Tim Farron
Freedom of Religion

Tim Farron 'clarifies' his Christian convictions in pursuit of LibDem leadership

 

There is no doubt that Christian representation in Parliament came out well in this General Election. A handful of prominent Christians including Simon Hughes, Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy lost their seats, but this was more than compensated for by an influx of new Christians across the political spectrum. Ed Miliband failed to become this country’s first atheist Prime Minister and David Cameron is back in power with a Cabinet full of Christian ministers.

Now that we are moving into the traditional phase of post-election leadership contests, there is a very real chance that for both Labour and the LibDems their new leaders could well end up being Christians, too. This country may be increasingly irreligious, but Parliament is bucking the trend. For Labour, the bookies favourite was Chuka Umunna – before he tossed in the towel. Now it is Andy Burnham. Both have stated publicly that they are Christians. Burnham, a prominent Roman Catholic, has controversially declared previously: “I’ve always said, and some people won’t like this, what I used to have to read in the Catechism, the enfranchisement of (the Church) on earth was the Labour Party.”

Many will disagree with Burnham on that assumption, including plenty of LibDems, of which, out of their remaining eight MPs, four are professing Christians. Included in that number is their ex-party President, Tim Farron, who is by far the favourite to take the top job, partly due to voting against increases to tuition fees during the last government; staunchly refusing to backtrack on his party’s previous manifesto pledge.

Farron is an intriguing political animal. There may be a large crop of Christian MPs, but few, if any, are as happy to talk about their faith as Farron. He is Vice Chairman of the Christians in Parliament group; he hosted the Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast in 2013; and stood up to the Advertising Standards Authority when it ruled that the ‘Healing On The Streets’ ministry in Bath was no longer able to claim in their advertising that God can heal people. He has described The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins as his least favourite book, saying: “I’m a Christian, but I don’t object to people criticising my faith or even trying to ‘disprove’ it. However, I do object to bright people like Dawkins writing uncritical and abysmally researched polemic and then parading it as a respectable work.” Most revealing, though, is his essay written for the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum’s recent book Liberal Democrats Do God, in which he writes:

To be a Christian is to accept that Jesus Christ existed, that he made the amazing claim to be God and the only true route to eternal life, and that those claims were true. If this last sentence is accurate, then, to be blunt, our personal opinions of Christians and Christianity are completely irrelevant because Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection would then become the most significant events in the history of the universe – and how you respond to these facts would be the most important decision you will ever need to make.

So what do Christians believe?

Well that God created a perfect world, that human beings have selfishly turned away from God and tainted that perfect creation, that God is a completely fair and just God and will justly judge all of us for our sin. Now, let’s explain what sin is: it’s rejecting God’s good and loving rule and choosing to put ourselves in his place. The kind of things we do to reject God’s rule over our lives differs from person to person, but the desire to push God out of our lives is the same for everyone. On that basis we are all sinners and so none of us can look forward to God’s just and fair judgement with any sense that we’ll be OK. Luckily for us, God isn’t only just and fair, he is also good, kind and merciful. He planned a way of sparing us by sending his only Son, Jesus, who took all of our sins on himself and died in our place – something that was God’s intention before creation.

He was the perfect and ultimate sacrifice. This means that anyone who puts their trust in this Jesus, will stand before God ‘clothed’ in Jesus’ goodness and purity, just as Jesus clothed himself in our rottenness and sin. This is the ultimate act of real love – Jesus was punished for our sin, and he did it willingly, not grudgingly. He did it because he loves us. Now, all we need to do to know that we can face judgement with confidence is to accept that we are a ‘sinner’, say sorry to God and ask for his forgiveness and accept Jesus as the perfect payment for every wrong thing we ever did.

 To be a Christian is to submit to ultimate truth, fairness and goodness – some of which will jar with our current state of socialisation. To be a Christian is to seek to be radical, to be anti-establishment, anti-materialistic, anti-greed, other-centred, not self-centred, humble not proud, self-controlled not controlled by selfish desires… and if you are a Christian you will also know that you will fail on a daily basis to live up to all of this. But to be a Christian is to humbly kneel before God and confess those failures in the certain knowledge that God will forgive you, because he promised to. Unlike politicians God always keeps his promises.

How many politicians could or would give such a passionate presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Even many clergy would struggle to be so articulate. But Farron’s last line is also his biggest challenge to himself. Outside of Church circles such religious views are not always welcome. David Cameron’s version of Christianity, which certainly states a belief in Jesus as the Son of God but is rather fuzzy on its soteriology, is more palatable to many than one which declares that Jesus is the only way to God without exception.

But words cannot be judged apart from actions: reputations are built on substance. Tim Farron has had the luxury of not having been a government minister or having to face the pressures of compromise, like some others in his party. He has strong grassroots support, but the same cannot always be said of his (now former) colleagues. In March, following some criticism by Farron of the LibDems’ role in the Coalition, Lord (Paddy) Ashdown responded, saying: “Tim’s a very able guy but at the moment judgement is not his strong suit.” To which Vince Cable added: “He’s a very good campaigning MP, but he’s never been in government and has never had to make difficult decisions and I think his credibility isn’t great.”

Credibility is crucial in politics, and voting records are an easy way to knock people down. Just as Nicky Morgan found when she became Education Secretary, any lack of support for same-sex marriage, especially on the grounds of religious belief, is not left unchallenged. The knives quickly came out from a whole range of groups and individuals following her promotion, leading to her stating that if she had another chance she would now vote in favour. Farron now finds himself under similar pressure from his fellow contender Norman Lamb, and we see Farron publicly regretting that he was one of the nine LibDem MPs who abstained at the Third Reading of the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Bill.

There is, of course, far more to politics and religion than views on sexuality, but Farron has a mixed record when it comes to certain ethical judgments relating to those moral matters which Christians tend to be more concerned about. He has stated in the past that he believes abortion is wrong and so voted against his party when the Termination of Pregnancy (Counselling and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was presented to Parliament in 2007. However, he was absent for the 2008 vote to reduce the upper limit for termination. When Nadine Dorries approached him in 2011, looking for his support for her Ten Minute Rule Bill on teaching abstinence as part of sex education, she received this response:

I spoke to Tim because he’s a Christian and a member of Christians in Parliament. I asked for his support and this is what he said – “I can’t Nadine, it’s a bit different now that I’m President. I really have to be careful and think of my new position first.”

In an interview with Pink News this week, along with giving his full support for same-sex marriage, Farron has also said that it was right that Ashers Bakery lost it’s ‘gay cake’ case in Northern Ireland, and that, given the choice, he would prefer faith schools not to exist. He also believes that the Church of England should be disestablished.

The LibDems have traditionally had a sizeable Christian presence in Parliament, but also have a strong and vocal LGBT and pro-abortion contingent. Any leader of a party needs to hold the views of its members in tension, but Farron’s desire to reach the top would appear to be leading him to pander to certain groups. In his essay, he writes: “To be a Christian is to submit to ultimate truth, fairness and goodness – some of which will jar with our current state of socialisation.” Sometimes that means sticking up for certain values even if it makes you unpopular and draws criticism. For a Christian, submission to God should always come before submission to man.

There is a belief among many Christians that party politics and faith can never really mix. To have a party leader with a sound grasp of the gospel and who is fully committed to his or her faith – to the point of demonstrating it in the voting choices they make – would go a long way to disproving this view. Tim Farron has that chance and he carries the hopes of many Christians and non-Christians both within and outside of the Liberal Democrats. This could be an opportunity for him to forge ahead with a leadership built on personal integrity and strong moral conviction. He has many fine qualities that will serve him well should he win, but, as it stands – certainly on recent evidence – the indication is that when it comes to political ambition and Christian conviction, there is only one winner.

  • David

    Interesting Your Grace, especially to any Christians that support the Lib-Dems.
    All I have to say is,
    “By their fruits ye shall know them”

    • “By their fruits ye shall know them”
      Yes indeed, and that goes for a number of supposedly Christian Conservatives.

      • David

        Agreed !

  • Dominic Stockford

    Yet another compromiser. I wonder what he will have to say to the Lord when he stands before Him at the throne of grace?

    • sarky

      I would hate to be a christian politician. You cant do right for doing wrong.

      • Dominic Stockford

        It’s very easy, you do what is right by God’s Word, come what may. Read Daniel chapters 1-6.

        • John Hillman

          Yes Daniel readily come to mind and his cohorts but do we really expect all Christians in public life or otherwise to be shining Biblical champions. The point is we all fall short at its not that easy at all; it really is a very hard narrow path. Should we not have joy that Mr Farron seeks to follow it.

        • sarky

          Really? Sounds like a way of quickly ending your career!

          • Inspector General

            What do you know about it, sarcastic thing? Can’t say what you have come out with has convinced the Inspector that you are anything other than a silly person.

          • sarky

            What do I know about it?? Well the Christian party did really well at the election didn’t they?

          • Inspector General

            That will be the Conservatives then…

      • dannybhoy

        There’s nothing wrong with disagreement, but Christians would say that the Scriptures shape our values and practices, and on issues not specifically covered in the Bible our, attitudes should be in line with Christian teaching and morality.

  • dannybhoy

    In an interview with Pink News
    this week, along with giving his full support for same-sex marriage(1),
    Farron has also said that it was right that Ashers Bakery lost it’s ‘gay
    cake’ case in Northern Ireland(2), and that, given the choice, he would
    prefer faith schools not to exist.(3) He also believes that the Church of
    England should be disestablished.(4)

    (1) If he supports that, presumably he has a reasonable Scripturally based argument?

    (2) The law is the law, so I agree with that. However a business should have the right to refuse to provide a service if it conflicts with his/her faith, so I hope he will be working towards getting the law modified.

    (3) Faith schools were not a problem before multiculturalism replaced historic monoculturalism, and the ECHR’s Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policies…
    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEEQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.equalityhumanrights.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fresearch%2Frr84_final_opt.pdf&ei=-UdgVevqFoa67gblrIDQBA&usg=AFQjCNERQIPhaROKq7RpLFrOOXBco-GpmA&sig2=bNJ8sHutC3tgTgtjUTgL8Q

    (4) Agreed, but not yet.

  • john in cheshire

    Mr Farron proves my contention that you cannot be a socialist and a Christian.

  • Whenever Jack reads statements like this: “Any leader of a party needs to hold the views of its members in tension … “ he suspects compromise and betrayal of first principles and first loyalties. The same applies to leadership roles in the Church. There is a spectrum of opinions within any group that a leader can and must legitimately “hold in tension”. There are some views that cannot be reconciled without betraying other loyalties we are obligated to fulfil.

