom is to clarify the issues at stake & the requirements set by Scripture for joining the Church.
    If any one rejects the Scriptural requirements, they are free to go their own way, but changing the rules on the grounds of compassion or new revelations is not an option & deceives the recipient & corrupts the Church. ” Many will say on that day. We did many signs & wonders in your name, – But I will say Depart from me I never knew you ! “.

  • len

    Whilst we might all have an opinion as to what is right and what is wrong with “the Church” Jesus actually gives us a description as to what is wrong with the Church and importantly the remedy for the faults within “the Church” in the Bible Book of Revelation’ Chapters 2-3….
    By stating “The church” I make a distinction between the Church as’ an Institution’ and the ‘Body of Christ’ because they are not always the same thing….In fact sometimes ‘the Church’ has become a religious shell with no life only ritual performed over it…… much as a dead body.
    Jesus came that we might have Life and this Life is always present in His Body His ‘Church’ and no power will prevail against it human or demonic….

  • Inspector General

    Breaking news…

    God is to write to more than 100 senior Anglicans to announce his repentance for ‘getting things wrong’. A top angel said that clearly these Anglicans are upset that we are not all the same, and that despite salvation being open to all, it’s not enough in itself as our earthly existence must also be heavenly. However, God remains in total opposition to gay adoption, considering it child abuse, and is of the opinion that same sex marriage is ludicrous. You might as well marry the cat, he said.

  • Inspector General

    In another unprecedented move, God has revealed a prayer sent to him by a six year old boy adopted by two gay men, asking that they both be killed in a car accident at the earliest as he is slowly going mad. He said that their mates come round and leer at him, and that he hasn’t seen a woman in three months. He goes on to complain that the walls of the house are thin and that he ‘can hear them bum at night’, but the worst time is Thursday bath night, when they both have a go at him. As a result, he complains, he has the cleanest dick in Christendom.

    • BaronHardup

      That’s appalling.

      • Inspector General

        It certainly is. Gay adoption is an absolute disgrace…

        • BaronHardup

          What is truly a disgrace is the rejection of gay children by their heterosexual, homophobic parents.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s a true statement – given that you apply a restrictive definition of “reject.” As in “cut off and cast out” as opposed to “refuse to receive and accept the behavior.”

    • sarky

      Funny how you trying to provoke a reaction achieves the opposite.
      Time to give up I think. Nobody really wants to read this vile rubbish as anymore.

      • Inspector General

        Every child deserves a mother, you thoughtless nothing. Be it natural, step, adoptive or house mother. Hand on heart now, would YOU like to have been placed with two gay men as a child. Or are you just another idiot liberal – it’s fine by me in principle but not really for me in actuality….

        • sarky

          How about two mothers??

          One of my best friends is in a same sex marriage and raising a child.
          The rubbish you spout has no bearing on the reality of the situation.

          • Inspector General

            If you’ve followed this man’s tracks, you’ll note he did not criticise lesbians with children…

          • sarky

            ??????
            Sorry but is it just me who is unable to fathom the workings of your pitiful mind.

          • Inspector General

            Yes. You try, you fall over. Never mind…

          • carl jacobs

            I’ll grant you this, Inspector. You are positively Churchillian in your responses at times. Even when you are wrong, you can make me laugh. Yes, that was a compliment. I suppose it doesn’t reflect well on my character.

          • Inspector General

            Don’t think of the Inspector being wrong, that man. Rather acknowledge that there are times when some do not perceive him as being right. The Inspector holds that sway and it is a comfort to him…

      • The Explorer

        “Nobody really wants to read this vile rubbish as anymore.”
        Vile yes. Rubbish. Not if true. Wanting to read it. No. Needing to read it. Yes, if true.
        My question is, how do you know that you speak for everybody? If you’d done a survey and we’d taken a vote, then I’d agree with you.
        What you’re actually saying is you don’t want to know about it.

        • carl jacobs

          Well, yes and no. To be frank, I read the Inspector’s comment this morning, and couldn’t come up with a reply that warranted publishing. In the end, I concluded that it would be best to just ignore it, and hope others did as well. sarky did better than I did.

          The comment was vulgar and crass. It was flippant in its attitude towards prayer and therefore God. It tried to make into humor that which is never a fit subject for humor. There is a way to deal with the subject matter that the Inspector raises. It requires respect and delicacy however. Not this ham-fisted adolescent equivalent of bathroom humor.

          And let’s just go right to the heart of it, shall we? Not every homosexual is a child abuser. A child raised by a homosexual couple is debilitated. That isn’t the same thing as saying he will be sexually abused.

          • The Explorer

            I didn’t get from what he wrote that the Inspector is saying every homosexual is a child abuser (which I agree to be untrue.). I took him to be saying that a child had written a prayer to God which has been published somewhere. Either that is true, or it isn’t.

            But I’m querying how Sarky knows that he speaks for everybody. He may be right, but how did he get his evidence: that vital thing that atheists are always demanding?

          • DanJ0
          • The Explorer

            Sarky simply means a majority. Fine. But how did he get his data to draw that conclusion?

          • carl jacobs

            My guess would be that sarky inferred it from the fact that no one had responded to that post on an otherwise fairly active thread.

          • The Explorer

            Yes, that’s a fair point.

          • Inspector General

            Gay men adoption is an outrage. Sarky is an arse, and is merely part of the mob. He goes where the mob goes. The prayer is this man’s imagining of the disquiet innocent children must feel at being experiments in an increasing bizarre social direction…

          • CliveM

            Yes agreed. I would go a step further however. Any child maybe impacted by not having both a mother and father. That is the ideal and best for the child. However in any individuals case, this may not be realistically available (there are many reasons why both parents aren’t around).

            Indeed in some cases (violent father) not having the male influence may be preferable.

        • sarky

          I do know about it, see my reply to the inspector.

  • sarky

    Primates meeting = chimps tea party

    • IanCad

      Clever man!

    • Pubcrawler

      As a lot of them will be from Africa, that could be seen as #casualracism.

      • Hi

        Reading the hysterical reactions of the guardian comments section , all hell would be let loose if it were anything other than liberals giving us their view on “bigoted , backward Africa”.

        • Pubcrawler

          “Reading the hysterical reactions of the guardian comments section”

          I’m not sure my hypertension could bear it.

          • CliveM

            You to?

          • Pubcrawler

            Or I could be an elaborate ruse by Happy Jack.

          • CliveM

            Gasp! You’re Dodo…………,,,

          • Pubcrawler
          • You certainly have the potential ….

          • Pubcrawler

            I could never, even in jest, bring myself to pretend to support M*nch*st*r Un*t*d.

          • Not Arsenal, Liverpool or City one trusts.

          • Pubcrawler

            I revealed my allegiance several months ago.

            [Top of the league!]

          • Hmm … well Wenger certainly deserves another Premiership title and has a fine team playing excellent football. However, is he actually a winner? Jack believes he conveys his anxiety to his players. Still, if Manchester United don’ win this year, better your team than City.

          • Pubcrawler

            I suspect you are right. On that last point we can certainly agree. 🙂

          • carl jacobs

            Bitter, bitter, bitter.

          • CliveM

            ROFL…………

            I think that sums it up nicely.

      • sarky

        That says more about your mind than mine.

        • Pubcrawler

          Is that your best retort? I was in fact reflecting the lunacy of the PC mind.

          • sarky

            Thats not saying much 😉

    • The Explorer

      They’d welcome you as a close relative. And DanJ0, if he attended in the form of his avatar.

    • chiefofsinners

      More like Vicars and Tarts.

  • James60498 .

    I am told by a member of his own (CofE) Diocesan committee that St Pauls Cathedral didn’t have Joseph in their Nativity scene this year.

    Apparently this is because the existence of a father is upsetting to some people.

    I am happy to be corrected but suspect that it won’t happen.

    • CliveM

      I hope you are wrong, however I doubt it.

      Sickening if true.

    • The Explorer

      The days of The Lord’s Prayer in this country must be numbered. Unacceptable opening statement.

      • James60498 .

        I have no doubt of that at all.

    • DanJ0

      Well, here’s the scene.

      https://twitter.com/StPaulsLondon/status/679937536203075584

      Who is expected in a typical scene? Joseph and Mary, the baby, the three magi, assorted animals, and … a shepherd, the innkeeper, erm?

      • carl jacobs

        Joseph isn’t in that picture.

        • CliveM

          It’s hard to be certain?

          • carl jacobs

            Not for me. I’m certain about everything. 😉

          • CliveM

            Typical Calvinist :0)

          • James60498 .

            A very strange picture but my colleague was adamant that Joseph wasn’t there.

            I too am sure that Carl is correct. Though possibly not always.

          • carl jacobs

            I admit to the theoretical possibility that at some point I could be wrong about something.

            Shut up, Avi. No one asked you.

          • CliveM

            Shhh don’t say that publicly, we all pretend to him that he’s right all the time. Otherwise he gets upset and goes into a decline.

      • Pubcrawler

        You could be right, unless the figure standing right at the back is Joseph (though there shouldn’t be any Magi till Epiphany anyway). Or Joseph could be the figure kneeling on the left. It’s all a bit muddled.

        • carl jacobs

          Joseph wouldn’t be shown separated from Mary. The Family is presented as a Unit in a Nativity. The two figures in front are shepherds. The three to the side are the Wise Men.

          • Pubcrawler

            Yes, that was my immediate thought, but the figure at the back is not bearing a gift.

          • DanJ0

            I think back magi has put his gift down, possibly. there’s an object there.

          • carl jacobs

            He’s right. On the bench by Mary. That could be the third gift.

          • Pubcrawler

            Yes, it could be. Hardly clear, though.

          • carl jacobs

            It’s hard to tell from that photograph. And it looks like the two figures in the back on the right were made to stand together. Notice the hand position. Joseph would not be constructed to stand with the Wise men. In any case, the casual observer of this Nativity will assume that Joseph has been omitted because of how it is composed.

          • CliveM

            PC

            I’m confused. Is there a Joseph or not?

          • Pubcrawler

            Not one that can be positively identified. Maybe he’s off putting the bins out.

      • DanJ0

        Would it be sacrilegious to wryly suggest that the dog’s body is a metaphor for Joseph?

    • DanJ0

      When you say “upsetting”, do you mean “offensive”? Are you suggesting that the representation of a “nuclear family” might be upsetting to children without a father in their family? Or are you suggesting that the idea of a “nuclear family” might be offensive to people trying to deconstruct social norms, such as old school feminists? I’m a little bewildered by why the artist / committee would do this, other than perhaps for the sake of the children above?

      • James60498 .

        That was the phrase he used. (When I said he was on the Diocesan Committee I did not mean at St Paul’s but in his own diocese. The reference to that was simply to show his commitment to the CofE)

        I don’t know. That was what he was told and anyway seems the only possible explanation for leaving out St Joseph (other I suppose than the figure was damaged during the year, and it was completely impossible to get repairs done!!).

        I share your bewilderment.

  • ‘Can two walk together unless they are agreed?’ (Amos 3:3).
    Obviously the Anglican answer is “yes.”

    • carl jacobs

      Now, now. Elijah and the priests of Baal – they were still family. I’m sure they could have found some way to work together in mission and in service even if they disagreed about matters like doctrine.

  • David

    Well, just like everyone else in this world, all those that declare themselves to be Christians, be they elevated Archbishops or the most humble worshipper, can either follow the world, and its ever changing cultural currents, or the unchanging wisdom of God. His advice is contained in The Scriptures and is reflected in Christian traditions, observances and thinking.
    The revisionists head declining churches, and at the rate those churches are shrinking they will soon be preaching to very few people indeed. Heresy always fails because once we turn away from God’s Word, then soon afterwards The Spirit departs, leaving such churches to wither.
    The traditionalists head up vibrant, growing churches which may well become the centres of a rapidly expanding global Anglicanism, in the global south.
    On a smaller scale, here too in the UK it is the traditional, orthodox churches, that remain true to the Word of God, that are holding up well, and often even growing. let the BBC, The Guardian and all the rest of the right-on, unthinking mob rushing western culture towards its further decline clap the trendy, unbiblical Bishops and look down their haughty noses at the traditional Bishops, because the future belongs to those who set out to obey and bring honour to God, not those who attempt vainly to retro-fit the faith to the requirements of an ungodly world.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Aren’t you being optimistic in expected heresies to decline? After all, you could describe other religions as heresies. Most of them acknowledge the existence of a creator and many have a version of the Golden Rule. Some of them are also thriving.

      • David

        By “heresies” I mean Christian heresies, that’s all. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. I make no comment on separate religions.

        A study of the history of The Church shows that the significant deviations from orthodox understandings tend to fade away. Of course that is partly a circular argument that I am making, because the continuing Church defines orthodoxy ! So the truth will out in time.

        However even my use of that word, “truth”, presupposes that truth is singular, which is itself an orthodox, conservative position, not one shared by many relativist Liberals. So my feeling is that the Anglican global Communion has reached an impasse, likely to lead to a reordering of the functional structures. The C of E may also not be immune from this.

        • Anton

          The dividing line isn’t so clear. Is Arianism a Christian heresy? Is Islam?

          • David

            You are onto a different topic there.

  • IanCad

    Well, it could have been worse; only three of those on HG’s poll of the top one hundred Christians signed on to the homosexual/lesbian promotion statement.

    They were:

    Simon Sarmiento

    Martyn Percy

    Mark Chapman

  • DanJ0

    I find this all quite odd. Christian sexual morality seems pretty clear to me. Whilst gay people should of course be welcomed in CofE churches, I can’t see that homosexual behaviour can be approved by the CofE. Society has now accepted the people like me have a right to live according to our sexual orientation but that doesn’t put an obligation on the CofE to change its teachings to follow social norms even if not doing so eventually results in its disestablishment.

    • If your homosexual and Christian, especially a member of the clergy. you have a number of options available.

      First, s/he can accept scripture as it has been understood for 2000 years and resist what orthodox Christianity regards as seriously sinful behaviour. Or, s/he can sin in private, without any attempt to avoid same sex acts, while publically appearing to follow the Gospel. Finally, one can convince oneself and attempt to convince others, that what was God’s Truth yesterday isn’t necessarily so today.

    • Inspector General

      You are of course correct DanJ0. But passive acceptance of homosexuality which is the situation now falls a long way behind what militant gays are demanding. Positive statements of inclusivity, no less. Benign mention in the canon, and the right to fly that blasted paedo flag from the porch. And that’s just for starters. Eventually, they hope for a power base in the CoE and there’s nothing in their way to prevent that. The militants don’t care about wrecking the Anglican communion – they’re all atheists…

      • IanCad

        Last sentence – spot on!

    • IanCad

      You’re a remarkably fair man DanJO.

      • dannybhoy

        What sort of ‘fair’ are you hinting at Ian??

        • IanCad

          Fair enough to suggest that I would be quite comfortable for him – and those of the same political persuasion – to hold the reins of power.

          • dannybhoy

            In the public realm “Don’t ask – don’t tell” should apply to all.
            When it comes to politics I care about a person’s integrity and morality than their sexuality.

          • Dreadnaught

            It’s called minding your own business Dan. It is however going to take a long time before prejudice gives way to hundreds of years of institutional discrimination and social conditioning.

          • Jack doesn’t think DanJ0 is suggesting that at all. But you are correct. This sentimental and emotional approach (attempts at guilt tripping the Church?) is not the way Christian doctrine develops. Our faith is a rational faith and we believe the Word/Logos is capable of communicating with us and does so through God’s self-revelation in scripture and through reason and natural law.

    • dannybhoy
      • DanJ0

        Which bit, specifically?

        The Jesus bit is interesting but his lack of recorded comment isn’t necessarily indicative. I’ve been convinced by the Roman Catholic Church’s view of sexual morality within Christianity. One could make an alternative interpretation specifically using the various passages in the Bible but I think it’s stretching it on the grounds of wishful thinking.

        • dannybhoy

          A Christian can apologise for cruel, derogatory or dicriminatory behaviour towards gays because Christians should not do any of those things anyway,

          But if that then means the Church changes its policy towards gay clergy for example and waters down or abandons clear Scriptural teaching, then we have a real problem.

          • dannybhoy

            I agree with Bishop Michael Nazir Ali..

            However, Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said he does not agree with the argument that there can be “different interpretations of scripture” on the issue.

            “The Bible is clear on many things, including its teaching on human sexuality and the Church has upheld that teaching for 2,000 years,” he said.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35274944

          • carl jacobs

            It is not cruel to apply social pressure in order to induce conformance of behavior. That is the alternative to making all bad behavior illegal and our culture currently suffers because so much legal but bad behavior is not stigmatized. Indeed, people are quite comfortable with the application of social shame to marginalize and stigmatize. The controversy occurs when people start arguing about which behaviors should be marginalized and stigmatized.

            The church should not apologize for stigmatizing homosexual behavior. A normal functioning society will indeed stigmatize it. The normalization of such behavior is a sign of societal pathology and not health.

          • dannybhoy

            We can condemn sin without condemning the sinner. We can refuse to compromise without exhibiting human prejudice or a lack of grace or understanding.

          • carl jacobs

            I didn’t say otherwise. But what exactly do you think the church will be asked to apologize for. It won’t have anything to do with anything you just said. I will be asked to apologize for asserting the created ontological boundaries restrict the exercise of human sexual desire.

          • dannybhoy

            I think we agree we’re just coming from different directions.
            I am one who feels that we should treat all men equally.
            It’s very easy to make homosexuals the ‘whipping boys’ whilst ignoring the sins of heterosexuals like adultery etc.

          • DanJ0

            Like any minority, we’re an easy target for those looking for potential victims. This is why we need to become unremarkable in society, and we’re getting there.

            It’s ironic that as society becomes more tolerant, the intolerant actually marginalise themselves. This is partly why some Christians feel they need to hide their faith in the workplace.

          • dannybhoy

            That’s pretty much garbage there DanJ0.
            All minorities of any kind have always been picked on by majorities or bullies.
            Anyone who looks different or acts different from the prevailing norm will attract unwelcome attention.
            My point is that Christians should be true to their faith and teachings, without being judgemental, rude or abusive.
            If Christians hide their faith there is something wrong with their understanding of their faith or they are very young in their faith.
            For example, I can remember as a very young Christian trying to hide my new bible as I walked to a Bible Study in case my friends saw me.

          • Same with pre-marital sex, pregnancy outside of marriage, living together rather than marrying, divorce, abortion ….. and so on.

            Nowadays we have to be “compassionate”, “understanding” and above all else “non-judgmental”.

          • Cressida de Nova

            On a personal note although I am happy to be a cradle Catholic because I have already been defined for generations by it and do have that intrinsic understanding, I truly cannot imagine why anyone would voluntarily take on such an onerous religion. Regardless of the respite it offers in clarity and peace in an increasing confused and muddled world, it is not for the faint hearted if you are going to be serious about it. You really have to have a special respect for those like Albert who do.

            PS
            No need to reply to this one Jack. I know you are not well and have received a bit of a pounding in the last couple of posts. Just remember there are quite a few who wish you well . Also there are some Anglicans on this site who are good people and support you. Clive has all the makings of a great potential Catholic…no doubt I will be accused of sexual innuendo by the Amirkin..(.bad ex convent gal trying to lure sweet Clive into her web :)…. Sorry Clive…it must be those skating legs:)

            .Take care Jack . God bless X.

          • We Catholics, like Protestants, can only struggle on a daily with conforming to our lives to Christ’s. And we can only do this with God’s grace. It is the ongoing commitment that counts. And when we fall, as we all do, and separate ourselves from Christ, the sacraments are there to heal the rift.
            God Bless.

          • DanJ0

            I expect the Taleban think the same, especially regarding the behaviour of women in their society. This is the dilemma for liberals who value freedom and embrace diversity. We must make space for people like you to live as you wish but you’re a threat to the freedom of the rest of us. This is why it’s important that the media covers religious conventions, despite their being a minority special interest, because people need to see what you’re all about so that they actively rather than passively reject it. They ought not to become complacent about their freedom.

          • carl jacobs

            A little guilt by association for breakfast, eh?

            As I said, it isn’t about whether groups will be stigmatized. It’s about which groups will be stigmatized. I’m only a threat to freedom as you define it, and you define it according to a foundation that you can not establish. When did autonomy become the touchstone of morality? Who made it so? What makes me bow the knee before it?

            You see health where I see sickness. My indicators of decline are your indicators of progress. We’ll see where it goes, and see just how far this libertine conception of freedom can travel.

          • DanJ0

            You’re not so very different from the Taleban. Had you been born in Afghanistan or Pakistan then you’d probably be arguing for the certainties of Islam instead. Both religions claim to be the truth and both are groundless in the real world. One or other may be turn out to be true but that’d be by sheer luck at the end of the day. There’s more than just a whiff of Oliver Cromwell about you, I’m afraid. As a liberal and an a-theist, I’m not that interested in making metaphysical truth claims, or in trying to make society conform to a single way of life. This is why the freedom of religious people like you is safe from people like me, but the freedom of gay people like me is not safe from people like you. Some people are really quite scary for their ‘certainties’ and their religious fervour, whether they’re Muslims, Christians or whatever. We need to beware of such things, as history has shown us many times.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Just as there is plenty of bad and harmful heterosexual behaviour, so there is plenty of bad and harmful homosexual behaviour. But a normal functioning society has no need whatever to stigmatize or marginalize homosexual behaviour per se, nor is doing so either a sign or a cause of societal health.

          • And if it damages the “Common Good” by undermining basic sexual morality by separating the sex act from responsible procreation within a life-long marriage between a male and female? Granted, there are harmful opposite sex activities which should be stigmatised rather than accepted. But their existence doesn’t justify accepting same sex activity as good, accepting and normalising it.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            It doesn’t undermine basic sexual morality and doesn’t damage the “Common Good”. For the overwhelming majority who are heterosexual, life-long marriage between a male and a female can continue as it always has done and, I’m sure, always will do. There have always been, as we know, plenty of heterosexual people who fail to realise that ideal, but that isn’t because of other people engaging in homosexual behaviour. I realise that some maintain that basic sexual morality requires that only heterosexual relationships be regarded as morally acceptable. That is not a view which I have any reason to share, so I don’t.

          • The Explorer

            I agree that far less damage is done to society by telling homosexuals to marry one another than by telling heterosexuals not to marry one another.

            What I don’t understand is why marriage should be advocated for the one group and discouraged for the other.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, whoever is doing that, it isn’t me – or even, if one wishes to be pedantic, I.

          • The Explorer

            Congratulations on your grammar. Those aware of a difference between ‘I’ and ‘me’, but uncertain of when to use which (the products, through no fault of their own, of modern education) generally opt for the invaluable ‘myself’.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I have to admit that I cringe whenever I hear thing like “Just between you and I…”. However, when it comes to “It’s me”, it COULD just be argued that in English we have disjunctive pronouns, as in French, e.g. not “C’est je” but “C’est moi”.

          • dannybhoy

            Absolutely.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Regarding the civil or social aspect (b’yir’at Adonai I don’t want to go deeply into the spiritual or religious aspects) that seems quite reasonable to me.

            But it seems that that the activists want it enshrined in law, in philosophy, and in whatever religion you care to name, that the two are absolutely equivalent.

            Here is A Tale of Targeting where a professor in California — belonging to almost every minority one could think of — has been persecuted for raising the issue of children having parents (?) of the same sex.

            http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/10/a-tale-of-targeting

          • The Explorer

            In the 2011 London riots, homosexuals , or the children of homosexuals, were not a notable problem on the streets. The children of unmarried mums were.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            A worthy point concerning the unmarried mums. (Now called “single parents”, but the Martians are wondering if Earthlings have altered their mode of reproduction.)