    As a professing Christian, Tim Fallon’s first loyalty is to God; next his family, his brothers and sisters in Christ and his neighbours; then his country and political party; and lastly himself. Sadly, he appears to have allowed his ambition to confuse these loyalties over two very significant issues. And, should he be elected, his job will be to sell his party to the nation and secure popular votes. He has shown how he intends to set about this.

    You are right in observing: “when it comes to political ambition and Christian conviction, there is only one winner.” And, more worryingly, the same appears to equally apply to those seeking leadership roles in the Church.

    • dannybhoy

      Well stated Jack.

  • John Hillman

    What good post and well put together. I am left trying to reconcile the quoted passage and the later information. It is easy and tempting to judge and rail at him but I think the post is a great challenge to us all to consider the real problems of faith and public life. As you sum up do we see this through the lens of hope or despair? Is he a light who shine in darkness or a light consumed by the darkness?

    • Jack would say he is a candle who’s light is flickering in a very strong wind.

  • Graham Wood

    Gillan. You say: “Now, let’s explain what sin is: it’s rejecting God’s good and loving rule and choosing to put ourselves in his place”
    In part that is a good description of all of us by nature, though increasingly not those who are being transformed by God’s grace.
    However, such a statement needs to be applied to those professing the Christian faith also – in this context politicians like Tim Farron and Nicky Morgan.
    Both support same sex marriage and now by their own words reject what you call “God’s good and loving rule”, for SSM is a rejection of that rule for men and women and the married state.
    God’s word on this is not ambiguous for it is Christ himself who has defined the exclusively heterosexual nature of real marriage – i.e. between a man and a woman. There cannot be therefore be two ‘competing’ definitions of marriage – that of God’s word throughout all of Scripture and endorsed by Jesus Christ, or that of men, whether by the State or by individuals.
    To teach practicing homosexuality as “marriage” is to endorse a sinful relationship and additionally to teach that children need mothers and fathers.
    In this context Christ is not divided. One cannot claim to be a Christian and a believer in Christ, yet at the same time divorcing his Person from his teaching. His teaching comes within the personal “belief” territory, and thus professing Christians must needs abandon their own views on this basic issue and submit to God’s. To do otherwise is to mark oneself out as a false teacher.
    Politicians have no authority to divide what God has joined – “What God has joined together let NOT man put asunder – namely that vital man/woman relationship we call marriage.
    To deny this is in effect to deny Christ at that point. Thus Christ’s own words:
    “He that is not with me is AGAINST me, and he that gathers not with me scatters abroad”

    • DanJ0

      “Politicians have no authority to divide what God has joined – “What God has joined together let NOT man put asunder – namely that vital man/woman relationship we call marriage.”

      That’s not what it means.

      • Graham Wood

        DJ. That is precisely what it means as the context of the quote indicates:
        “Have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.. and for THIS cause……….
        The context is marriage and the secondary issue of unwarranted divorce. The obvious reference is to the man/woman marriage relationship. The Bible envisages no other in sexual union.

        • sarky

          Good job then that people no longer pay much attention to the bible.

        • DanJ0

          It’s the marriage itself than no man may break once it’s been formed. They have become as one flesh.

          • Graham Wood

            “It’s the marriage itself than no man may break once it’s been formed. They have become as one flesh”
            Correct. The “they” being a man and a woman in marriage.

          • DanJ0

            The specific instance of a marriage.

          • Dreadnaught

            Whats the difference between a marriage and a civil partnership? – if the couple want a church wedding because they are believers OK, but I cant see what all the fuss is about. Registry office was good enough for millions of couples; was that a wedding or a CP or what? – I’m still confused.

          • DanJ0

            Apparently, only one of those means you can stay in a particular B&B in Cornwall.

          • Dreadnaught

            Better to stay in Devon then.

          • DanJ0

            A civil marriage is not a civil partnership, legally. To be honest, I’m happy enough with civil partnerships if the State intends them to be treated in society for all intents and purposes as civil marriages.

          • Dreadnaught

            There’s a difference?

          • DanJ0

            In benefits and entitlements, no, not as far as I am aware.

          • Ah, but it was denying “equal access” to the title marriage and that just wouldn’t do.

          • DanJ0

            That civil partnerships are equivalent to civil marriages wouldn’t do for the proprietors of that Christian B&B, the Christian political lobby groups who supported them, and lots of individual Christian supporters. Those people have made their bed and they must lie in it now … potentially in a room next to another containing a married same-sex couple.

          • sarky

            And until recently, buy a cake in Ireland 🙂

          • Sirbastion

            If you are referring to the Asher’s business then your comment was a mean misrepresentation of the bakers conduct just for the sake of a quick quip. Come now sir.

          • Yes and the ‘marriage’ you’re referring to cannot be consummated, nor can there be adultery in such a relationship. Mutual masturbation and the unnatural use of uncomplimentary body parts doesn’t count as becoming one flesh.

          • DanJ0

            Marriage is a social institution. No-one minds if Christians see their own marriages as instances of Holy Matrimony and perform their own rituals when setting their marriage up. We’re a liberal bunch, by and large, in the UK these days. Feel free.

    • Here’s how Mr M. sees these votes in favour of homosexual marriage by those who know the Gospel message but ignore it:

      “God knows I do not wish any soul to go to hell. But this here is not about what we are wishing, it is about what we are observing. It’s happening under our eyes, and it is clear Satan’s nets are all out, and the catch will be so plentiful it makes one’s blood chill.

      No, you stupid men and women of Ireland. You go to hell without me. I will die in the religion of my forefathers and, wretched sinner as I am, hope to find some mercy in my weak, but sincere efforts to live a Christian life, and in my adherence to what I know to be Revealed Truth.

      You, stupid men and women of Ireland, have no excuses. You know very well what the Church teaches. You chose to ignore Christ’s religion to create your own.

      I do not wish for anyone of you to go to hell. I will keep praying for your final repentance as it is my duty of Catholic. But I do not feel the slightest shred of compassion for those among you who will be sent to their eternal damnation after such an open rebellion to Christ.

      Be your own God, pay the price.

      One day, Satan will show you an entirely new meaning of “same sex loving”.

      God help us all – and the generations to come.

  • Inspector General

    Farron is the MP for the area in the Lake District the Inspectorate has recently returned from. He avoided the Lib Dem chop because of his massive personal following. He really is a good local MP, from what they will tell you there, and are rather concerned that if he takes on the role of leader, he won’t be around for the constituents in quite the same manner he has been.

    Do the Lib Dems need a leader, or do they need an official receiver? That the party is over is all too obvious, and the natural vote of protest has gone elsewhere. Still, he’s ticking the new box on the credentials form, Christian, but then they all are now. Must be multiculturalism really is a dead duck, and that reality isn’t lost on our darling representatives…

    • A sad day for Christianity in Ireland, Inspector.

      • sarky

        Or a fantastic one for democracy.

        • … good day for Hell, more like.
          Jack’s often wondered how they celebrate in such a place as there can be no joy there. They just relish dragging others down out of sheer spite and hatred.

          • sarky

            Sheer spite and hatred?
            Have you been looking in the mirror again Jack?

          • Shouldn’t you be doing the weekly shop …. at Poundland?

          • carl jacobs

            You are better than this, Jack. What difference does it make where someone shops?

          • DanJ0

            He’s not better than that. You just wish he was.

          • A private running joke, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            Apologies, then. Seemed out of character for you. I repent in dust and ashes. 🙂

          • sarky

            Nah, gone up in the world. Went to lidl.

        • DanJ0

          Do you hear that faint sound in the background? That’s the sound of past arguments collapsing under the weight of reality. 😉

          • magnolia

            Reality is that this world will never be as gay men want it, because their desires are the opposite of those of most women, and most stright men Most women have not as yet worked this out, because women are on the whole oriented to nurture and understanding. They have not yet worked out that the gay man with a good career, paying say £60k a year, with all the male advantages in the workplace, also thinks he has a right to muscle in on what were widows’ pensions, thereby diluting them for lesser well-paid women who have taken career breaks that have significantly dented their opportunities, in order to bring up well-adjusted children.

            It is not equal rights to have stinking rich men in their 60s who have effectively taken money, by dilution, from widows who were poorer to start with, who may then decide to lease the wombs of poorer women so that they can then employ another poorer woman to do all the donkey work of bringing up small children.

            Equality? Misogyny more like, (though that now appears highly legal all of a sudden) and reallocating the assets of the poorer to the richer so they can “feel better” about themselves while the poorer choose whether to heat or eat.

            To me it stinks of gender inequality.

          • Dreadnaught

            Like er.. what about gay women?

          • sarky

            Like er…what about unmarried straight men?

          • magnolia

            What is wrong with an occupational pension until they die, exactly? The point is that women who have brought up children have usually a much lesser income, and many years partial or complete gap. “Scottish Widows”; get it? So to share what were largely widows’ pensions with men who have been sufficiently time-rich to do paid work (as apart from unpaid hard graft) during these years, and increase their pay in future years is unfair, particularly as the work that supports life on earth will be being done by these women’s children, but they are forced to be lesser beneficiaries, thus inferior. So it is not about equality, but about superiority, and redistribution of wealth from the poorer to the richer.

          • sarky

            But its your choice to have children.

          • magnolia

            In all societies until fairly recently you either had children or no one supported you in your old age. That is a more accurate representation of the needs and economics of the world than we now have. So there was a tangible reward towards parents for all the hard work. Of course we have children because we like them, but I was not actually advocating for myself as I am well enough off, thanks, and have actually rather few wants or needs!

            I am advocating for present day parents, and especially mothers, as I wish my generation to leave a world that is workable for them and treats them decently.. And that includes rewards for the very hard graft of parenting, and often the brighter the child the harder the work! It has always been valued until fairly recently, but you write as if they were an optional accessory. Who wants to come into the world as an optional accessory for heaven’s sake? I wouldn’t treat my dogs and cats like that. It is for nurturing a soul, letting them unfold, and carry on the world we have them! That is important and should be valued as work, as historically it was.

          • sarky

            Yes, but its still a choice. If you can’t afford them don’t have them.
            Myself and my wife have three children, but only because we can afford to.
            Why should people without children pay for those who do (and before you say it I do think child benefit should be re thought.)

          • carl jacobs

            In all societies until fairly recently you either had children or no one supported you in your old age.

            As the welfare state becomes economically unsustainable, this reality is going to bite and bite hard. Adults have been privileging themselves at the expense of children for two generations. They could get away with it because the burden of paying for old age had been socialized. But when the welfare state collapses in on itself because the economy cannot provide the surplus, who will care for these people? The children they didn’t have? The children who were raised in daycare centers and believe they have no obligation to provide support?