            One thing in my mind is this. Elton John and David Furnish now have a child of whom one is the biological father. I have read that on the child’s birth certificate Mr Furnish is described as the child’s mother. Now that will create for many people some kind of mental disconnect.

            That maybe part of what Professor Lopez is on about. He came to my attention through the following article:

            Racism Isn’t The Problem On Campus, Gender Insanity Is http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/13/racism-isnt-the-problem-on-campus-gender-insanity-is/

            This was actually the article I wanted to draw your attention to, but I couldn’t find it on Google, but have managed to by another route.
             

          • The Explorer

            Thanks for the link. Words fail me.

          • dannybhoy

            I like to follow what Stonewall’s up to. Makes for very interesting reading, especially the links..

            https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/network_groups.pdf

            http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2015/september/16/150916-naval-diversity-network-awesome

            Barnardo’s National LGBT Forum

            Nationwide Group Staff Union’s LGBT Advisory Committee

            FCO Lesbian & Gay Group (FLAGG)

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I have supported Stonewall in the past, when it was doing very good, important and indeed essential work. I fear that it has now become an organization in search of a cause.

          • dannybhoy

            I think it has a cause as outlined in the link. I think it’s totally misguided though, and positively harmful because its actually focussing on LGBT equality, rather than (in the case if the Royal Navy) an effective efficient fighting force..

          • dannybhoy

            If I was serving on a warship I wouldn’t care less about whether a man was unsure of his sexuality, whether he was gay or not; I would care that he does his job properly.
            “Don’t ask -don’t tell.”
            End of.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Equality is a perfectly legitimate concern. Indeed, I would say that inequality is detrimental and an impediment to an effective, efficient fighting force. But so also is wasting time fighting battles that have already been won and trying to cook up new ones, which is my objection to much of what Stonewall now appears to be up to.

          • dannybhoy

            Equality as in when one joins for example a miltary force. Everyone can be expected to conformto the same rules, to obey orders, accept the chain of command and not expect special treatment.
            Ditto when working in a bank, a supermarket or the government.
            There should only be one definition of bullying however it is directed or expressed, and it should be dealt with as bullying, nothing else.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I have to say that I entirely agree with you. In a perfect world there would be no reason for organizations such as Stonewall ever to have existed in the first place. They came into existence precisely because in the past bullying, for example, however it was directed or expressed, was NOT always dealt with as bullying, nothing else. Anti-gay bullying was too often treated as an exception: it was given privileged, exempt status. There are apparently still people who think that that should be the case. Fortunately they are now but as voices crying in the wilderness, voices whose number gets ever smaller and whose volume gets ever feebler.

          • dannybhoy

            You agree?!
            Ah, but those “voices crying in the wilderness, voices whose number gets ever smaller and whose volume gets ever feebler.”
            would presumably include Bible believing Christians, isn’t that so?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I’m not absolutely sure what you’re getting at. Are you identifying those who still think that anti-gay bullying and other forms of harassment should be granted privileged, exempt status (those who I have said are as voices crying in the wilderness) with Bible believing Christians? It sounds rather as though you are.

          • dannybhoy

            Tut tut!
            Of course not. No Christian should engage in any form of bullying or mocking or discrimination. We (should) treat all men with respect and be ready to help anyone in distress.
            And we believe that all men are sinners and need salvation,so we can’t condone what the Bible condemns.
            So say for example i am working alongside a gay person, and he knows I am a Christian and he thinks eg I’m a religious bigot or whatever. Then some other folk pick on him because he’s gay…
            Well, I’m going to defend him, I’m going to stand up for him because God loves him.
            But I’m still not going to condone his lifestyle.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            The way in which you say that you would respond to such vile behaviour is unexceptionable.

            No, of course, you’re not going to condone his “lifestyle” – if indeed you actually know anything about it anyway – nor does he need you to, and if he has any sense he will neither ask you nor expect you to. I often drink wine with my Sunday lunch and I’m very fond of salami, but I don’t ask Muslims to condone my “lifestyle”. I drink tea and coffee, but I don’t ask Mormons to condone my “lifestyle”. People who have divorced and then remarried or who practice contraception don’t ask conservative Roman Catholics to condone their “lifestyle”. People are entitled to their religious beliefs, and as long as they mind their own business that’s fine. What we cannot have, which you obviously realise as well as I do, is people using their religious beliefs as a pretext for meddling with other people’s lives or work.

          • dannybhoy

            “No, of course, you’re not going to condone his “lifestyle” – if indeed you actually know anything about it anyway – nor does he need you to, and if he has any sense he will neither ask you nor expect you to.”
            My experience is that gays often tell me this stuff without my asking. (people seem to like telling me things. Why I don’t know)
            So when they tell me, in the process of time I will tell them I’m a Christian.
            That always tends to get a reaction, one way or another…

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            What stuff do gays often tell you? That they’re gay? Or do they give you a rundown on their sex lives?

            If someone tells me that they’re gay or that they’re a Christian (neither of which happens very often), my regular reaction is the same in both cases: “So am I.”

          • dannybhoy

            The gays I have known through work will of course tell me different things, How they realised they were gay, how their parents reacted, how they didn’t want other people at work to know. whether they were happy or unhappy. Stuff like that.
            Not about their sex lives, because I would have already made it clear I didn’t want to know!

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            So since you know as little about their sex lives as you do about the sex lives of your straight colleagues, maybe even less, the question of your condoning or not condoning their “lifestyle” isn’t, for all practical purposes, really very meaningful, is it?

            I do have to say, however, that I am a bit surprised that in this day and age they should need to be concerned about whether or not other people at work know that they’re gay. Perhaps we haven’t made quite as much progress as I assumed.

          • dannybhoy

            “the question of your condoning or not condoning their “lifestyle” isn’t, for all practical purposes, really very meaningful, is it?”

            I’m talking as an evangelical Christian private citizen, but the context is about the Church asking forgiveness of the Christian LGBT community; and if in doing so they then water down the Gospel in order to make them feel included.

            “however, that I am a bit surprised that in this day and age they should need to be concerned about whether or not other people at work know that they’re gay.”

            Well we were doing a plumbing course at the time..
            Things change very slowly though don’t they. Althoughthere is much more understanding around ‘gayness’, we have to accept that we’re not yet at the point where parents to be actually look forward to having a homosexual child.
            That sounds harsh I know, but I do know enough to say that it causes some initial distress in families when it happens.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, I’m sure you’re a very good confidant.

          • dannybhoy

            I dunno. As I get older I tend to forget what people tell me.
            But anyway what I wanted to get across to you is that everybody has feelings and deserve to be treated kindly and with respect.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            On that final point we are both agreed.

          • dannybhoy

            I received this information this morning, and thought you might be interested to read it.

            The first link is the original article…

            ” In recent years, the argument that sexual orientation is innate has become a principal component of the advocacy for the rights of sexual minorities.
            That belief may not be the most effective way to promote more positive attitudestoward lesbian, gay and bisexual people, according to new research from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.”

            http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-01-born-beliefs-key-homophobia.html

            The second link is the same article, but interpreted by a Christian organisation..

            “Medical Xpress posted a strange article. It’s clearly pro-LGBT, aimed at helping society accept the small minority of people with non-heterosexual orientations. Yet it makes a strong admission that undermines the whole rationale for giving homosexuals legal protection: the belief that gay people are “born that way.”

            http://creationrevolution.com/sexual-orientation-is-not-born-that-way/

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Thank you for those links. The question of whether or not either homosexual people or heterosexual people are “born that way” has ultimately no bearing on our moral duty to behave honourably and decently towards others. No-one argues that, for example, the right of people not to be persecuted for their religious beliefs depends on their being born with them.

            I notice that the second article suggests that if sexual orientation is not inborn that means that it is a choice, which is a false dichotomy and is not supported by the first article. No matter what it is that makes by far the majority of people heterosexual and a small minority homosexual or bisexual – and despite any number of theories (ranging from at least superficially plausible to downright silly), no-one actually knows – we do know that people do not choose their sexual orientation. (We choose how we BEHAVE sexually, of course – or whether to behave sexually at all.)

          • dannybhoy

            “The question of whether or not either homosexual people or heterosexual people are “born that way” has ultimately no bearing on our moral duty to behave honourably and decently towards others.”
            Absolutely correct.
            The second (Christian) article argues that the two researchers undermine the case for being born homosexual. Yet my wife and I have both known and worked with gays who said from an early age they knew they were different.
            My interest is based on believing everybody needs to be loved and to give love, so I truly sympathise with homosexuals who whether single or involved would like to be involved with a church.
            We can’t water down the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality, but we can show much more compassion and creativity on trying to meet the needs for acceptance and fellowship.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Thank you. I’d just like to add one thing to your observation:

            “The second (Christian) article argues that the two researchers undermine the case for being born homosexual.”

            In so far as the second article does argue that – and that is certainly what it seems to be saying – it gravely misrepresents the original article, which is about whether “born that way”, true or not, is an effective argument in countering anti-gay attitudes. What the two researchers claim to undermine is the notion that it is particularly effective in that respect. Professor Grzanka, although clearly somewhat sceptical concerning biological explanations, explicitly says, “This research is not about figuring what makes a person gay or straight.”

          • dannybhoy

            Thanks. Took you long enough to get back!

          • The Explorer

            “Inequality is detrimental and an impediment to an effective, efficient fighting force.”

            Absolutely. When fighting an enemy, one wants the numbers, weapons etc to be as equal as possible on both sides. If one has superiority of numbers, for instance, one should shoot a few of one’s own side to level things up. Or give a few of one’s tanks to the other side. And the outcome, of course, must be a draw. Anything else violates the principles of equality.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            As to that:

            “Nelson’s patriotism led him to the erroneous belief that one Englishman was equal to three Frenchmen. Fortunately, he had too much genius to act upon it unreservedly. He took very good care in his battles that two Englishmen should be opposed to one Frenchman. We can therefore smile at a theory which represents merely the exuberance of an enthusiasm which knew how in practice to obey the rules of common-sense.” (SIR LESLIE STEPHEN, The Scepticism of Believers)

          • The Explorer

            That was then. Do you think we’re still allowed any common sense now? Great quotation, by the way. Thank you.

          • Obviously you don’t share the views of Jack or fellow orthodox Christians.

            Normalising same sex acts, sex outside of marriage, divorce and serial monogamy, artificial contraception and adultery has consequences. It is an objection based on natural law and not just scriptural texts. Any behaviour which become socially acceptable that damages life long marriage between a man and a woman, wherein sex is confined for mutual bonding and procreation, harms society.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            No, you’re right, I don’t share your views. I do not agree that committed gay relationships harm society in any way.

          • It’s the attempt to normalise these relationships and justify them by revising scripture that is harmful. What two people engage in privately is unlikely to undermine the Common Good. However, start to promote such activities and this is a different matter.
            In Jack’s view, the Christian concept of marriage, so necessary for social stability, was effectively undermined by the 1930 Lambeth Conference and later by the Church of England’s position on divorce and remarriage. Active support of homosexuality was inevitable thereafter. Why shouldn’t it be if you separate sex from conception and no regard marriage as indissoluble?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I seldom pay much attention to questions beginning “Why shouldn’t it” or “Why wouldn’t it”. They can almost invariably be countered with “Why should it?” or “Why would it?” and the reminder “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”.

            I see nothing harmful about encouraging people who are homosexual in orientation to form gay relationships, if that’s what you mean by “promote such activities”. Quite the contrary, in fact. What I do consider harmful and unethical is attempting to bully homosexual people either into adopting a celibate lifestyle, or into shoe-horning themselves into a heterosexual “lifestyle” and contracting orientation-discordant marriages with people of the other sex.

          • That really depends what you mean by “bullying” – a much misused term intended to prompt emotion and not reason. To teach people the purposes of male-female marriage, to positively promote this and point out the individual and societal harm inherent in same sex relationships, promiscuity, divorce etc., isn’t bullying. As for “contracting orientation-discordant marriages”, Jack totally agrees. In fact, in the eyes of the Catholic Church these would not be valid marriages at all.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            What I mean by bullying in this particular context is exerting pressure of any kind. It matters not whether it be physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual, financial or whatever; I consider such pressure to be absolutely improper. I am all in favour of promoting male-female marriage for heterosexual people, who are and always have been the overwhelming majority. Encouraging those who are homosexual in orientation to form gay relationships is in no way antithetical to or inconsistent with that. Your assertion regarding the “individual and societal harm inherent in same sex relationships” is precisely that – a mere assertion – and I submit that your lumping together of “same sex relationships, promiscuity, divorce etc.” is itself, to use your own words, “intended to prompt emotion and not reason”.

          • Again, the word “pressure” has many shades of meaning. Socialisation could be described as this. Indeed, the conveying of any system of morality too. Pressure is inherent to society in distinguishing the acceptable from the unacceptable.

            And Jack drew together those sexual sins not to use emotion but to make the point that a society is founded on family relationships and the regulation of the sexual urge. All these behaviours undermine stability marriage and the raising of the next generation. Wrongly directed and impproperly channelled, sexual conduct can most certainly damage the Common Good. The reason is based on the arguments from Natural Law which you are probably familiar with.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            It is not necessary for the Common Good that gay relationships should be regarded as morally and socially unacceptable, and a minority of people being in such relationships does not “undermine the stability [of] marriage and the raising of the next generation”. (You can keep on saying that it does till the cows come home, but as I have already said, “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.”) Pressure, socialisation – call it what you will – with that end in view is therefore quite unnecessary. More than that, it is a pernicious social nuisance.

          • Well, Jack would reverse this and say teaching children that same sex acts are good and wholesome is a “pernicious social nuisance.” It’s one thing tolerating private conduct; it’s quite another normalising it and raising it to equal status with male-female relationships.
            Surely the burden of proof rests with you given no civilisation that Jack is aware of has ever given equal status to same sex relationships. Plus, the evidence of the consequences of this so called sexual liberation, of which homosexuality is one grave manifestation, is plain to see. Separate sex from a permanent marriage between a man and woman, directed at raising the next generation, and any society will run into trouble.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I’m not absolutely sure what you mean by normalising – it sounds to me suspiciously like another of those emotionally charged words – but calmly accepting that a small minority of people are homosexual and will naturally form sexual relationships congruent with their minority sexuality, and not seeing any need to get screwed up about it, if that is normalising, then I’m all in favour of it. (What exactly children should be taught about sexual behaviour and relationships is another matter.)

            As for equal status, again I’m not sure exactly what is meant by that. Equal status for what purpose? I’m not one of those who try to claim that there is “no difference” between male-female and same-sex relationships. They can’t by definition be the same, and there are other differences, the most obvious and important one being that the latter don’t and can’t perform the function of procreation. But gay relationships are good and fine precisely for what they are; the pretence that they are the same as straight ones is not only unconvincing but totally unnecessary. (That is why I unreservedly supported the introduction of civil partnerships but have not supported same-sex marriage.) I see no reason to believe that society will run into trouble through accepting them, nor do you give any. As before, you simply assert it. Homosexuality itself isn’t a manifestation of any modern sexual liberation movement any more than heterosexuality itself is; it has been around for ever. And even though there are doubtless some very negative “consequences of this so called sexual liberation” as a whole, if the social acceptance of committed gay relationships is one consequence, then that particular “manifestation”, at any rate, is not only a grave one but a good one.

          • sarky

            They actually enhance it, along with committed straight relationships.

          • The Explorer

            Are we to assume the voice of experience?

          • sarky

            ???

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yes, indeed they do. A great pity that some myopic people can’t (or won’t) see that.

          • Bob

            It isn’t a question of myopia. That would imply impaired vision, which prevents the sufferer from collecting all the data he needs to analyse a situation and arrive at a correct conclusion.

            Dodo has all the data, but he chooses to discard the bits of it he doesn’t like in order to continue hating and persecuting the people he wants to exterminate.

            That’s not myopia. It’s targeted and implacable animus.

            You’ll never be able to convince Dodo that gay is OK because he’s made the dogmatic decision to reject that as a possibility. Reasoned conversation with him is therefore perfectly impossible. Data will not convince him. He has made his mind up and will not be convinced of anything he doesn’t want to believe.

            This describes Dodo, but also many others on this website, and many, if not most Christians in general. This is why the decline of their faith is such a positive thing for the gay community. The fewer of them there are to spread their prejudice and hatred, the more secure we’ll all be.

          • Jack doesn’t think DanJ0 is suggesting that at all – quite the opposite in fact.

            But you are correct. Whatever the sins of the past, this sentimental and emotional approach (attempts at guilt tripping the Church?) is not the way Christian doctrine develops. Our faith is a rational faith and we believe the Word/Logos is capable of communicating with us and does so through God’s self-revelation in scripture and through reason and natural law.

    • Bob

      Why exactly would a gay person want to attend a CofE church? Or any other kind of church, come to that?

      While liberals and conservatives argue about who to welcome and who to shun, most of the people they’re arguing over don’t know or care that they’re being argued over, and wouldn’t set foot in a Christian church no matter who wins the argument.

      The CofE is breaking itself apart on a rock that can only benefit from the further loss of prestige and standing that schism will inflict on Anglicanism and Christianity in general. The more the media trumpets Christian homophobia, civil war and fragmentation far and wide, the further the Church’s reputation sinks and the more ridiculous its religion appears to be to the general public.

      Whatever happens at this Primates’ meeting, outright schism or continuing skirmishes, it’s a win/win situation for the gay community and another nail in the coffin of the Church. How big of a nail remains to be seen, but if the lid isn’t banged shut completely this time, it won’t be long before it is.

      Most satisfactory. Most satisfactory indeed!

      • Dreadnaught

        Careful what you wish for. There was little or no tolerance of sexuality beyond heteros from either the Nazi doctrines or the Stalinists. Homophobia (cant think of a more suitable expression) is rife in Putin’s Russia. No matter what the source, the major social influences for good or bad, do not necessarily have to stem from religion. There may well indeed be laws passed to protect from discrimination that will still find non-acceptance in the mind of the wider population. Accommodation of these views for some possibly, may even be narrowly manifested in attraction to Islam or other form of totalitarianism.

        • Bob

          Only secular societies have passed laws that protect the gay community. Wherever religion directs government policy there is anti-gay discrimination.

          As long as our society remains effectively secular, equal rights are guaranteed because secular philosophy offers no basis for the justification of homophobia.

          Nazism and Communism bear out my point. These were not secular regimes. The true definition of secular is not “the absence of the Abrahamic god” but rather “of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred”. Nazism and Communism most certainly incorporated a sense of the sacred and must therefore be considered as godless religions rather than secular philosophies. Any philosophy that incorporates articles of faith based on nothing but the believer’s prejudice is a religion.

          The moment religion, godless or otherwise, starts to interfere in government is the moment when persecution and oppression begin to rear their ugly heads. Be it Islam, Christianity, Nazism, Communism, or any other codified and arbitrary system of belief, it cannot be allowed to pollute the body politic.

          • The Explorer

            Equal rights offer no basis for the justification of homophobia. Agreed, and if we want equal treatment for sexual orientation, how about incest or paedophilia? I’m quite prepared to accept that those are innate rather than chosen conditions, and that they feel natural to those who want to practise them. Causing harm? What harm, if no children result from incest? And if sexual activity is such a good thing, presumably the sooner everyone starts it the better. Why wait for puberty? The sex act, after all, has nothing to do with procreation. We’ve had more sex than ever before, and just look at the decline in the native population: which is why we need immigration to remedy the shortfall.

            I agree that equality flourishes best outside a religious framework. Bring in a creator God and anything created is not God’s equal. Milton’s Satan fights a long intellectual war to avoid the implications of that rather obvious conclusion.

            PS: Are your seriously arguing that Political Correctness is not a codified and arbitrary system of belief?

          • Bob

            Incest and paedophilia are behaviours frowned upon by society because of their harmful outcomes. We feel repelled by such acts because they cause, or can cause harm, to the human genome in one instance, and to the psychosexual development of children in the other.

            Homosexuality causes no demonstrable harm to anyone however. A secular society therefore has no justification for banning it.

            This has been recognised in just about every Western secular state. None of them have legalised incest and paedophilia. There is no popular movement agitating for such change. Incest remains as unaccepted by the public as it’s ever been, and paedophilia is becoming even more taboo as time passes.

            There is no “slippery slope”. That’s an invention made up by Christians who were running out of ammunition in their fight to keep the gays down. There was no more mud to sling, so they started to fling their own excrement instead, and it backfired on them.

            But you know all about that, don’t you? From the inside. Tell me, how did it feel when you let rip with the giant vindaloo one you’d been saving for the equal marriage debate, and it hit the fan and blew back all over you? Ew! But you only have yourself to blame.

            Christians are now seen as hysterical and intolerant homophobes. And you brought it all on yourselves. Never was a better job of self-ostracism done! All the gay community had to do was stand aside and let you turn everyone’s stomachs with your disgusting behaviour. And you did! And for anyone with even the vaguest appreciation of the nuances of Schadenfreude, it was like all our birthdays had come at once…

          • The Explorer

            Does incest have harmful outcomes if, as I specified, no children are produced? I grant you it’s never going to be a majority thing. It may be purely the result of circumstance. One thinks of Laurie Lee’s Cider with Rosie: “Quiet incest flourished where the roads were bad.” Quite so. All I’m asking is, what about equal rights? I have no personal axe to grind on the matter.

            Paedophilia? Well, AMBLA is now agitating for its legalisation, using exactly the same arguments as were used for the legalisation of homosexuality. So are radical academics like Gayle Rubin. She was the founder of Samois, the first ever women-on-women sadomasochism group. Not mainstream, I grant you, but whacky academics have a way of being influential.

          • Bob

            Incest and paedophila are banned for reasons that most of us find perfectly reasonable. There are no serious challenges to this state of affairs.

            The right wing media may have publicised the claims of a tiny group of marginal individuals who want to change that, but the point behind that publicity was to create fears that if equal marriage laws were passed, pretty soon kindergartens would he hiring out children as prostitutes. It didn’t happen and it won’t. That’s because slippery slopes only exist in the minds of those who want to control others via fear.

          • The Explorer

            “As long as our society remains effectively secular, equal rights are guaranteed.” But some things are banned because, as you quite rightly say, they are harmful. So secularism does not the criterion for determining what’s banned: harmfulness is. Christian societies didn’t allow paedophilia or incest either.

          • Bob

            Christian societies banned a whole range of activity for purely dogmatic reasons. Incest and paedophilia were not necessarily among them. Christian marriage registers are full of the names of prepubescent brides who, although in general (but not always) were not expected to sleep with their husbands until they had begun to menstruate, could still find themselves pregnant at the age of 12 years old. A man who impregnated a 12 year old in this day and age would certainly be thought of as a paedophile. Go back just a very few hindred years and his actions would have been sanctified by the Church.

            This was thought of as normal behaviour. No dispensation was needed to deflower your barely pubescent child bride. Incest however did require a dispensation, which was not infrequently given when politics dictated that two close relatives should marry. And I don’t just mean marriages between first cousins, distasteful as the concept may be to our sensibilities. One of the most well known incestuous marriages blessed by the Church was contracted between Queen Maria I of Portugal and her paternal uncle (full blood) and co-regent King Pedro III.

          • The Explorer

            True. Look at ‘Romeo and Juliet’. Juliet’s fourteen, and her mum’s fretting about her not being married. Old Capulet is probably in his forties. Everything is in proportion. With age, so with distance. As late as something like ‘Silas Marner’, a village maybe fifteen miles away is extremely remote.