            You pulverize the nuclear family. You make children into an expensive optional accessory to be fit somewhere in the interstices between life and career. You spend your time indulging your own desires. And then you say “When I get old, ‘society’ will care for me.” Not if they can’t afford you, they won’t. There are far more economically efficient ways of dealing with old age. And all the moral tools are already in place to implement them.

          • sarky

            Lets go the whole hog and do a ‘logans run’ – compulsory death at 30.

          • magnolia

            Ah yes, that small minority. They are usually much quieter and poorer than gay men, and I understand that in one gay group, they used to go out all together to restaurants, but the gay women couldn’t keep up financially, so the men went to expensive restaurants and the women to much cheaper ones. So much for solidarity. So much for equality. Some are more equal than others, clearly.

            I was talking big picture, and in the big picture the major redistribution is fairly clear in its drift.

          • Dreadnaught

            Well I don’t think Claire Balding, Sandi Toksvig, Sue Perkins & Co are short of a few coppers – dont kid yourself. Such an ill informed understanding on the size and wealth of the Sisterhood.

          • magnolia

            They are very far from average. Each one came from a very affluent family, was privately educated and has lived a very privileged life. So I am not kidding myself.

          • Phil R

            Yes… Magnolia

            Excellent.

            Told as it is.

          • sarky

            You gotta love reality 🙂

          • magnolia

            You are in favour of oppressing women, then? You think it is right that they should put in loads of hard work which keeps the world going with virtually no recompense, and then be left poorer than now in retirement?

            And I guess you would call yourself PC? Very ironic. Nothing like taking from the poorer to give to the richer to prove your socialist credentials, is there?

          • sarky

            Who said I was a socialist?

          • magnolia

            Well some kind of totalitarian, then? You don’t value freedom.

          • sarky

            Yes I do.

          • DanJ0

            You seem to be very desperate to get a reaction to your elaborate construction.

          • magnolia

            No. I leave desperation for reactions to those gay men who regularly come on and vent real acid spleen at women. It is deeply offputting.

            Of course maybe the French version works undercover for Manif pour tous, as he could hardly do a better job of making his argument deeply unattractive. I am inclined to be sceptical about his being genuine as being so scathing misanthropic and superior to such a wide section of people wins no one round.

          • Once you see it, yes.

          • A “reality” socially constructed by a liberal, homosexualist elite and their collaborators who have exercised undue influence through control of the key levers of opinion formation – academia, information media, pop culture, film industry, etc .

          • DanJ0

            You wouldn’t be complaining now if an elite, their collaborators et al were taking society down the way your online character would like it. I can see a metaphorical cloud of dust now as all those claims that the general public fundamentally don’t accept us and will be beating us up in the streets, Golden Dawn style, during austerity conditions have collapsed.

          • Jack has never actually advanced that argument but would caution that once people become aware of the full implications of equating homosexual acts with complementary sexual acts, there may well be a reaction.

            When young children start coming home from school asking questions about homosexual sex, and as more and more homosexual ‘couples’ procure children through rented wombs and artificial technologies, there may be kick back.

            You know history and a loud and noisy minority, perceived to have undue influence, are prime targets as scapegoats when the shit hit the fan. And it will when the consequences of the sexual immorality that homosexual ‘marriage’ is the pinnacle of, materialises. At the moment it is ethnic minorities.

        • magnolia

          In a proper democratic vote the issues are aired openly, squarely and fairly, with the media not being biassed in either direction, and politicians and media representing a cross section of interest groups. If you think that will have happened you have not been following the influence of Hollywood, of the US generally, of the political and societal allegiances of those in charge of the big spending of the US tax exempt foundations that influence opinion worldwide, of the corrupt parts of the music industry, or of the media and its ability to select in its own footprint new recruits.

          • DanJ0

            If you believe that people haven’t had the opportunity to be informed, or to inform themselves, about an issue like that by now then I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Ireland and the UK are not like North Korea. There’s a free press, freedom of speech, widespread internet access, and social media. Moreover, the issues have been talked about for years in this area. At some point, you and your fellow travellers simply need to accept that you’re on a different trajectory to the general public now.

          • magnolia

            I am worried about those who will die prematurely of hypothermia from this, mostly elderly women, whilst some rich gay guy is parading around elaborately coiffed. They will never even have a chance to smell the coffee.

            The pink £ is already acknowledged. It is only going in the direction of exceptional oligarchic wealth, with disproportionate influence, and buying power. Buy a baby? Easy. Buy childcare? Easy. Buy education, and a rich career? Easy. While the wealth flows down from one lover to the next, all tax free, ad infinitum.

            How does this work out for women? Not well at all. Basically doing loads of donkeywork and unpaid work. However many gay men find this very acceptable as a social pattern. Where extra wealth going to gay men is not based upon increased productivity and creativity it is based upon redistribution and someone else is becoming poorer. Basic simple economics, and you only need half a brain to see it, but so many simply have not seen.,

          • DanJ0

            The complaints get ever more elaborate.

          • sarky

            I’m just waiting for the link to global warming!!

          • DanJ0

            I’d like to point out that any ‘unnatural acts’ I may have committed recently did not cause the earthquakes [1] in Nepal.

            [1] No hoary old jokes about the earth moving please.

          • Dreadnaught

            Or about getting rocks off.

          • sarky

            I dont know. Could be the butterfly effect!!!

          • magnolia

            I am not a climate change alarmist, nor are many here, so go and get a thermos flask, a duvet and a trendy manure coloured bivouac and your hemp pyjamas as you could be waiting a long time!

          • magnolia

            Simple economics. Economics 101 as the Americans say.

          • Don’t be so naïve. You know how cultural attitudes are shaped and the people in the institutions that control this.

          • DanJ0

            I know how the Roman Catholic Church tries to do it, including trying to indoctrinate vulnerable children. Luckily, people have much greater access to dissenting opinions in Ireland and the UK now. That’s the point. Heck, look at some of the tin foil hat people here and what they like to believe! That hasn’t come from the mainstream media etc.

          • not a machine

            Still waiting for answer to my question on what you think perfect atheism would look like and how you would deal with fellow athiests who disagree with your annihilation of the Christian faith ?

          • DanJ0

            Huh?

          • not a machine

            well you are sure perfect atheism is errr perfected so would like to know how you see it in complete authority and what sort of society it will create ?

          • DanJ0

            I have no idea what on earth you’re on about. Are you on recreational drugs tonight, or something?

          • not a machine

            In a post a while ago you said perfect atheism would triumph and I asked you what it would look like in terms of society and you didn’t answer so trying again , no recreational drugs involved at all , just want to know what you think an atheistic society will look like ?

          • DanJ0

            Huh? Was this a conversation that happened solely in your head?

          • not a machine

            you are an atheist who posts as an atheist ? so lets see what you have beyond criticism as theory

          • DanJ0

            What on earth are you on about??

          • not a machine

            I am laughing my socks off , how does my question scan to you , atheism is a theory isn’t it ?

          • DanJ0

            Marvellous. Another feckin weirdo.

          • not a machine

            why can you not talk about what you believe ?

          • DanJ0

            What on earth is all that crap you wrote up there about perfect atheism, and atheism triumphing, and the annihilation of the Christian faith? When did I say any of that? Provide the evidence now or feck off.

          • not a machine

            It was about 3 post ago , and your still shy of answering if atheism is a theory

          • DanJ0

            Provide the evidence now or feck off.

          • not a machine

            I think I am asking you for evidence ? try it answer question is atheism a theory

          • DanJ0

            Provide the evidence of this alleged conversation, and the actual context of this question you’re allegedly still waiting for an answer from me, or feck off.

          • not a machine

            you cant answer it can you ?

          • DanJ0

            I have no idea what on earth you’re talking about, as I keep saying!! What conversation? I don’t recognise any of it. Provide the evidence now, or feck off.

          • not a machine

            I think you have just proved to everyone on here that you cannot answer a question about what you believe only criticise what others do believe , you are frit

          • DanJ0

            Provide the evidence of this:

            “Still waiting for answer to my question on what you think perfect atheism would look like and how you would deal with fellow athiests who disagree with your annihilation of the Christian faith ?”

            and this:

            “In a post a while ago you said perfect atheism would triumph and I asked you what it would look like in terms of society and you didn’t answer so trying again […]”

            I recognise none of that.

          • not a machine

            But you do recognise that atheism is just a theory ?

          • DanJ0

            Provide the evidence that such a conversation took place.

          • not a machine

            no need to one simple question is too much for you ?

          • DanJ0

            Admit you’ve made all that up, and retract it, as it does not reflect my position at all. You made it all up, didn’t you? You’d produce the evidence if it exists but it seems you can’t.

          • not a machine

            on reflecting upon your position ,you don’t know what you believe ?

          • DanJ0

            If you have any personal integrity then retract what you wrote and apologise. Or produce the evidence.

          • not a machine

            is atheism a theory or not ?

          • DanJ0

            I intend to get to the bottom of all that crap you wrote up there before anything else. What happened? Did you mistake me for (say) Linus and are too ashamed to admit it now? Or were you simply lying to try to force an engagement with any atheist you can find?

          • not a machine

            Force ? it would appear you are using force

          • DanJ0

            Retract it all, and apologise. You’ve gone too far not to now.

          • not a machine

            I was just about to ask you the same question

          • DanJ0

            Huh? I haven’t asked you a question! I’ve demanded that you retract it, and apologise, if you have any personal integrity. Seriously, are you on drugs? Or drunk? You’ve seriously embarrassed yourself.

          • not a machine

            There is no point danjo as forgiveness has no meaning to an atheist

          • DanJ0

            Behold, I give you a quite typical online Christian from my broad experience. For shame.

          • DanJ0

            I’m a liberal in the JS Mill tradition, and I value freedom and diversity. I describe myself as an a-theist because I do not believe in a god or gods. I do not know whether a theistic god exists. As I say here time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, I support Article 9 of the ECHR. I am not interested in the annihilation of the Christian Faith. I don’t particularly favour an atheistic society. I have no idea what “perfect atheism” is in the earlier context.

          • not a machine

            OK

          • Phil R

            “you and your fellow travellers simply need to accept that you’re on a different trajectory to the general public” for the moment.

          • DanJ0

            Still hoping for a Golden Dawn moment, Phil? Or looking forward to when cranes are used in public as execution devices?

          • Phil R

            I’m a lefty ask anyone in my pub!

          • DanJ0

            There are pubs in Langley Mill like that. I recall a documentary about them.

          • Phil R

            Normal crowd, mostly Welsh, a number of new “immigrants” from England retiring to a better lifestyle.
            (You are very welcome)

          • Phil R

            You write something then after I reply to what you originally wrote you go back to change your original comment. (In your case add the bit about cranes) Then the whole thread does not make sense.

          • DanJ0

            Actually, I wrote it before you commented but probably after you read it and started to comment.

          • Phil R

            I have the Email from Discuss.

            It contains the first line without the bit about cranes.

            You would need to submit the comment for me to see it and for me to get an Email

          • DanJ0

            I submitted it, and then edited it, as I said.

          • sarky

            So what you are basically saying is that the electorate are stupid and are unable to put together a cohesive thought without the influence of the media and big business?

            Just face it, you are wrong and what has happened couldn’t more clearly demonstrate it.

          • magnolia

            There are many studies which show how easily people can be brainwashed. In a recent one it was shown that 80% + could be made to think they had committed a crime which they had not. Strong media messages, not least in the ghastly soaps, are ubiquitous.

            Only a live fish swims upstream against the current. Dead fish with glazed eyes float inexorably downstream.

          • sarky

            “There are many studies which show how easily people can be brainwashed” – yes, they are more commonly known as christians.

          • So tell Happy Jack just what “marriage” is that “social justice” requires homosexuals having “equal” access to it?

        • Dreadnaught

          Yes indeed: now priests can get married to each other and give the kids a break.

          • sarky

            Rofl !!!

          • magnolia

            Since when was child abuse a fit subject for humour? So the church is infiltrated by the dark side? Of course it will be. Since Jesus roundly condemned any child abuse (if your foot [well known euphemism at the time for the male member] offend thee cut it off) is it not clear that this is a problem of the disobedient and even the infiltrant? Check Matthew 18 out with this understanding, and you will see what is being said.

          • Hmmm … at least you’re acknowledging it was a scandal caused predominantly by homosexual males.

  • Graham Wood

    Correction: My last post sentence should have read:
    “To teach practicing homosexuality as marriage is to DENY that children need fathers and mothers”

    • Dreadnaught

      Practise makes perfect so it is said.

  • Martin

    An excellent statement of faith, but clearly lacking in fruit. Seems Tim Farron needs to decide if he is a Christian or a Liberal.

    • John Knox’s left foot

      Have ye considered the SNP?

      • Pubcrawler

        They neither sow nor reap, yet the English feed them.

      • Mr John Knox – are you a relative of John Knox’s Love Child by any chance?

        Good to see you here again after so long.

      • Martin

        JKLF

        Would they be any more moral than the Liberals?

  • magnolia

    I am glad if “Christian representation came out well”, and particularly if they have a deep respect for Christ, and for His Word.

    I just remember reading that eight members of the shadow cabinet did not take the oath, and the BBC article heavily implied, if it did not downright claim (I am uncertain) for reasons of non belief. Now they might be wrong, as they not infrequently are, and it might be that at least some might not like swearing oaths per se, and beliefs like Quakerism, for example, usually fox the average BBC writer. The article was unclear, and did not even name the eight.

    Can any one enlighten me further on this point of information, please?

  • Here’s the transcript of the interview with PN.

    “Nick Clegg put LGBT issues at the heart of the Liberal Democrats by championing equal marriage. How do you follow that?”

    “On LGBT+ issues, how do you follow it? I’ll give you three things I’m very keen we do.

    One, when it comes to the equal marriage legislation, I think we really missed a trick on trans issues. On the spousal veto, I think it’s an appalling thing that one person is allowed to block another person’s freedom. We should be making that a priority.

    Secondly, it strikes me as deeply troubling is that there was no regulation of psychotherapists in the UK for quack conversion therapy.

    Thirdly, we’ve got to end the gay blood ban, which is a disgrace. My pledge to you is that my first opposition day bill will be getting rid of the gay blood ban. All of these things need to be based on the science, not on prejudice.”

    “Why did you vote against the Programme Motion on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, alongside a number of Conservatives who were trying to block equality?”

    “I can’t police who comes through the lobby with me.

    There was a whole bunch of issues where we were just not there yet. The whole point of the programme motion is it’s limiting the time for discussion.

    I voted in favour at second reading and voted against the programme motion because it was important there was time to discuss trans issues and other very important issues – and there were two ‘conscience clause’ amendments.

    I voted around the equal marriage bill in ways that I thought were basically liberal. What is regrettable is that people will draw their own conclusions, and assume that because you didn’t vote for it, you don’t support equal marriage.

    I’ve made it quite clear I would vote for third reading now, and I probably should have done at the time. I thought issues hadn’t been covered properly – there was a whole range of things about protections, conscience objections for minority groups that have problems with equal marriage. I think fundamentally, it wasn’t sufficiently equal.

    My clear view is that equal marriage needs to be equal marriage.

    “You mention you wanted stronger conscience protections for religious groups. UKIP and the DUP”

    “In a free society we need to be protecting the rights of all minorities. What we need not to do is go out there with grievance politics, and I think that whilst every oppressed group ought to have an empathy with threats to rights of others.

    My take is it’s a stage now where it’s on the statue book, and unpicking it would be divisive. I’d certainly counsel DUP, UKIP now against doing those sort of things.

    For example, do you think it is morally right that a Christian baker should be able to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

    No, I think that’s about goods and services.

    “Didn’t you vote against the Sexual Orientation Regulations?

    “I don’t think I did. I think in 2007 or 08…

    On the 2007 law, you did. It’s where that protection comes from. You cited your ‘extreme liberal point of view’ at the time.

    Well, I’ve changed my position since then.”

    • magnolia

      He is thoroughly OK it would seem with discriminating against genetic parenthood, lessening the status and respect of natural mothers, relatively poor though it already is, and probably slapping any grandmother in jail who wishes to protest that she doesn’t want her young grandchildren seeing men dressed in black leather thongs parading down the streets with whips outside her house in the daylight.

      Furthermore he is at one with theories that wouldt lock up any psycotherapist whose treatment means less of a fishing pool for the gay community, thus for instance making a therapist who helps a young girl who has been raped by a male relation and become homosexual through the trauma, into a criminal if treatment for the trauma makes the girl revert to hetersosexual.

      This would make counsellors, therapists, teachers and psychotherapists scared silly, and operating under nothing less than a reign of gay terror. Whilst meanwhile being scared of gay people was termed a criminal act. It would also make it illegal for anyone who wished to shed certain urges to try to change. It could be used against any change of religious belief which led to a change in sexual preference even. And if allowed, it will be, maybe not immediately, but within 6 to 12 months. These people are not freedom lovers; bondage is not a bad term in the vocabularies of many, nor inflicting pain, which is regarded as an enjoyable activity for some. Naivety can be a killer.

      This man has left common sense far behind, and there are many non-Christians who would find this morally absurd, let alone anyone who wishes to obey Jesus Christ.

      • How can a Christian be a liberal politician?
        It’s one thing to respect another person’s right to exercise free will; this is a God given right. It’s quite another, as a politician, not to use one’s faith to guide the leadership one offers a nation. It’s not about following God’s ‘rules’; it is about what promotes a nation’s common good. If he fails to grasp this – i.e. God’s ways work for the health and welfare of a nation – or deserts it in a bid to gain personal power, then he is collaborating with evil.

        • CliveM

          Tim Farron has a long history of being a self righteous, sanctimonious humbug.

          Which is why he’s a Lib Dem.

          He maybe popular with the “grass roots”, but otherwise he’s a gift to the Conservatives. He will put a lot of people’s backs up.

      • Phil R

        It may hearten you Magnolia that down my local I am seen as a bit of a lefty when it comes to gays, lesbians and anti family decisions by the courts

        The pendulum always swings back the other way at some point, I feel we are fast approaching the end of this particular swing.

        • sarky

          Where is your local? Nazi germany?

          • Phil R

            In Germany everyone is very accepting of gays etc and may even offer their support vocally and in public. When they get yo know you they can show you a different viewpoint.

            The one I was referring to is a small village pub in Wales. I am probably have a more leftwing view only on tolerance of gays. Some of the English who have moved to Wales are so unhappy with what has happened to England that yes they might well vote for a strong Hitler character if one came forward.

          • sarky

            Truly shocking.

          • Phil R

            Why so? The English i meet in England seem also seem to be looking for a new way forward and have no faith in any political party changing their lives for the better. With the exception of UKIP supporters perhaps

          • sarky

            I dont think fascism is what they’re looking for.

          • Phil R

            Many are looking for a sense of purpose. Don’t forget we are not all Christians

          • sarky

            Neither am I, but there is no purpose in hate.

          • Phil R

            If the true path is Atheism you have no basis to argue that hate does not have purpose.

        • Lol …. Jack wouldn’t go so far as Sarky but do you jump in a time machine before visiting your local circa 1700 AD?

          • Phil R

            I think the change in attitudes came with the exposure of a Paedophile in the village. With a new identity but in a house between a single mother with children and a family on the other side. I think exposed via Daily Mail photos if you remember them.

            There was utter outrage and he was gone within a few days. Gays and Lesbians are tarred with the same brush due to their increased predisposition to this activity.

    • Inspector General

      Try as he might, the Inspector is unable to banish from his mind the image of Clegg’s right eye uncontrollably twitching as the interview progressed….

      • dannybhoy

        Just for you, mon ami…

    • HedgehogFive

      no regulation of psychotherapists in the UK for quack conversion therapy

      If it’s quack, then it’s quack – but then so are a number of alternative medicines. However, the gayatollahs regard it as worse than heresy that a gay person might want to change that condition.

      Hence the conflation.

      • Given we don’t know how a homosexual inclination is formed or how a homosexual identity is consolidated, there is no definitive evidence therapy is quackery. One may not be able to change the sexual interest but one can teach people how to master it.

        • magnolia

          Those that do change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, whether or not there is a spiritual component, like a journo by the name of Muirhead, for example, get pilloried for it by the gay establishment and called Judas. So much for freedom. Their assumption is that no one can change their mind or orientation once they are “gay”, and that anyone who does is a fraud and/or a traitor, even if they were straight and changed orientation through traumatic circumstance. I have known some who changed orientation through abuse or rape. Some idiots would attempt to make it illegal to counsel these people for traumas they suffered in case they rediscovered their original heterosexuality. This is nothing short of rank evil.

          Dangerous territory, and David Cameron cannot even see it. I am appalled by the shallowness of the movement, which has no understanding of complementarity of true male and true female, no understanding of God’s intentions of the male-female complementarity, and is just frankly shallow, shallow, shallow. A shallowness that they frankly wallow in. They think that the vast majority of people in the vast majority of cultures, over all human history, were wrong, and stupid, and inane, and wicked. There is arrogance within the theatre of human existence that is breathtaking, and which will be held to account by the One who is Eternal, and beyond the petty fashions of a confused age.