          • “Any philosophy that incorporates articles of faith based on nothing but the believer’s prejudice is a religion.”
            And the basic premises of secular humanism are what if not assumptions accepted in faith by the believer?

          • Bob

            Who said anything about humanism? That’s a philosophy with many of the characteristics of a religion adhered to by many atheists as individuals, but by no state or society that I know of.

            Secular states make no pronouncement about religion. They merely govern. Equality is not a philosophical principle adhered to by the state, although some politicians make the mistake of claiming that it is. It’s merely the logical outcome of a truly democratic political system.

            If everyone’s point of view is taken into account, the only grounds for exclusion are an attempt to impose your beliefs on others, or to cause them harm. If you abide by the right of others to live as they choose, your right to live as you choose will be respected. This is called representative democracy and forms the heart of our secular society. It accommodates all religions and philosophies with the condition that they do not seek to impose themselves on anyone.

          • The Explorer

            “Secular states make no pronouncement about religion.” If that means they will not privilege any religion then surely that is a pronouncement about religion?

          • Bob

            No. I make no pronouncement about alcohol, for example, which doesn’t mean that I promote the drinking of it. Nor do I condemn it. My opinion about alcohol remains private, which means that anybody can feel free either to drink or not to drink around me.

            A secular state has the same attitude to religion. By making no pronouncement about it, it neither promotes nor condemns it, and every citizen can therefore choose or reject it without the state influencing his choice.

          • Atheism is premised on a denial of the existence of a Creator Being. It is both irrational and contradicts experience of the natural world and man’s internal conscience.

          • DanJ0

            It’s the absence of theistic beliefs, which is not quite the same thing.

          • Surely an atheist goes further by actually denying the existence of God because their is no proof? Theism is about a personal God who communicates His existence through self revelation, creation itself, man’s reason and man’s unique conscience.
            The premise of atheism – and correct Jack if he is wrong – is that if a Creator Being exists then this will be demonstrable in some way by objective, scientific methods.

          • Dreadnaught

            You are wrong. An atheist simply does not believe in any gods and there are plenty to choose from.

          • There’s only one God, Dreadnaught.

          • sarky

            Which one is it?

          • There is only one God …. so you’re question is moot.

          • Busy Mum

            I have always got the impression that the gay community needs protecting from itself, rather than from other people.
            A gay community will die out, without proactive support from other people.

          • Bob

            Heterosexual people do a great job of replenishing the gay community. Straight parents produce millions of gay babies every year. Some gay people have their own children, some of whom may turn out to be gay, but most of whom will be heterosexual. By and large, the next generation of gays will be raised in straight families. This has been the case throughout history.

            The gay community is not something that exists apart from the rest of society. It’s a part of society. It’s always been with us and always will be, so talking of it “dying out” is arrant nonsense.

          • Busy Mum

            I said that ‘a’ gay community will die out…unless of course its members are prepared to procreate. Of course I agree that sodomites have always been with us…but there is no such thing as a gay baby.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            There have been no Sodomites with us for a very long time now: the city of Sodom – if it ever existed – together with all its inhabitants, was destroyed many centuries ago, and I have heard of no-one nowadays who emulates their attempt to gang-rape visiting angels. I agree that it doesn’t strictly make sense to speak of a gay baby, or of a straight baby either, since babies have no detectable sexual orientation. However, just as most babies grow up straight, a small minority grow up gay. ’Twas ever thus. Heterosexual activity keeps both the straight majority and the gay minority replenished and prevents both from dying out, as it has done since time immemorial. Vive l’hétérosexualité!

          • Bob

            There is no such thing as a gay community living in complete isolation from the rest of society. There never has been and there never will be. The gay community is an integral part of human society, therefore speaking of it as though it exists in isolation is meaningless.

            Given that it doesn’t exist in isolation, the gay community can never die out. Heterosexuals just keep pumping out gay babies by the million, which means the gay community thrives and grows apace with society as a whole. Their “make like a cuckoo without going to all the trouble of laying an egg” reproductive strategy is a runaway success.

            Like Guglielmo below, I have no idea who you mean when you refer to “sodomites”. No gay person I know has ever been to Sodom, let alone been born there. I suppose it’s possible that if recent archaeological discoveries in Jordan are confirmed as being the site of the former city, and if members of the archaeological team are living in tents or caravans on the site, then you might say that Sodomites do indeed exist. But the word doesn’t imply anything about their sexual preferences, unless of course they all happen to be gay, and every new member who joins the team is or becomes gay.

            An easy way to resolve this question would be to email a detailed questionnaire to the dig supervisor and find out whether all his (or her) team members are gay, or become gay shortly after arriving. You could then cross reference the results with a similar survey carried out in Gomorrah (once it too is found) and compare to control cities like … oooh, I don’t know, how about Tehran, where, according to the local authorities, there are no gays? If the results show a consistent gayification of those moving to and living in Sodom, then you’d be justified in employing the word as an adjective to describe people of homosexual orientation. If not, it’s a bit meaningless, don’t you think?

      • meledor

        Why exactly would a gay person want to attend a CofE church?”

        Why would prostitutes and tax gatherers want to be counted among Jesus’ friends? There is something about Jesus and his words that sinners, which is what we all are, find attractive.

        • Bob

          Nothing about Jesus attracts me. Preachy and holier-than-thou control freaks with a penchant for being worshipped are repulsive rather than attractive to most of us.

          Of course there’s always someone looking to be dominated and told what to do. This kind of personality probably will gravitate to the Church, or maybe some other religion or cult with a cooler reputation. But those of us who aren’t looking for guidance won’t come within a mile of control freak Christians, unless it’s to remind them that they no longer rule the world and cannot impose their beliefs on anyone.

    • Agreed, Danjo.
      It seems to me they are so terrified of disestablishment they will bargain with any compromise to avoid it. How is it that a homosexual atheist can see this but senior Anglican clerics can’t? Are they very, very thick or are they working covertly for disestablishment?

      • Anton

        Neither. It’s called self-interest.

  • meledor

    “to boldly go where no archbishop has gone before”

    Not really; after some prevarication Welby has merely arrived at
    the same place as Rowan Williams eight years ago. He now has to make a choice:
    does he follow the Christ of the Bible who offers salvation/reconciliation with
    God to those who repent of sin or a Christ of the world’s imagination who is
    terribly nice to everyone but who cannot save from the judgement to come.

    Rowan Williams made the wrong choice and it doesn’t look promising
    that Justin Welby will be any different.

    “No one has any power to slap anyone else: the Archbishop of Canterbury is merely primus inter pares; a symbol of global communion.”

    Welby does have power – not to interfere in national church’s beliefs but he has the authority to say what he believes and has the authority to not invite bishops to his meetings such as the Lambeth Conference. He has so far refused to exercise that power but now he cannot avoid the choice identified above any
    longer.

    “We fall out, but we’re still family…you can’t ‘un-family’ yourself: it’s in the blood.”

    Except the reality is that various parts of the family no longer have anything to do with each other. In the absence of any effective mechanism to deal with doctrinal error the only common thread (or the blood-ties for the family) in the Communion is the relationship with Canterbury. Should Welby make the wrong choice you will have two families because relationship with Canterbury cannot supercede the biblical gospel. Gafcon will forge a new Anglican Communion based on biblical truth, because truth matters more than unity.

  • grandpa1940

    The question isn’t that difficult to establish.

    Should we separate the ‘Skirtlifters’ from the ‘Shirtlifters’?

    • sarky

      Or alternatively.

      ‘The tolerant from the moronic’

      • magnolia

        You think these are two entirely discrete entities? That moronic tolerance has no existence?

        Strange……! 😉

  • Hugh_Oxford

    We have now arrived at a point in the ancient, existential struggle between Islam and the West where, all Islam has to do to triumph, is simply turn up.

    And that says much less about Islam – which has changed very little in centuries – than it it does about us.

    It wasn’t Islam that invented industrial level mechanical and chemical abortion and contraception and then used those WMDs on European populations.

    It wasn’t Islam that forced us to legally conflate the fecund and life giving paradigm of marriage with same-sex unions.

    It wasn’t Islam that created phoney paradigms like “religious equality” and “multiculturalism” and imposed them on the West.

    It wasn’t Islam that created the culture of licence and individualism that has left so many Western children born outside marriage, or deprived of a mother and a father.

    It wasn’t Islam that emasculated and feminized Western men, leaving them helpless in the face of attack.

    It wasn’t Islam that caused the West to experience a demographic holocaust that leaves it incapable of a self reliant future.

    In short, it isn’t Islam that has attacked the philosophical, moral and practical foundations of Western societies. It’s us. It’s people like the modern Church of England and their “liberal” fellow travellers. Islam is just the messenger saying: you’ve had your chance, you blew it. You couldn’t use it, so you’re going to lose it.

    But this self-betrayal isn’t just self betrayal. It also undermines and threatens the heritors of the Christian faith from the West in places like Africa, where they are struggling to keep the fire of Christian civilisation burning. This betrayal is unconscionable, it is brutal.

    If the Christian world has to cut off the CofE to save itself, then only the CofE is to blame for that.

    • The Explorer

      Brilliant analysis! Wish I’d written it!

    • IrishNeanderthal

      Here is a recent article I recommend, from the Mosaic Magazine:

      Does Europe Have a Future?

      It’s both a continent and an idea, with an alternately heroic and ignominious past and, until recently, an enviable present. Can the heart of the West survive the 21st century?

      http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2016/01/does-europe-have-a-future/

    • Dreadnaught

      in places like Africa, where they are struggling to keep the fire of Christian civilisation burning

      Your right on the money there: especially with the blazing tyres around the necks of homosexuals in Nigeria.

      • The Explorer

        There seems to be necklacing for lots of things in Nigeria. Wasn’t it Nigeria where four students were necklaced for trying to collect a debt?

        Necklacing certainly isn’t religious in origin. The ANC invented it for black policemen, and others who co-operated with the South-African Government. It hasn’t caught on with Nigerian Muslims, who prefer to stone gays to death. That’s because they like to do things by the book, and Muhammad didn’t know about rubber tyres. Allah did, of course, but didn’t get around to telling his Prophet.

        • Dreadnaught

          Its not the necklacing per se, it may just as easily been burning at the stake old English style – I think its more the people doing it through misinterpreting (still) the tenets of their faith; poor dears.

    • Great post.

  • michaelkx

    I know that there will be a cry of Fundamentalist, hypercritic,
    Etc., from the liberal left, and others who have never read the bible, and believed
    what it said. But until we return to the Word of GOD and take it as it says, we
    will bumble along just losing ground to the none believing world. Which will
    get worse, till we destroy ourselves. Before we get to those who will point out
    the killing and wars in the old testament, may I point out that all that was
    because the people concerned, and the Jew were like the loony liberal left. Read
    the original script, and you will see that none of the mess was God’s plan. So love
    one another and follow the master and things can only get better, but with the
    loony left in charge no hope.

  • len

    The main argument on this blog seems to be WHO is allowed to define us, the way we are, our beliefs, and the way we should act?
    Secular man says’ I am the master of my destiny no one has the right to tell me how to run my life’ within ‘reason’ of course( and that’ reason’ is defined by me)

    Religious man says’ God (or my religious denomination in the case of some cults) knows best and has given me a manual and IF I can follow that my life will be OK and God will be pleased with me.’

    Then there are those who have given up trying to’ be religious’ and thrown their entire fate into the hands of Christ and been ‘born again ‘ now have Christ Living His Life through them and now see themselves and humanity in an entirely different Light.This group of people are/ and have been hated by ‘the World’ and also by the religious groups who see their detachment from organised religion as a threat to their religious systems.

    How can fallen man with a fallen understanding of things define himself? This is a root of all the discussions on this blog.

    As to the Cof E it must decide as to its function because it cannot have a foot in both camps( ‘the world and’ the Kingdom of God) because it cannot serve both….