  • carl jacobs

    So … since the only thing that remains of the Liberal Democrats is the blood smear on the floor, why would someone want to be the leader of the Liberal Democrats? Compromise is bad enough. But compromising to take leadership of this party is like compromising to take command of the Costa Concordia. What’s the point of commanding a ship that is lying on its side in 40 ft of water?

    • Shadrach Fire

      why would someone want to be the leader of the Liberal Democrats?
      He will get more money. Why do you think? He has no morals.

      • carl jacobs

        That must be some pay increase, since opportunities for long-term career growth seem somewhat limited. “Last leader of recently deceased political party” doesn’t seem like great resume fodder to me.

    • Coniston

      The earth tremors felt recently in the vicinity of Westminster Abbey are due to W. E. Gladstone spinning rapidly in his grave.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Politicians re-defined marriage. Now they have re-defined Christianity.
    Those that deny God for political gain will be denied by God. To make a stand for God takes real conviction and being prepared to suffer loss.
    Church leaders who accept homosexuals as Christians will have a special place in Hell for leading Gods created ones away from the truth and deny them the opportunity of repentance and thus salvation.
    Today is a sad day for Ireland and it is increasingly hard to see why God is allowing society to trample itself in to the filth of the pit and sin.
    When oh Lord will we see revival in the land and sinners turn to God?
    Sinners; That is such an unpopular word these days. I don’t believe I read Tim Farron use it. He skirted around the subject with flowery words.

    • sarky

      Voltaire got it right when he stated, “christians feel persecuted when they are stopped from persecuting others”……

      • magnolia

        Voltaire was a hypocrite who would only employ Christian workers as he knew that they were the most honest. Hardly advocates his own integrity does it?

        • magnolia

          Besides which he was on 50 cups of coffee a day so no wonder he spouted all sorts!

          • sarky

            He was right though.

          • magnolia

            By and large he was wrong. Nice to know that he probably died a penitent though.

      • Pubcrawler

        He also said a witty saying proves nothing. One of his better aphorisms, that one.

    • preacher

      When the Church repents, turns to the Lord & off course preaches the true unadulterated Gospel, without fear or favour.
      Then the truth will be plain, the remnant will be vindicated & blessed & those that scoff now will be either saved or lost.
      That’s when we will see revival here & sinners turning to God.

      • sarky

        Got a feeling you may be in for a long wait.

        • preacher

          maybe sarky, maybe not. We shall see.

          • sarky

            The evidence would suggest otherwise.

        • Shadrach Fire

          God has all the time in the world.

          • sarky

            He’s gonna need it!

          • Well, it is Him who has set the timetable.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “…it is increasingly hard to see why God is allowing society to trample itself in to the filth ..”

      I bet Lot felt the same way about Sodom. I believe there will be a day of reckoning, though I wouldn’t like to guess when or in what form it will happen. I am sure that when man sets himself up as his own moral arbiter then the rot has begun.

    • Dreadnaught

      You sound like a recruiting sergeant for ISIS.

  • Coniston

    David Cameron a Christian??? Or even a Conservative???

    • dannybhoy

      He’s a decent well meaning bloke who thought he was joining the LibDems..
      ..Or was it the Greens?
      Or maybe New Labour??

      • Politically__Incorrect

        As the saying goes, the path to socialism hell is paved with good intentions.

        • Phil R

          Yes but the path is made possible by democracy. That is the real evil

  • not a machine

    YG article had me reasonably warming to Mr Farron until I got to the bit about being a Christian means being “radical and anti establishment” which is all exciting stuff but lays down a bit of a platform to be part of legislator that isn’t too sure why we make laws .If the context is seeing law as oppressive rather than informative or structural necessity and order ,then his rather wonderful thought about Christ being the most important thing in the universe thus far for mankind to consider , begins to empty into the necessary political mold , which YG considers.
    I then perhaps get a bit more worried by his more socialist love , seeing the economy purely as a hand out mechanism without limits ,which time and time again has led to broken economies across the globe does not inform me he has thought through what a lib dem economy would look like if not the useual dire concrete constructs of socialism.
    In considering this article I too have to consider my political thinking and why it is the way it is , and I am convinced that markets (if looked after) offer far more creative ways of wealth making for individuals than the statism of rational redistribution .In my youth I was perhaps distinctly socialist , and in the sense of community and personal work on faith ,I haven’t particularly changed my view in that through work/markets communities can improve human development .As we have seen in Detroit even cities can die . I am not convinced by any socialist argument on economics , but equally when the converse of communism has problems that are not considered we have the sort of debt bust we have seen .
    The quality of being known as Christian is of course not easy ,are you more Christian because you have office or power ?
    This is where political argument starts to conflict, in economic benefit discussion as one of Christs understandings and teachings .Christ seems to me, to teach salvation ,through repentance of sin , which can be a very personal thing. How this very personal thing is organised and worked out is a difficult topic .
    To be liberal is to re define crime/law to something that values liberal thinking , which although appealing , leads to being unable to determine quality in rights which does not translate so well into actual living , where the law should stop certain events occurring ..

  • Graham Miller

    Not sure what His Grace hopes to achieve sniping at the politician with most vocal faith of any politician with cabinet pretensions. He would do well to use his blog to campaign for a cabinet post for David Burrowes rather than denigrating Mr Farron…

    • Shadrach Fire

      Firstly, it is not His Grace’s post. Seconly, I would say that it is fair to comment on Hypocrisy when it is seen. david Burrows has not put himself forward for anything.

  • len

    I am beginning to wonder if the label ‘Christian’ has become so denigrated that it has all sorts of wrong connotations with the public ?.
    A’ disciple of Christ’ might go some sort of way to redress all the wrongs done in the name of Christ by people purporting to be’ Christians’ . “What`s in a name” I hear some say?.
    What is the difference between’ a disciple of Christ’ and ‘a member of the Christian Church?’ . (whichever denomination)

    Jesus instructed His disciples;

    “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
    them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
    Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have
    commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of
    the age.”
    (This obviously rules out those who follow the teaching of their church when it opposes the Word of Christ also those who only observe Christ’s teachings when they do not conflict with their own desires.)

    • not a machine

      The building up of one another is important , the Christ is to be followed to find salvation .

    • And just who would make those judgements and distinctions?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Len, I don’t think it matters which label we use. As you say, some terrible things have been done in the name of Christ, but it is not for other Christians to bear the shame for the sins of others. The atheists would love it if we all went around in shame saying we belonged to a wicked organisation. Poppycock, Isay. The devil who made some Christians do terrible things is the same devil who makes others deny God altogether. So I am not ashamed of the label “Christian”, because unlike a political movement, it’s conception is divine. Changing the label is what organisations do when they are trying to hide from the past.

      • sarky

        Ha ha the devil made me do it – best excuse ever.

        • Phil R

          So what is your excuse for murdering 200 million or more in the name of Atheism?

          For every one that a Christian murdered Atheists have murdered 1000

          • sarky

            The only thing I ever murdered was the odd karaoke classic.
            Anyway wasn’t it your genocidal god who wiped out the earth’s population with the flood? ?

          • Merchantman

            Once was enough. The next time he tried to take on the sin of the world he did it by allowing his son to die on a cross.
            Now that’s something to talk about because however we look at it, it involves all of us.

          • sarky

            He TRIED to take on the sin of the world? He’s god, as an all powerfull being it should be a synch. But two tries and two fails??
            If god isn’t all powerful then he can’t be god (or he doesn’t give a stuff or he doesn’t exist)

          • magnolia

            You really haven’t studied theology at all, but are sufficiently self-confident to think you can do it as and when on the hoof. I have to tell you it isn’t working.

            You have neither read nor studied the Bible.

            Forced love is not real love is it?

          • sarky

            I have done both. I was actually brought up in the church!

          • Phil R

            Point

            in recent history then

          • sarky

            Didnt George Bush go into the middle east under the banner of god and kill an estimated 1 million??

          • Phil R

            Ask that one of Carl

            The Americans killed a million?

            What city did they nuke again i have forgotten

          • sarky

            Do a bit of research Phil, since the Americans went in the estimated deaths is a million.

          • Phil R

            They are responsible for these deaths by what measure?

          • DanJ0

            Destabilising the country, probably.

          • sarky

            Absolutely. Plus a bit of bombing.

          • Phil R

            Policy by looking at Cristal Balls it seems.

          • Linus

            What a very pertinent point.

            If the imaginary Christian god really does exist, every death of every living creature is ultimately his responsibility because he created the very concept of death. He is in fact the ultimate expression of genocide. You could even say that he only creates in order to annihilate.

            Puts Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot into perspective, doesn’t it?

          • Linus

            Replying to myself here, but I forgot to end my last post with the exclamation I’ve decided to include as a postscript to every post I make here from now on.

            Vive l’Irlande ! Vive les Irlandais ! Éirinn go Brách !

            I won’t provide an English translation. Work it out for yourselves…

          • Phil R

            I will translate it for you Linus

            A disaster for the people of Ireland, their families and their future

          • sarky

            Thats not what the people think though is it. They voted overwhelmingly.

          • Phil R

            As I have said many times. I do not favour democracy.

            E.g. Hitler in 1940 would have had a huge approval rating if he had decided to put his approval to the test. 80% or 90% even.

            Just because people vote for it does not make it right or guarantee good outcomes.

          • Linus

            You’re allowed to believe whatever you like. But we live in democracies, so no matter what you believe, the reality of tbe situation is that democratic principles decide how society is governed.

            Like it or not, the Irish constitution now protects equal marriage. Complain, moan, throw tantrums and even campaign for a change in the law, but only two things can change that situation. Either you garner enough democratic support to alter the Constitution. Or you lead and win an armed uprising against democratic rule and impose your own Taliban style government.

            Neither outcome seems likely. So you’re just going to have to live with things as they are.

          • Phil R

            Correct.

            The German people in the 1930s seeing the rallies, came to the same conclusion.

            Because most people appear in favour of something at the moment, because the “majority” voted for it, does not make it right.

            Far from it.

          • DanJ0

            Hitler came to power due to a particular set of circumstances, and probably would have disappeared if it hadn’t been for the Reichstag fire. Germany wasn’t really a proper functioning democracy in the leadup and Hitler exploited that, quickly turning it into a dictatorship such that popular opposition was dangerous.

          • CliveM

            Don’t you think its a strange argument that someone will use a genocidal, dictator and psychopath like Hitler as a critique of democracy and by doing so advocates Dictatorship!!!!!!

            I’m not sure where the benefits are????

          • Phil R

            One can think of a number of despotic and Evil rulers in History who would have been elected and reelected.

            Popular opposition is always dangerous. Lets fast forward 20 years and have a street preacher in Dublin preach about the unsuitability of Gay marriage and the suitability for public office of those that have have embraced this lifestyle choice.