  • Darn … the *Adminstrator* has now blocked access to this thread because: “Content of type Sexuality Sites blocked.”

    • CliveM

      Get yourself a good smart phone with all you can eat 3G.

      • Pubcrawler

        They have 3G in Scotland?!?!

        • CliveM

          Hmmmm………………..

        • chiefofsinners

          4G: Golf, Grouse and Gretna Green.

          • Pubcrawler

            Grouse is right…

  • Well, its 2 years now since I quit the local Aglican church for an FIEC church and it has done me good. I listened to a discussion about this on ye dreaded ‘Sunday’ programme on Radio 4 yesterday and as ever there were weasel words, distraction tactics, conflation of ‘love’ with seeking strange flesh, the canard about ‘Jesus never said anything about it’ and the dread term ‘interpretation’.

    I remember discussing divorce on a Christian forum a few years back and quoting ‘I hate divorce, says the LORD’ from Malachi. At once, several divorcees jumped on me and started going on about ‘interpretation’. ‘

    Interpretation? I. Hate.Divorce. Says. The. Lord.’ Interpret that, Munchbury.

    On the radio this morning the impartial BBC interviewer spoke of those who ‘believed’ that the Bible prohibits same sex genital activity. Plain lie. We BELIEVE things we have not seen, hopefully on good enough authority. Nobody needs to BELIEVE that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity, you only need to be able to read.

    This debate needs to get honest. Meanwhile, FIEC churches are willing to embrace Anglicans who can’t or won’t fight for orthodoxy and are being overwhelmed by the stench of apostasy. I await events re the Canterbury conference but time has told me not to get my hopes up.

    • dannybhoy

      “Well, its 2 years now since I quit the local Aglican church for an FIEC church and it has done me good. ”
      Gasp!
      (Danny performs pretty good imitation of Edvard Munch’s “The Scream.”)
      You mean you’re coping without an ArchBishop? Without the delights of Synod and ritual?
      No! Say it ain’t so..

      • And I gotta say it, I so DON’T miss the girly ‘I’m OK, you’re OK (unless you’re one of those literalist bigots)’ sermonettes.

        Much prefer the ‘Right, let’s turn to God’s word: please find page 1023 of your church Bible’ approach.’ No doubt I’m a self satisfied prig, but at least now I’m in a church that calls sin sin (including mine) and, thank Christ, points to the Remedy.

        We prayed for our Anglican friends yesterday.

    • The Explorer

      “Smite the unbeliever on the neck.” Qur’an 9:5. With enough interpretation, you can make that read, “Love your neighbour as yourself”.

    • Anton

      The Hebrew of that phrase in Malachi is an unusual construction that can also be translated: “Those who hate, divorce”.

      Please don’t reach for your gun, because we are probably in agreement on the subject, but scripture is primary and so is the language in which it was written.

      • Pubcrawler

        “The Hebrew of that phrase in Malachi is an unusual construction that can also be translated: “Those who hate, divorce”.”

        FWIW, LXX takes it that way, too.

      • The Explorer

        ‘Malachi’, of course, is not the only biblical pronouncement about divorce.

    • David

      “FIEC church” ?
      Could you please lighten my darkness ?

      • FIEC=Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. It is a loose coalition representing a range of reformed churches from small Gospel Halls to large city churches (like Above Bar Church, Southampton, where I am in membership) which take the Bible very seriously.

        Some would call us Calvinist and fundamentalists, we would say rather that we believe Jesus was who he said he was and tremble at God’s word.

        There is a web site if you would like to know more.

        • David

          Many thanks Stephen.
          I shall read the webpage.

          • chiefofsinners

            We’re not all Calvinist in the FIEC, David. Not sure where you stand on all that but you might find some kindred spirits.

          • David

            Many thanks. I am interested in all the branches of Christianity, hence my inquiry. I am part of the conservative, Biblical and orthodox end of the C of E, believing in the reformed faith. I am a Reform member.

    • cacheton

      But maybe (and hopefully) they are not debating ‘interpretations’ of the bible but whether some parts which are obviously not god-inspired should be interpreted or even considered at all, such as ‘I hate divorce’ written by a human centuries ago with a vested interest in having his word passed as the word of a punitive god so that people might do what he said.

      You do not only have to be able to read, you have to have some idea of what spiritual teachings are. ‘I hate divorce’ is plainly not one.

      • Hi Cacheton. What do you mean by ‘spiritual’? I find the term too vague and indefinite to be any use and tend to avoid it.

        You assert that parts of the Bible are ‘obviously not god inspired’ . Obviously to whom and on what grounds? Are you saying by implications that other parts obviously ARE God inspired? How would we know which was which?

        I was not posting above to defend the Bible against it’s detractors, I have done that elswhere and others have done it better. That’s not the issue here, we are discussing an internal church matter.

        it’s clear enough from my post that I was calling out those who wilfully misrepresent what the Bible actually says. The homoenablers in the church are working to destroy the church, one can work this out by seeing what kind of people are cheering them on from the secular world.

        • cacheton

          Yes, ‘spiritual’ is problematic, but it is still the best we have for what I would say are the non-physical aspects of humans.

          Anything that plays to human emotions comes from human emotions, that which is spiritual will play to the spiritual, will be recognised by some as taking them to a higher understanding of the human condition … I am having trouble articulating this, possibly due to lack of time. An info such as ‘I hate divorce’ will encourage people who ‘want to get closer to god and do as he says’ to judge divorcees more severely than non divorcees. It can therefore be plainly categorised as not enhancing wisdom and understanding, but reinforcing prejudice and eventually hatred, to the point that some people may even start believing that if they kill divorcees they will be doing god’s will. Substitute gays or infidels or any other group. It is therefore not a spiritual teaching.

          But would understanding ‘I hate divorce’ as the writing of a human who has ‘filtered’ (for want of a better word) the notion that in an ideal god-like world there would be no divorce anyway, if everybody loved their neighbour as themself etc. Would that be considered then misrepresenting the bible because just because it would no longer be the command it seems to be if we read the bible literally?

          Surely those who still need to categorise people as good and bad should be looking at why they need this, rather than looking to justify their prejudices by interpreting literally an ancient text to suit their need.

          • I assume that you have axiomatically ruled out the possibility that God (A) exists, (B) does in fact hate divorce, not for capricious or arbitrary reasons but because it causes misery and poverty, and (C) is able to speak to a prophet? If those are your base line assumptions, fine, but recognise them as that.

            The issue here though, and the point I was making, is that while those outside Christianity are free (for now) to believe and act as they please, follower of Jesus are not, since we are convinced on grounds that seem strong to us that God has spoken through Jesus of Nazareth. The sexual revolutionary/homoenabler attack on biblical Christian sexual morals is an attack on the fundamental basis of Christianity. As people like Bob, who hates Christianity, recognise. That is why, without hate, faithful biblical Christians resist it.

            Resisting popular error is a thankless task, but I am persuaded that I have an appointment and career review with my Maker in 30 years or less and I am more concerned to avoid HIs criticism than Giles Fraser’s.

            If God is God, then His commands are not arbitrary but are the Maker’s instructions and necessary for human flourishing.

            PS thank you for acknowledging that public understanding of the term ‘spiritual’ as commonly used is so muddled as to render it worthless. If that’s what you were saying, apologies if I misunderstood.

          • cacheton

            Yes, I have ruled out the possibility that an exterior god exists, because there is no reason to believe that one does. That does not mean that god does not exist however, only that he does not fit the character we find portrayed in the bible. Divorce does not necessarily cause misery and poverty, quite the opposite in many, even most cases, depending where and how you look. And yes, it is possible for god to communicate with humans.

            If you believe that the so-called ‘attack’ on morals is an attack on the fundamental basis of christianity, then your fundamental basis of christianity is not the unconditional love of god. Which is why these church squabbles put people off the church, because so many high up members of it can be seen to have not even grasped the basics.

    • Coniston

      There are many Anglicans – both Evangelical and Catholic – who hold to the faith once delivered. But I strongly suspect that the CofE (as well as the Anglican Communion) will eventually break up.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    The “group of 100” seem to be hell-bent on extracting historical revenge, or at least playing into the hanfs of those who are. So here’s a bit from someone who is a small-time historian of science/

    According to Owen Barfield, people “project post-logical thoughts back into a pre-logical age . . . surreptitiously substituting our own phenomena for those which [our predecessors] were in fact dealing with.” So those calling for historical repentance behave as if previous ages had a scientific concept of homosexuality, as opposed to the cultural practice of what a friend of mine calls “Greek sex”.

    Here is an extract from the Wikipedia article describing the situation in Ming Dynasty China.

    Virtually every town had a brothel where female and male prostitutes could be had. Male catamites fetched a higher price than female concubines since pederasty with a teenage boy was seen as a mark of elite status, regardless of s****y being repugnant to sexual norms.

    (Mark of elite status? Makes one think of the upper classes in our own country, and what some of them did on the Grand Tour).

    Even among the Greeks, according to Diarmaid MacCulloch, a man who did not settle down with a wife was regarded as “odd”.

    I don’t think the Hebrews had any such level of sophistication. Thier word “ḥata” could mean either a mistake or a sin: Arabic is more sophisticated, resevering “khata” for a mistake, in mathematics for example, and using the derived word “khati’ah” for a sin.

    Among the nineteenth century laws against male on male copulation, notorious is the Labouchère amendment under which Alan Turing was convicted. If you read Labouchère’s biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Du_Pr%C3%A9_Labouch%C3%A8re you can see he was hardly any sort of Christian. One wonders what drove him and those like him — was it experience of “Greek sex” at public schools?

    Moreover, as Dairmaid MacCulloch made evident in the BBC TV series “Sex and the Church”, it was CofE clergymen who pulled the most weight in decriminalization of homosexuality in Britain after WW2.

    A non-religious friend of mine, and most favourable to gay people, wonders why so many gay folks stick around in the CofE cleary, what with the doctrinal difficulties. Maybe, I wonder, in a world at large hostile to gay people the CofE actually acted as a safe haven for them? If so, I think they’re being jolly rotten to tear apart the institution that has protected them. If they were so concerned about Africans, there would be much better ways of going about it.

    • >>>A non-religious friend of mine, and most favourable to gay people, wonders why so many gay folks stick around in the CofE clergy, what with the doctrinal difficulties. Maybe, I wonder, in a world at large hostile to gay people the CofE actually acted as a safe haven for them? If so, I think they’re being jolly rotten to tear apart the institution that has protected them. If they were so concerned about Africans, there would be much better ways of going about it.<<<

      brilliant point.

      Reminds me of the parallel point about secularists tearing down Christendom, blithely unaware of the debt that their liberties, security and prosperity owe to it. Of course they deny this, but once they have completed the dechristianisation programme and the consequences appear it will be too late.

  • IanCad

    “—Thanks for talking with us.”
    “It’s a pleasure.”
    That’s all I got. BBC Newshour indeed!!

  • Johnzh

    Your Grace, Much learning doth make thee mad.

  • Inspector General

    Communicants (and viewing bishops) should bear in mind that militant homosexuals will also be taking with them the tragic crowd that are trans people when they ‘come into’ the Church of England on their terms (and eventually takeover).

    For the astonishment of Cranmer’s following, this from Pink News. Topic: Transgender woman convicted of raping teenage girl sent to men’s prison. Has not just raped a child, but been caught with images of abused children

    From (Mr) Marti386: “Depends on what’s considered “biologically male”. A lot of trans people think that a penis is no longer just a “male organ”. I’m a trans woman. I’m a woman, and I still have my original equipment. It’s attached to a woman, so that makes it a woman’s organ. I’m not defined by what’s between my legs.”

    Ah, such is modern life. Everything is up for question these days, because liberal arses demand it. No doubt the debate about where to put the seemingly many tranny felons doing time will go on and on, even after the new ‘improved’ CoE jumps in on their side. (The answer to the question is of course glaringly obvious – it’s Broadmoor – where else but the premier institution for the criminally minded insane!)