            Would they let him preach all day you think?

          • magnolia

            Maybe it was counted as accurately as the Scottish referendum was. I am not in favour of Scottish independence but I have no doubt that the referendum was fixed and the result deeply flawed, and have always stated as much. I preferred Scotland to stay with us, but I knew it was a fixed result. In some places there was clear flipping of the vote, and Youtube shows plenty of pictures of votes from one side having been placed on the wrong tables!! This is highly dishonourable. Do I believe this result? Not a bit either. Eventually data will filter out to suggest another fix. Europe has already decided, the undemocratically elected bit that is, that rules by diktat, and this is just a piece of window-dressing that was only ever going to be allowed to go one way.

          • sarky

            Of course, it didn’t go your way so it had to be fix (I should have seen that one coming)

          • magnolia

            Err… the Scottish referendum did go my way but I said quite clearly I also thought it was fixed. When a people vote significantly differently to how people perceive those people to think it probably is a fix, particularly as the result was pre-decided in Europe. I am too old to be very gullible.

          • CliveM

            Magnolia

            The result wasn’t a fix, indeed except for a couple of polls, generally all the polls showed a no victory. Who are these people who fixed it? How would that be possible, the counting stations are public forums. Those who run the vote come from all backgrounds, including SNP. It was independently verified by the electoral commission. Fraud on the scale you suggest just won’t he open in this country (yet).

          • magnolia

            Yes, but you could say the same for Scotland, and although I welcomed that result, there are dreadful videos that show votes for devolution placed quite openly on the wrong table. Was that not also checked by the electoral commission?

            The fact remains that the decision had already been taken in Brussels and the vote was window-dressing for the electorate who were felt unlikely to approve. It would only be allowed to go one way because of the EC. Anyone like Greece who wishes to stay with the EC is like the monkey with its hand stuck through the hole in the coconut to get a nut. No matter how deleterious for them, they won’t let go.

          • sarky

            Pre-decided in Europe? I think you have too much time on your hands.

          • magnolia

            Just because you didn’t know that doesn’t mean it took others of us long to discover it, does it? Reads like a sulk.

          • sarky

            Utter rubbish. I think if the SNP even got a small sniff of anything untoward we would have heard.

          • DanJ0

            Labour supporters are saying the same thing about the result of the general election too.

          • Linus

            Sour grapes are horribly bitter to taste, aren’t they?

            Most people associate Christianity with homophobia, but cultural associations are forever changing and now we’re starting to think of Christians first and foremost as sore losers. That impression can only be reinforced as more and more countries embrace equality and Christians become more and more bitter and tremulous in defeat.

            I expect you’ll get over your tantrum one day. But you do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time sulking. Will you ever grow up, or does this eternal life you dream of actually mean eternal infancy?

          • Phil R

            Not sulking, just trying to build a better world for everyone, me and you.

            Of course that does not mean allowing you or I to do whatever we like.

          • Phil R

            In all creation we at least have a choice.

          • Linus

            That’s what you tell yourself but there’s no evidence to prove that grovelling before your invisible god buys you eternal life. On the contrary, every Christian who’s ever lived has or will die, just like every Atheist, and every dog, and every duck billed platypus. Christian cadavers rot like any other kind. And until you can show evidence of post-mortem life, your faith remains a tall story and an expression of hope rather than an account of reality.

          • Phil R

            What evidence would you like. Someone rising from the dead?

            It is not hope as I have said before, Christians know there is a God.

          • Linus

            A real resurrection rather than a fairy story about one would be a start. Or how about a verifiable miracle rather than cock and bull stories about water turning into wine and grown men walking on water?

          • The Explorer

            Are you saying a teenager could walk on water?

          • Dreadnaught

            only if they are wearing ‘pumps’

          • Phil R

            I don’t think you would believe even then. Plenty saw as you say, real miracles, plenty did not believe.

            As the Bible tells us miracles in themselves are not proof.

            Knowing God personally is proof.

          • Linus

            Knowing an invisible deity who communicates with you via a voice in your head is proof?

            The word “gullible” doesn’t even begin to cover it…

          • Phil R

            No voices Linus.

            Just certainty and the best way to explain it is heart not head

          • DanJ0

            Why does your conversations or relationship with your god seem to lead you to somewhere quite different to where it seems to lead other Christians?

          • Phil R

            Elaborate. I am not sure what you are getting at, but this may be what you are asking.

            I have lived in many different countries and cultures and out of necessity attended a large number of different Christian Churches. Perhaps this means that my Christianity is not so defined by Western norms and cultural values. There is a cost to being a Christian in many countries and this gives the faith in those countries / cultures a greater vitality. Effectivily you have to know you are a Christian, seek God on a daily basis because you need to know you are saved.

            Having said all that for me the first step was the last step and that was many years ago when God called me after doing unpleasant things to a street preacher. I knew nothing really of Church, less of the Bible but later that day I was called and I can only say that I knew.

            I don’t hear voices. So you might ask, how do you know what to do? Well the answer is the Bible. I believe that we are not free to take a different line. You might add that we cannot possibly follow the 700 laws of the Torah and you are right and Jesus asked the law expert this very question and got the summary, which sums up the law of God.

            Love you God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself.

            Feel free to come back at me on this. I am sure you will.

          • DanJ0

            Some Christians report that their ‘conversations’ with their god are like having a conversation with another person in the room. For others, it’s just a ‘feeling’ that a god is there. For yet others, they pray and say that the ‘answer’ to their prays comes through various channels, such as things happening in their lives which they choose not to put down to mere coincidence, or some sort of confirmation bias, or interpretation in light of their expectations. As an a-theist, I’m not surprised of course that there are variable responses about this communication channel. However, it surely ought to raise questions for Christians. Afterall, this is a god that maintains the very particles of our universe moment by moment, and which knows the deepest thoughts and motivations of everyone who lives, or has ever lived, or who will live in advance of their being born. How come Christians throughout the ages disagree on quite fundamental things about the Bible and Christian theology to the point that they’ve been willing to murder each other in the most gruesome ways to force their interpretation one way or the other? Doesn’t that ring alarm bells for you?

          • Phil R

            The first point you make I share your wariness. Clearly a God would not be inconsistent. That is why I am concerned when people claim new revelations which appear in conflict with the Bible. Jim Jones and David Koresh are extreme examples, but your average liberal Anglican pastor agreeing with homosexual marriage or abortion for instance is no less guilty.

            As for the wars, they were similar in a way to what your side is trying to do now. You see the Ashers Cakes thing was never about a service. It was a bout forcing a prominent Christian bakery to say words that the owners did not agree with. The cake was irrelevant.

            Lets assume Peter Thatchel was told to publicly state that what he believed and campaigned about homosexuality was wrong and it was indeed evil.

            In my view the religious wars between Christians were necessary, in order to prevent the sort of tyranny, that forced Christians to believe a set of doctrine contrary to the Bible, and we see happening now that the boot is on your side’s foot.

          • DanJ0

            You seem to be swerving wildly around the primary point in my comment, Phil. I don’t blame you really, as it’s pretty damning as it stands. At least you haven’t resorted to the ultimate swerve like many of refusing to answer because you’ve been warned not to ‘throw pearls before swine’. 😉

          • Phil R

            I am not sure where I missed your primary point. If it is this, I am not God and I am not other people so I do not know how God speaks with them. In the Bible we have accounts of God dealing with one in one way and another in another way. Moses for instance was given opportunities that others did not. However, that gave him greater responsibilities and he did not make it to the promised land.

          • DanJ0

            Moses was pre-Holy-Spirit in terms of divine-human interaction. Paul of Tarsus was after and got the megaphone treatment. For most people, the communication seems to be quieter. However, the Holy Spirit seems to communicate differently depending on individual expectation and, I daresay, upbringing. The devastating bit is of course the variability in the transfer of information and confirmation about the right interpretation of the religion. One might even think that people are simply believing what they’ve been taught irrespective of the ‘god phone’. Strange, that.

          • Phil R

            We have to keep the Bible as the rock and the basis for testing any revelation.

            Why?

            First

            Because it is apostolic, (The writings were either written by or accepted as genuine by the apostles) that is why we cannot add to the Bible.

            Second

            Because the devil is real and so are demons.

            The God phone is interesting. I am happy with prayer and cleansing of the Holly Spirit, however, some may talk to God like in “Bruce Almighty”, I don’t know. I am wary when God apparently tells them to do is exactly what they desire and this is contrary to his word. Christian Gays seem to be particularly blessed in this respect, so when I say that I have not had any direct instructions to give money away, (Other than the Bible) so it must be OK for me to keep it, a different standard is applied.

            I was speaking to an American Missionary who told me that God had told him to preach the Gospel in the Middle East. (Like many Americans all he had in the way of skillls was a huge self confidence, – no language skills, etc). But even he said that it was not something he wanted to do initially, he fought it and was still taking his time getting there. I don’t blame him!

          • CliveM

            The reason most of us don’t get the megaphone treatment is because most of us aren’t called to do something that special or important. I suppose HJ would say that is why we have the RCC to guide the faithful through the Holy Spirit. For various reasons (which I don’t intend to risk an argument about here :0( ) this has broken down. But it was clearly the original intention.

            The truth is most people who “hear” the Holy Spirit are simply hearing their own desires and expectations. Most aren’t being deliberately dishonest.

            But the reason why we don’t have a daily update direct from God is because the instructions are already there, through the bible and church teaching.

            None of which will pursuade you of course. But still one can but try!

          • DanJ0

            “The truth is most people who “hear” the Holy Spirit are simply hearing their own desires and expectations. Most aren’t being deliberately dishonest.”

            I agree that most aren’t being deliberately dishonest. It’s refreshing that someone here recognises that people are probably getting feedback from themselves without realising it. We all have some sort of conscience too, which informs us, albeit with variable results, of right and wrong. Even a-theists!

          • Dreadnaught

            he created the very concept of death

            A moot point: having created a life why let it die? If not that, it begs the question why bother creating a life at all; cut out the middle-man and keep everything under the thumb up in cotton-wool heaven.

          • magnolia

            Well if the fact that you have never murdered anyone exonerates you from answering for the death of millions that applies to all belief systems.

            On the other hand if you demand that Christians must answer for all previous people of faith who have killed, then so must atheists answer for all atheists. Just as atheists come in many shades so do Christians.

            You can either see it one way or the other, but not switch midstream as it suits you between consistent arguments, as it suits your “side”! That is cheating in debate!

          • sarky

            Except that atheism isn’t a belief system is it?
            I have never asked for individual christians to answer to the past. However, christianity as a religion should be held to account.

          • CliveM

            Except if religion is simply a construct how do you hold it to account? You can simply hold its adherents to account for what they do.