    • The Explorer

      You can be fined thousands of dollars in the States for calling a tranny by the wrong pronoun. Calling an ex-he a ‘he’ is a form of mental cruelty even if she’s still got her male tackle.
      Non-verbal communication in such a situation is the only answer. Words are too expensive. Maybe this is the future, and we’ll regress to addressing one another in grunts.

      • Inspector General

        The correct pronoun for those in transition is not ‘he’ or ‘she’ but ‘they’. Well, correct in their deranged view of themselves and what is. And yes, we run and hide because the slightest speech crime can lead to bankruptcy. Or should that be run and hide and loathe and hate them for their priestly power over us…

        • The Explorer

          I’m not sure even ‘they’ would save you. It might carry connotations of two genders. We won’t be safe until there are two forms of ‘they’: one denoting two or more females, and the other denoting two or more males. And then you’re back to square one if you slip up and use the wrong version. Besides, ‘they’ could carry the connotation of schizophrenia, and suggest mental instability. No, no; sign language, or grunting, is our only hope.

          • Inspector General

            Welby will cope, won’t he?

          • Pubcrawler

            I can think of some sign language…

          • The Explorer

            Just as long as its gender neutral.

      • Anton

        It’s already happened in some parts of the country, although I couldn’t possibly comment where.

        • The Explorer

          Presumably, neither could they.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Your Grace,

    Such a sad state of affairs. I was intrigued that the crypt chapel was to be used for prayer and contemplation. The place where the coffins and bone were kept. Previously, and now, an unwholesome place.

    My mind drifts towards the thought of how it might be if Jesus was to appear to theses rebellious people in all his glory. The rays of his glory, his shechina, reaching out to those there and warming their cold hearted souls. Such a difference that would make. No doubt there would be some dark individuals who would flee from the light, but there always will be some who can’t stand the light.

  • Whilst numerous Christian and Catholic sites are blocked, Pink News has not been banned. Go figure ….

    • Inspector General

      Perhaps you come across as ‘needing’ Pink News Jack…

      • Like a hole in the head. Btw, Stonewall is also accessible.

    • CliveM

      It’s who their most scared of. Pink news will have a whole bank of lawyers. Ban it and your knee deep in protesters.

      • Inspector General

        Not at all. Pink News is a money making venture for Ben Cohen. End of, as they say in America…

      • Stonewall is available too …

        • CliveM

          It’s also in my sons school. They have stonewall champions amongst the pupils.

          • Pubcrawler

            Whu?

          • CliveM

            There’s a Stonewall notice board with photos of pupils who are Stonewall Champions ie those you can go to for advice or help if yiu are sexually confused or subject to homophobic bullying.

          • Inspector General

            The Inspector has a guilty secret. He’s left handed. It’s true. But he’s never told anyone about it, and has thus never been bullied over it either…

          • chiefofsinners

            Never mind, you make up for it with your politics.

          • Inspector General

            You are a kind man, sir.

          • Busy Mum

            It’s not only your son’s school…one of ours has Stonewall stickers in all sorts of random places – I guess anyone else would be hauled over the coals for littering – and another had a noticeboard covered in celebratory notices after the Marriage Bill was passed. We pointed out to the school that it could hardly pretend it was taking a neutral stance when it came to politics….I used to avoid walking down that corridor as I actually found it quite intimidating. I guess if I put up a noticeboard with the alternative viewpoint, I would be forced to take it down because it invades the ‘safe space’ of others …

            And a routine question for any child who comes to the attention of ‘pastoral support’ for any reason is to be asked what their sexuality is….as if somehow getting upset because one has lost one’s bus pass, or fallen out with one’s best friend might be due to some sort of sexual confusion…

    • The Explorer

      It’s a good feeling that the comments on this thread have risen to the dignity of being banned by PC bigots.

      • One suspects it’s when the conversation turned to homosexuality and same sex acts. Weird, because Pink News and Stonewall are not blocked.
        Good job Disqus allows an alternate access point.

        • The Explorer

          As does heterosexuality.

          • Do you mean male homosexuality? Opposite sex couples can, and do, misuse the human body too.

          • The Explorer

            Indeed. But they have more opportunity not to.

    • The Explorer

      Talking about same-sex acts is not a problem, provided they are talked about in a positive way. That’s the key.

      • Demon Teddy Bear

        One of the many subjects that may only be discussed in terms of warmest approval. Faugh.

  • IanCad

    Way down the thread Jill linked to the shameful letter signed by the gentle clergyfolk.

    Upon looking at it again I noticed that it does not just include the usual LGBT moniker, but has added an “I” to read: LGBTI. OK! I Goggled the “I” and learned that it stands for “Intersex” Now I well understand about Intercourse but Intersex!! What on God’s green earth is that?

    I cannot but wonder at what goes on down at the House of Laity, the House of Clergy, and the other haunts from where the signatories hail.

    Now, I’m a man of the world and a bit of a ruffian to boot; but Intersex?? Can someone please enlighten me. Don’t invite me down, or be too graphic.

    Courtesy of Jill I take the liberty of reposting her link:

    https://lettertoarchbishops.wordpress.com/

    • Inspector General

      Intersex refers to genetic freaks. Mutants, if you will. The trouble is in these modern days, their unhappiness is to be shared with the rest of us…

      • Pubcrawler

        Ah. Not the ‘racier’ uses to which the Internet could be put, then. You live and learn…

    • The Explorer

      LGBTI. Sometimes there’s a Q in there as well. The way things are going, they’ll end up with all the letters of the alphabet.

      And I used to have trouble remembering what a BLT sandwich was!

      • Inspector General

        The T stands for tranny, if that’s any help…

        • Pubcrawler

          I had one of those when I was a lad. Used to listen to it in bed after ‘lights out’.

          • Inspector General

            Hope you fed and watered it, and assured it it had a valid existence along with normal people…

          • dannybhoy

            Boarding school?

          • Pubcrawler

            Parents strict about bedtime. I’ve been rebelling ever since!

          • dannybhoy

            Was your Dad ex military?

          • Pubcrawler

            Only National Service.

          • dannybhoy

            I only arsked (Bernard Bresslaw) because that’s what was said at the naval boarding school I attended.
            I shan’t bother you again. This thread is bizzare enough as it is…

          • Pubcrawler

            Yes, it’s overlong and losing its focus somewhat.

          • The Explorer

            Find yourself an American tranny, and you can listen to **** in bed after lights out. Even do more than listen. Just don’t mention **** gender, or it could get expensive.

        • The Explorer

          Bacon, lettuce and tranny sandwich?

          • Inspector General

            Trannies are best left inedible. Think about it…

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Intersex?

      Hmmm…Not sure

      Buggery on a train?

      Buggering a train?

      • Demon Teddy Bear

        An unnatural act committed with an Intercity 125? After checking the “age of the train”, as Jimmy Savile always reminded us to do!

    • chiefofsinners

      I like the way this is going. LGBTI is one vowel away from GIBLET.
      Meanwhile, I think all these people are more inter sex than I am.

    • Ivan M

      One can’t take the LGBT fellows seriously. Yes we can agree to a degree that there are lesbians, homosexuals and transexuals. But the bisexual is just a heterosexual pervert looking for opportunities. There is no other term to describe him (usually it is a male). There is nothing intrinsic in his condition except a tendency to perversion, which in a normal society should attract a jail term should he act on it.

    • Hi Ian

      Intersex is the new term for hermaphrodites, i.e. those who are born with both male and female anatomy. I personally don’t think it requires childish comments because it is something you are born with (quite literally) . Here is a medical article which discusses this further etc :

      https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm

      • IanCad

        Thanks for that Hannah.

        Of course, those who have such a condition have a difficult row to hoe, and need all the love and support that can be offered.

        It does not help this group to be lumped in with behaviours which, in most cases are choices.

        Witness their co-opting by the LGBT political lobby. They would be wise to disassociate from this organisation if they wish to maintain credibility and to garner support from the public for their plight.

        Ian

        • Hi

          You’re welcome. [Slight edits ].

          I’m not sure about the last paragraph , as part of the angst I see on this blog is that society has more or less removed itself from Christian sexual morality and you guys don’t know the response or rather can’t agree one* .

          I think , whilst we’re on about lobbies, it would be nice if evangelical pastors to stop encouraging African countries to criminalise homosexuality wouldn’t it?

          *I’m not suggesting Christian morality is wrong, merely there state of affairs the west is in.

          • IanCad

            Hannah,

            Thanks; You’ve given me the opportunity to use a long word.
            I absolutely agree with your penultimate paragraph.

            Ian

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Hello Hannah.

            I am delighted (thanks to ‘Londonderry Air’) to have discovered your blog.

            Regarding the situation in Africa you describe, that is grim. But whenever it comes to our attention, it seems that members of the entertainment profession are foremost in protesting. Stephen Fry in particular is an adept at scoring own goals, and better not mention the USA. Although there are doubtless some good folks in the world of entertainment, that world itself does seem to love detestable things.

          • Hi

            Thanks , I’m glad you liked it.

          • dannybhoy

            You can thank me later.
            Address cheques to…

          • dannybhoy

            Angst. Angst?!
            What angst?
            In the history of Israel we see similar situations where the priesthood became corrupt or the people turned away.
            What is happening here is similar, but I’m not sure we are ‘angsting’ about it. Few of us are fully paid up Anglicans as far as I know.. :0)
            Unless Jack’s been hiding something from us…….

          • Hi

            The whole point of this blog post is exhibit A of this angst. Clearly there are Christians who want to change with the times and others who say they can’t. If there wasn’t angst , there wouldn’t be a debate within the church. Of course there is also external angst because if the church , used to being at the top table of society, maintains its current stance , it will inevitably come into conflict with the top table of society and at large . The comments here will get up votes when condemning or bring snide toward gays, lesbians and transgender. In that sphere outside of the blog, in the normal world, people just don’t care and would feel a little embarrassed by some of the comments. It’s not just homosexuality though, look at other issues (abortion, assisted suicide, Sunday trading, how literal the bible is etc).

            So this to me is the real underlying issue :

            1) compromise and maintain a place at the table /influence
            2) stick to principles and go back to the lions (metaphorically speaking)

          • dannybhoy

            :0)

            GrowwWWL!

  • jsampson45

    The Anglican Communion is a man-made concept. There is no Anglican family. The blood Anglicans have in common is that of Adam, so they are family along with atheists, Moslems etc.

  • The Explorer

    After a slow start, this has turned into a really vibrant thread. Being banned by Happy Jack’s hospital’s outsourced censorship system is the benchmark of success.. In future, any thread that doesn’t get blocked isn’t doing its job. However, as long as the Inspector is a contributor, our future of being blocked seems assured.

    • dannybhoy

      I don’t understand how people are being blocked. Do you mean when they try to go onto Pink News or similar, or are we talking about smart phone access?

      • The Explorer

        Ask HJ about the technicalities. As I understand it, if you were in Jack’s hospital ward and following this thread, you would suddenly have been unable to access Cranmer because inappropriate attitudes had been expressed from which the minds of moderns must be shielded. ‘PInk News’ is fine because it has a positive and healthy view of life. Some elements on Cranmer haven’t. (Speaking, of course, from the viewpoint of a PC censor.)

        • dannybhoy

          Wow.
          That link I posted to Stonewall shows how far gay support groups have gained recognition in commercial, public sector and military organisations.

          • The Explorer

            Some people are still living in the era of Paul Ehrlich’s ‘The Population Bomb’. You know, the one that predicted that the UK would not exist by the year 2000 because of mass starvation.

            The purpose of life is not to procreate. Anything that facilitates this is to be applauded and encouraged. The result is that the young grow old. They have to import new young from outside to look after them in their time of ailments because the home-grown variety no longer exists in sufficient quantities.