            Unless the religion is true, in which case who are you to hold God to account?

          • sarky

            If it is true, then every member of the human race should hold god to account.
            If god was brought to justice for what he has done/allowed to happen to mankind, then there is not a court on earth that would not convict him of genocide and extreme negligence.

          • CliveM

            Now there’s a plan. Why don’t we prosecute every parent of a child who has murdered, raped, robbed, mutilated, or in any way sinned against his fellow man. Can’t have people taking responsibility for their own behaviour.

            You rage against a god that you believe doesn’t exist. Your understanding of the theology and history of Christianity is so impoverished that you think describing God as genocidal is profound.

            If God does exist and he is all powerful, then the only way we can enjoy our personal freedom and be free to make our own decisions and mistakes, is for him to be absent.

          • Linus

            Christian narcissism continues to define the world in relation to itself, I see.

            Christians mistakenly believe that Atheism is another religion and that all Atheists believe the same thing. So any crime committed by an Atheist is laid at the door of all Atheists.

            That’s like a Frenchman saying that the nationality of all those who are not French is “Foreign” rather than German or Swedish or Filipino, and claiming that Swedes and Filipinos are indistinguishable from Germans by the mere fact of not being French. So by one ridiculous leap of irrational chauvinism, all of a sudden Swedes and Filipinos are just as responsible as Germans for Nazi atrocities during World War II. But foreignness is not a nationality, just as Atheism is not a religion. Blaming me for the Soviet Gulag is as irrational as blaming a Filipino for the Shoah.

            What Christians don’t understand is that although they see the world in “us and them” terms, with “them” being one unified group, the reality of the situation is that “them” consists of many different and unrelated currents of thought and philosophies. The laager mentality of religion sees everything that goes on outside the encircling walls of its exclusivity as one indistinguishable mess of evil. But the reality is that we live in a patchwork society where there is no such thing as a monolithic “other”. It’s all about shades of grey (nothing to do with dodgy pornographic novels). Religion’s inability to see the world in any colours other than absolute black and white is its great weakness and the reason why it’s doomed to decline as a refuge for extreme all-or-nothing personality types like most of those who post here.

          • Phil R

            Wriggle all you want

            atheism is worldview.

            You impose that worldview on others with far less compassion than any Jesuit.

            The Atheists that killed the 100s of millions did so whilst calling themselves Atheists

          • DanJ0

            I’m an a-theist and I’m lovely! I also have no facial hair and a great taste in home-furnishings, unlike Josef Stalin.

          • sarky

            Funny, I always imagined you had a hipster beard!!! 🙂

          • DanJ0

            :O I’m a lovely, kind-hearted, placid person but even I struggle not to punch hipsters in the face when I see them.

          • sarky

            Ha ha great minds!

          • CliveM

            Don’t flatter yourself!! :0)

          • sarky

            I’ve never imposed my worldview on anyone. If they ask I tell them.

          • Phil R

            Evidence from your worldview is distinctly otherwise.

          • CliveM

            Only someone with absolutely no self awareness would do such a post and not see the irony in it.

        • William Lewis

          The devil tempts. One can decline or accept.

          • sarky

            Easy to blame a ‘devil’ for your failings isn’t it?

          • William Lewis

            Eh? I wasn’t. My choices are my own.

          • sarky

            No need for god or the devil then.

          • CliveM

            Logic and logical progression clearly isn’t your strong point.

          • William Lewis

            That doesn’t follow does it but, again, it’s your choice.

      • len

        I certainly do not want to be identified with the inquisition or the crusades and these events have made a lasting impact on many people and the effects are still being felt today. The Nazis called themselves (initially ) a ‘Christian party’. Those who are constantly berating ‘Gays’ and such as the hate preachers do great harm to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” what’s in a name ?” a lot I would say.

        • Phil R

          Len

          If there was any other time in History I wished i had lived it would be the Crusades.

          At the best they displayed idealised Christian behaviour. That is utter abandonment of the self in the service of others and of God.

          Very few have come close in recent times.

          • DanJ0

            Indeed. I expect the siege of Jerusalem and the subsequent bloodbath in 1099 rivalled that of Jericho described in the Old Testament.

          • Phil R

            So all Crusaders were guilty because of the actions of a few?

          • DanJ0

            Why not? I seem to be posed on the brink of murdering millions simply because I’m an a-theist and Josef Stalin was a Bolshevik.

          • Phil R

            You prove my point.

          • Inspector General

            You might be a good soul, Danj0, but the people you identify with…

          • len

            Whatever the crusaders were doing they were not following Jesus`s instructions regarding’ loving your enemies’ quite the reverse in fact!.

          • Phil R

            Loving enemies does not mean let them walk all over you.

          • len

            And executing prisoners who were unarmed and bound

            http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lionheart.htm

            hardly a credit to ‘Christianity?

          • Phil R

            They were not saints Len

            That does no mean that any more than a very small minority approved.

  • Shadrach Fire

    His Grace re-tweeted Nadine Dorries ✔ @NadineDorriesMP

    Q. When is a Christian Lib Dem not really a Christian? A. When he wants to be party leader.

    I would add, when is a self confessed Conservative Christian, not a Christian. When they join the David Cameron’s Cabinet.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Gillan, I think Tim Farron’s “clarification” of his Christian faith sounds similar to that of Eric Pickles when challenged about his opposition to SSM. Mr Farron did indeed write some fine words about Christianity. However, when confronted with the “equality” idol, like so many politicians, his spiritual backbone turned to jelly. Very sad, but probably all part of God’s purpose. When I compare such easy capitulation to the resilience of say those Christians in Iraq who are retaining their spiritual integrity in the face of death, I can only say I am less than impressed with many of our Christian politicians (or senior clergy for that matter).

  • Old Blowers

    Good old Tim, so much like all the other pretend Christians in politics dressing up their ‘faith’ in words that can not be tied down under further examination, as they use similar sounding phrases to committed Christians but when pressed further in depth, it reveals something completely different.

    I am reminded of those Jehovah’s Witnesses that daily stand at tram stops, trains and tube stations handing out their literature.

    It mentions Christ but on closer examination we find it’s someone we do not recognise. Just like to Tim Fallon and others He is just Christ, a sort of saviour but not LORD and all this almighty word entails.

    I use the JW’s New World Translation and why it was conceived as best describing Tim, Giles, David Cameron and the likes new way of seeing the world through the modernism lens.

    The New World Translation translation is unique from all other versions – it is the first INTENTIONAL, SYSTEMATIC effort at producing a complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group’s doctrine.

    The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realised that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. SO, RATHER THAN CONFORMING THEIR BELIEFS TO SCRIPTURE, THEY ALTERED SCRIPTURE TO AGREE WITH THEIR BELIEFS.

    The “New World Bible Translation Committee” (Who nobody knows who comprised it or their scholarly credentials as it was declared anonymous so that God would be glorified instead??) went through the Bible and changed any Scripture that did not agree with Jehovah’s Witness theology (Not so different from you, Giles, are they??).

    This is clearly demonstrated historically by the fact that, as new editions of the New World Translation were published, additional changes were made to the biblical text (The Apostles were not obviously inspired by the Holy Spirit and their attempts at who Christ was needed to be more ‘clarifying’).

    As biblical Christians continued to point out Scriptures that clearly argued for the deity of Christ (just one point of many from where JW’S differ from Christians, for example), the Watchtower Society would publish new editions of the New World Translation with those Scriptures changed,’et voila’.! A Bible that can be read to show/prove what it’s (the advocates of their ‘way’ of belief) theology is!

    No problems that could not be sorted out by a little re-wording of where the Apostles had confused their (theos) and their (theon) and St John not able to determine his theos or his logos correctly in the Greek?

    Just as the New World Translation is a duplicitous perversion, not a genuine version, of the Bible and therefore misleads people away from our ‘LORD’ Jesus Christ, so are the beliefs of Tim Farron, Giles Fraser and others that call themselves ‘Brethren’ showing by their rendering of ‘Christian’ (whether for political gain as an MP or Populous love from the fallen World with Giles Fraser), they are NOT, they are mere sounding superficially similar.

    Do remember that the Jehovahs Witness see themselves as Christian when their name and theology brazenly states the opposite and ironically that all three of the Godhead are each referred to as Jehovah in OT and NT, which completely goes over the head of the shallow beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witness!!

    • Phil R

      Yes. Liberal Christians either decide they don’t like Paul or more often they change the meaning of words. Especially it seems when it comes to homosexual acts. Paul we are told was only objecting to sex with boys. Not men.

      Convenient. I want them now to remove all references to greed please.

      • dannybhoy

        There’s a good article here on the subject..

        http://www.afa.net/the-stand/homosexuality/yes-jesus-did-talk-about-homosexuality/

        But it inadvertently reinforces my case; that homosexuality is a sin like all other sexual sins.

        21 “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—

        22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

        26 Itwas to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
        Romans 3:21-26

        • Phil R

          “homosexuality is a sin like all other sexual sins”

          I used to think as you do, however, more recently I have wondered if this is indeed true and that God does look upon homosexuality with more distaste, possibly because of its more inherent destructiveness for society that heterosexual sins.

          What made me pause for a good while was the concern that I was reserving for special condemnation a sin which I simply have no desire to commit and so making it an easy one in that respect to condemn.

          The Bible does though seem to view homosexuality as more destructive. We do have the parable of the woman taken in adultery but do not have anything similar about a homosexual caught with his dick in an arse. I am genuinely not sure what Jesus’ response would be. Perhaps it would indeed be yes stone the bastard!

          • sarky

            I really hope you are in a minority of one, you sad man.

          • Phil R

            I rather hoped for feedback from Christians.

            A sad angry atheist who has shown he has nothing positive to offer the world, (only sniping and running other people down) hardly qualifies.

            The other cheek is ready. Care to try it?

          • sarky

            Im sad and angry? Do you not read your own comments?

          • Phil R

            You must have made 500 or more comments on Cranmer.

            Name one single positive comment

          • sarky

            To be honest, not a great deal to be positive about.

          • Phil R

            (Actually as I wrote it I thought of quite a few positive comments you had made.)

          • sarky

            I have my moments!

          • dannybhoy

            The Bible does though seem to view homosexuality as more destructive. We
            do have the parable of the woman taken in adultery but do not have
            anything similar about a homosexual caught with his dick in an arse. I
            am genuinely not sure what Jesus’ response would be. Perhaps it would
            indeed be yes stone the bastard!

            Hmm..

            Er.. clearly (and unnecessarily crudely!) put.

            I don’t think our Lord’s response would be anything like that, Phil!