          • dannybhoy
          • The Explorer

            It’s like carbon emissions. Europe can impose restrictions on itself, and puts itself at a competitive disadvantage to China, which ignores them. The Western impulse not to procreate is probably a mixture of a. hedonism, b. the desire to act responsibly towards the planet. b doesn’t solve anything if the global population keeps expanding. It simply means that the responsible section shrinks. And reducing your population below replacement level while allowing your old to get older is a time bomb for the future. Carers have to come from somewhere.

          • Hi

            Apparently robots will make most of unemployed in the next twenty years , anyhow.

          • The Explorer

            Japan has stepped up its robot programme as a means of dealing with an ageing population. Robots rather than immigration.

          • Ivan M

            The Pope stood against all this. For that he was vilified by the worthies of his time. If you want an example of papal infallibility where it counts that was it.

    • Ivan M

      Bob the Bugger must be pleased.

      • The Explorer

        “This vile little blog” as he calls it. But foxhunters keep foxes alive to ensure themselves future entertainment. Linus/ Bob wants to keep this blog alive so he can keep amusing himself here, or venting his rage. We’re his free therapy.

        • Ivan M

          As he is ours. The trick is not to take anything he writes about as having any moral force, as his intentions so far, are not directed to discerning the truth.

    • Uncle Brian

      Maybe it’s something everyone already knows except me, and in that case I apologise in advance for resuscitating a dead thread, but does Happy Jack know what it was, exactly, that triggered the intervention of the internet nazis?

      • The Explorer

        That answer must come from Happy Jack. I think he said, though, that it’s the third Cranmer thread on which the internet Nazis have intervened. Lots of attitudes seem to offend them.

        • dannybhoy

          I suppose one could find out what the hospital’s ISP is?
          After Jack’s out of course.

    • Hi

      Sadly no Phil R around to regale us with his observations of his office lesbian and transgender employee, or a precies on the book pink Hitler and the machinations of the Gaystapo…. Oh well.

      • The Explorer

        The Inspector’s gone quiet. Maybe when we hear the next pronouncement, it’ll be as the Inspectress.

        • dannybhoy

          (Danny simpers)
          Oooh! You are awful…

        • Hi

          Well I guess the next Dr who could be a woman…

          • carl jacobs

            Heretic. The Doctor cannot be a woman. It’s not allowed.

          • CliveM

            Carl

            There are no depths to which certain persons are able to sink.

  • len

    The further we move away from Christianity the more bizarre things seem to be getting?.

    We will soon be /already are at/ the stage of which ‘anything goes’ in most aspects of life.
    The’ floodgates ‘have been opened on the fallen nature of man and what is pouring out is not a pretty sight unless you can accept the fallen nature of man as his ‘natural condition’ and adjust everything to fall in line with this?.
    Without’ absolutes’ in moral values anything does and will become acceptable.
    ‘In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes’ (Judges 21:25) Without Christ we are all lost.This is going to be a most expensive lesson to learn.

  • Demon Teddy Bear

    Principles? Who needs them, eh, “your grace”?

  • IanCad

    I see where – as of last night – a further 3,800 progressive minded church folks added their names to the list.

    So many Team Rectors, Vestry persons, Synods persons. Even one talented chap/ess? signs on as a Priest, Psychologist, Professor. Sounds like just the ticket for gaining wisdom.

    It seems the Dioceses of Chicester and Chelmsford are leading the charge with close to seventy worthies of each emoting in ink. Brighton must add considerable numbers to the totals of the former.

    Canterbury needs to get its skates on; it should be setting an example.

    Little Bath and Wells is punching above its weight with thirty five, although that score should be tempered as one enthusiatic Rector signed in four times.

    Then we have the Episcopalians chiming in, led by the Integrity organisation within. Not only has the President, the Founder and thr Treasurer all signed it but so has the staff. A coordinator and a facilitator have join the fray. This group is mouthpiece for the LGBT members within the church, whose brief is to ensure that all with such tendencies are equally embraced and empowered.

    What odds would Paddy Power offer on the chance that the total will reach ten thousand before nightfall?

  • preacher

    I’m surprised to find this thread still going, it certainly gives much needed insight to the issues & the people involved.
    Although it’s sad to see so the CofE in such turmoil, I’m afraid it was bound to happen.
    As society becomes more liberally minded, many regress to the laws of the jungle, & Christians are no exception.
    If woolly leadership & P.C attitudes continues to take precedence in churches over the Word & teaching that many signatories claim to follow & should be expected to uphold & proclaim, they should seek employment elsewhere, as it compares sadly with the faith of past & present true believers who were & are ready to face death rather than deny their Christian beliefs.
    I hate to say it, but obviously, many who regularly attend church & consider they are Christians are sadly deluded. In fact they are churchgoers & attending church, does not make one a Christian any more than going to a Chinese restaurant eventually makes one Chinese.
    If the present trend continues unchecked it will ultimately lead to a schism, which may not be a bad thing, as by God’s grace, the Wheat & Tares have grown together until now, but maybe it’s time to reap & separate the two,
    We all have to choose our beliefs & the life we want to follow, but hard choices have to be made & is it not possible that the time of decision has now come ? We can procrastinate no longer. We can not run with the Hare & the Hounds any more.

    • dannybhoy

      For a Jewish take on the issue see the debate on Hannah’s blog…

      http://allmydeamsarejellybeans.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/welbys-last-stand.html#comment-2453394754

      • preacher

        Thanks danny. I agree with Hannah. The problem I see is that so many see a split as the end of the road for Christianity, rather than a parting of the ways, – Which could be beneficial & even positive. We shouldn’t forget that as Hannah says many good things can result from divisions i.e the reformation & Wesley’s revival plus other positive results. Perhaps the old C of E is in need of a review & a spiritual check up.
        Like old cars, they become bangers but keep going until someone takes an interest & works on them, then they become ‘Classics’ then after more work , money, love & time – vintage!. But without the effort, it’s the scrapyard !.

        • dannybhoy

          Have a look at my last response to Sam.
          I mention Bishop JC Ryle…
          (ps I only expected you to read her blog, not agree with her..;0) )

          • preacher

            Excellent ! You know it reminds me of the little boy who asked his dad why they attended the boring Church they went to. Dad replied because it’s been established for a thousand years !. On the way home, the cart got stuck in the muddy road & with much sweat & tears dad tried to free it. Son piped up ” Don’t worry dad it’s only getting established ” !.

          • Anton

            The father was an antidisestablishmentarianist.

          • IanCad

            I’ve tried to use that word Anton,
            It can be lengthened with the prefix “Neo,” and further, in its plural form.

    • Anton

      Most splits impoverish both sides. But a split between the Bible-believers and the liberals who deny scripture (while deceitfully denying that they deny it and taking a salary from the faithful) would strengthen the former; see 2 Corinthians 6:14.

      As to the effect on the country of a split within its national church, let “first things first” be our motto. A polluted church is no good to any nation.

      • preacher

        Not cynical brother – honest !.

  • Quote:

    The Archbishop of Canterbury… has no powers to impose doctrinal orthodoxy, excommunicate dissenters or expel entire provinces. Nor does he have the authority to command another bishop from another province to believe or propagate any particular moral teaching, and it is religiously illiterate of the media (and certain Christians) to convey his ‘inaction’ as character weakness or ecclesial incompetence.

    Unquote

    So ultimately, there can be no church discipline in the Church of England, right? Child abusers? Churches that began to carry out black masses? Nothing they can do, right? In that case, the church is finished. No organisation or charity or company or family can stand without discipline.

    “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

    Matthew 18:15-17

    I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

    1Corinthians 5:9-13

    • Anton

      I think you are confusing the Church of England, where the Archbishop does wield some disciplinary authority, with the worldwise Anglican Communion, which is as according to that quote.

      • My two quotes mention two very specific things he can do.

        1. He can publicly declare a province outside of fellowship with the Anglican communion / church of England (having followed the Matthew 18 procedure).
        2. He can refuse to eat with them (1 Corinthians 5) and have no more dealings with them. No invitations to bishops conferences, and if they turn up, he walks out and counsels others to do so too. See also Titus 3:10.
        The instructions in Matthew and 1Corinthians apply of course to any Christian. We can all withdraw fellowship from someone after relevant warnings etc. If Justin Welby does it, it surely carries weight with others.
        By extension, as the head of the CofE, he can discipline anyone within the CofE who is found to be continuing in fellowship with them.

        • Anton

          Re 1, it’s a bit unfair on the loyal Christians inside that province. This is the problem of church hierarchy, but I don’t wish to get into that again here.

          Re 2, I’d agree not to invite them but would be tougher still. If they turn up anyway then THEY should be thrown out, just like any gatecrasher.

          • The ‘tell it to the church’ stage in Matthew 18 makes it clear to true believers that the leader is in continuing, deliberate unrepentant sin and thus not a true believer. It is then up to those people to reform outside of that person’s authority. The newly formed group can then be accepted into communion.
            It is even more unfair on them to pretend that that leader is a valid Christian leader, as they are then being exposed to false teaching by an imposter and the rest of the church is failing in its duty to warn about false shepherds.
            In essence, the Archbishop **should** be splitting the church in this particular instance. See 1Corinthians 11:19.

  • Chris P

    As always biting humour and some deep reflection – thank you archbishop. I do believe, however, that a dynamic that complicates this ‘conversation’ is that one side is quite clear that it holds to a structure of absolute beliefs – yes the terrible Biblicists. The other side of the debate, however, seems to present as very relativistic and ‘open-minded’ when it also has a corresponding structure of beliefs and values held just as strongly, but makes the other side out to be the uncompromising one. There is a lot of talk about reconciliation – but conservative congregations describe in various blogs and newslines of being ejected from their buildings and facilities when they disagree with the doctrinal positions of the Episcopal Church or the Church in Canada (see the actions of Michael Ingam in Canada:
    http://www.virtueonline.org/vancouver-two-evicted-parishes-will-vacate-their-properties
    or the Episcopal Church that would rather sell its empty church buildings to another religion than to traditional Anglicans:
    http://www.virtueonline.org/binghamton-ny-episcopal-diocese-sells-historic-church-muslims
    There needs to be a much broader conversation about exactly who is kicking out who perhaps and where there is perhaps a need for greater love and reconciliation? And as for the ‘conversation’ – post modernist and liberal participants need to be sometimes be a little clearer on the meaning of this exercise:
    http:[email protected]/2016/01/06/discussion-as-disinformation/

  • meledor

    “Questions about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s leadership skills have also arisen amongst the primates, AI has learned, with some privately saying a solution could be found if he stepped to one side, placing less reliance on Western managerial techniques and more on the power of the Holy Spirit.”

    http://www.anglican.ink/article/second-day-report-deadlock-canterbury
    Let’s pray that even at this late stage Welby will forgo his worldly message of “let’s just be friends” (regardless of fundamental differences) and instead be faithful to the gospel.

  • John Smith

    “There will be no agreed statement and no authoritative declaration on marriage and sexuality” said Archbishop Cranmer. So what is – http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/01/statement-from-primates-2016.aspx then?

  • Anton

    The Anglican Communion has just remained faithful to scripture and tradition by suspending the Episcopal Church in North America:

    http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2016/01/statement-from-primates-2016.aspx

    This suspension is for three years, not until or unless the Episcopal Church returns to scripture and tradition. What will happen in 2019?

  • meledor

    Maybe Welby has started to listen to what his colleagues are saying after all.
    However there is room for liberals to continue along their chosen path – the statement only refers to marriage. Canada was excluded from sanction because it has only authorised same-sex blessings not marriages. In the CofE clergy can be in a civil partnership but not get married but adopting the logic of the statement you can expect same sex blessings in the CofE without sanction.
    With such contrived hair-splitting, no wonder the GAFCON primates have said it is only a start. This Primates gathering has kicked the can down the road but a lot more action is needed to repair the Anglican Communion.