            We are all under condemnation, however that guilt and rebellion is expressed in our lives. The Holy Spirit in some wonderful way brings conviction to our heart, and we know, we just know, that we need to repent and receive forgiveness. The Holy Spirit then comes into our heart and begins a work of redemption in us.

            Whether we be an adulterer, lesbian, homosexual, sex obsessed fornicator, murderer, thief or whatever.

            My take is that ssm poses a real danger to society, is unfair to babies especially brought into the world to be the ‘offspring’ impossible for two people of the same sex to create together.

            I think the door is now opened for polygamy and polyandry and even bestiality, because there are no real grounds anymore to refuse any union of any sort.

            It’s only a matter of time, and in that sense God regards it as dangerous to His order for human society.
            That is why I support Coalition for Marriage
            http://c4m.org.uk/aboutus/

            Apart from that my own life experience has led me to believe that some people are born with a homosexual orientation, and it can cause them as much distress as it causes some of us consternation.
            Personally I think we Christians should remember that the Lord Jesus loves them as much as He loves any of us, and to rag on them or verbally abuse them does nothing to show them God’s love.. It makes me wonder how we as the Church can welcome those seeking peace with God, seeking to be active in the Church (or synagogue or whatever), when we ridicule and reject them.
            In that sense I fear we as Christians ignore common humanity and need for love and understanding.
            That doesn’t mean we water down the Gospel, but it does mean we need to have His heart of love and compassion to all men.

          • Phil R

            I do think we have a current picture of Jesus, drawn by the church, as some sort of middle class HTB Alpha type with a degree in something obscure.

            The disciples came from all sectors of society and Jesus himself was brought up as a carpenter in a poor household. I suspect that Jesus appeared rather crude on occasion and that upset people.

            Were the disciples nice? Or were they direct? I suspect the latter and perhaps one of the reasons that “proper” men have trouble with many churches is that they are not women and are therefore not happy to sit around in groups or listen to sermons figuring out or telling us how to be nicer to people.

            Clearly you have the same concerns as me about homosexuality (and the adverse effect it has on the whole of society) but you are nicer about the way you articulate these concerns.

            We are told and trained to be nice by the Church and this is seized upon by the Atheists like our “friend” Sarky as rationale for not believing. We are not nice enough for them so they say we are not Christians. That side tracks the issue neatly away from the issue under discussion.

            Zacchaeus is a precedent. He was an outcast but he changed and Jesus told him that salvation had come to this house. I doubt if Jesus would have had the same response if Zacchaeus had simply said.

            No thanks I’ll continue to screw people for all they have got, you made me this way, I like my lifestyle and I demand salvation on my terms.

          • sarky

            Actually carpenter is thought to be a mistranslation, more likely to have been a builder and therfore the equivalent of middle class. (Or the 2000 year old equivalent)

          • Phil R

            They were not rich in any event as they were allowed to give the cheapest offerings at the Temple.

            I doubt if it was any easier job convincing the Priests of your poverty than today’s Taxman.

            No Accountants to help you in those days.

          • dannybhoy

            Phil,
            Clearly you have the same concerns as me about homosexuality (and the
            adverse effect it has on the whole of society) but you are nicer about
            the way you articulate these concerns.

            thanks for noticing!
            It is inevitable that societies will see/distort Jesus through their own cultural values.
            Simple example..British people by and large do not like confrontation or social embarrassments so are not very good at confronting ‘iffy’ behaviours or even wrong teachings.
            We either stay away from the bad behaviour or leave the church..
            We make a virtue out of this and comfort ourselves with the (cultural idea) that it is unChristian to upset someone or question behaviour.
            American Christians I have worked with have this great ‘can do!’ attitude, and find our British irony or deprecation hard to understand..
            So how would Jesus have us behave?
            He is our King. He sacrificed Himself for us. He never swore (Jewish people model their cultures on the Old Testament, so even tax collectors would have responded respectfully to Yeshua )
            and Rabbi Saul says,
            29 “Let
            no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good
            for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
            30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
            31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
            32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”

            Ephesians 4 English Standard Version Anglicised

          • Orwell Ian

            I
            think Jesus would have responded exactly the same as in the case of
            the woman caught in the act of adultery. God didn’t send Jesus into
            the world to condemn us but to save us. A far worse sin than any
            homosexual act is persistent unbelief in Jesus Christ as Lord and
            Saviour. Anyone taking that stance has – of their own free will –
            rejected God himself and cut themselves off from His saving Grace. I
            believe that is why Jesus said “And you, Capernaum, will you be
            lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the
            miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it
            would have remained to this day.
            But
            I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of
            judgment than for you.”

          • Phil R

            Thank you.

            Jesus is stating of course that Sodom would have repented as for example Nineveh and turned away from their false gods comprised mainly of their own desires.

  • Inspector General

    One wonders if Farron is aware he was put under Cranmer’s spotlight. Not that it matters either way, but if politicians are really going forth as Christians, they need to know the burden they place themselves under. For to be a Christian is to be a man of integrity. A big ask of that profession, it seems.

    Anyway, politicians in general can do no worse than to refer to Cranmer’s blog to learn what is required of them.

    Cranmer, keep up your sterling work, that man!

    (And one must here mention his lackey, Scott, who does his best, probably…)

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Inspector, it was of course Cranmers “lackey” as you describe him, who wrote this fine piece.

      • Inspector General

        And so it is, PI. One hasn’t completely given up on Scott and his all too obvious leftyness.

  • IanCad

    “There is a belief among many Christians that party politics and faith can never really mix”

    Certainly not when a man puts politics first, as in:

    “I can’t Nadine, it’s a bit different now that I’m President. I really have to be careful and think of my new position first.”

  • “Moral issues are always terribly complex for someone without principles.”
    (G.K. Chesterton)
    None more so than one strives for political power, it seems.

  • DanJ0

    I see Nicky Morgan is coming under fire for her tweet about the Irish referendum now.

    • Quite right too. Bullshit is so unbecoming in a government minister.

      In 2013 Morgan voted against homosexual marriage, saying that her Christian faith and the impression she got from her constituents led her to oppose the bill. Following the Irish referendum she tweeted her joy at the result, saying it struck a blow for equality.

      She has described herself as a “bog-standard C of E” when discussing her religion.

      • Politically__Incorrect

        Her choice of the word “bog” is more appropriate than it seems at first:

        “wet spongy ground consisting of decomposing vegetation” and of course it is a slang word for lavatory

        • A rather casual and disrespectful comment without substance, all told.

          • Politically__Incorrect

            Yes, I forgot she deserves a lot of respect for her integrity

          • Her comments reveal the absence of any understanding of the Christian Gospel. What does a “bog standard C of E” member believe? It was disrespectful to members of the church she identifies with.

            And this from our (bog standard) Equalities Minister !!!

          • DanJ0

            She’s a member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, and a Christian in Parliament.

        • magnolia

          The seed that fell in the bog, and sprouted for a time, but the sprout did not go upwards for long before it toppled into the water and began to rot?

      • dannybhoy

        She has described herself as “bog-standard C of E” when discussing her religion.
        sounds pretty accurate!

    • Politically__Incorrect

      It should be a warning to others who want to “clarify” their position over SSM. They’ll never be believed or welcomed as true converts.

    • Phil R

      You mean this referendum. The one that was billed as having an overwhelming majority in favour

      * 37.51% voted for same-sex marriage

      * 24.49% voted against same-sex marriage

      * 38% abstained (by not voting)

      Good job I am not a democrat

      • DanJ0

        Blimey, perhaps your claim of being the lefty in your local pub has some merit. My Facebook is full of reworkings like that from left-wing malcontents complaining about Cameron’s so-called mandate because the result didn’t go their way too.

        • Phil R

          There was no majority in favour

          In a country of 4.6 million 1.2 voted in favour.

          That is roughly 25%. Nowhere near a majority.

          The tail wags the dog it seems then takes control of the whole dog, regardless.

          There is no mandate, just fiddled statistics and 25% bought by money and advertising.

          Democracy has become a complete farce and we need to move forward with new methods of representation

          • DanJ0

            “In a country of 4.6 million 1.2 voted in favour.”

            A comment worthy of a ‘lefty’, and no mistake! How many does the electorate comprise, Phil? Or do you want babes in arms to be given a vote when it suits you?

            Honestly, some of you religionists are astonishing. Even with a vote as significant as that, you still try to imagine the reality you want rather than the reality that is. Sheesh.

          • Linus

            Not just babes in arms, but fetuses too. And let’s not forget embryos. Glints in Catholic fathers’ eyes should also be given the franchise…

            Remember, every sperm is sacred, so of course they too should be allowed to vote.

            Of course, they can’t pick up a pen and make their mark on a ballot paper. But the fact that they instinctively swim towards an ovum when given the chance should surely be intepreted as a vote against same sex marriage.

            So, the referendum should be held again, only this time, the Church will issue a special one-time dispensation to all men positively requiring them to spank the monkey in the voting booth, thus creating millions if not billions of new voters who will all vote No.

            Might take a while to count them all, of course. And I hope there are no nuns helping out or they’ll get the shock of their lives. But the outcome will be a foregone conclusion, which is the only kind of conclusion that Christians like. As long as it goes in their favour, of course.

          • DanJ0

            Perhaps Phil ought to count the 2 million or so people in Northern Ireland who didn’t vote as counting against a yes vote too?

          • Linus

            How about the Irish diaspora around the world?

            Hmmm, probably not. Most of them would probably have voted in favour of equal marriage, so giving them the vote would have backfired on him.

            I know, what about the leprechauns? Surely they should be allowed to vote too.

          • Linus

            Sore losers are so comical.

            If the result had gone the other way with the same percentages reversed, you’d be bragging about a great victory and a clear mandate for God’s law.

            But you lost, and you lost badly, so now it’s the system’s fault.

            It seems you only want to play by rules that guarantee your victory. Anything else is “unjust”.

            I suppose it’s all part of the overall paranoid delusion of religion. Your sense of righteousness is so complete that whenever something doesn’t go your way, there must be corruption involved, or some kind of evil plot. And yet the Irish referendum was a model of democratic rectitude. All who were entitled to vote were able to vote. If they chose not to, their right to refrain from casting their vote must be respected.

            A clear majority of those who voted chose to vote for equal marriage. So it will now be enshrined in the Irish constitution. Those who did not want that to happen had their chance to stop it, but there weren’t enough of them to make a difference.

            Moan about it all you like. Not only are you a loser, you’re a sore loser. Get over yourself, understand your limitations and pick a battle you can win next time. These constant defeats must be very trying for your self-confidence…

            Éirinn go Brách !

          • Phil R

            So let the tyranny of the majority begin you say.

            To hell with those that did not share your view, they will be forced to comply.

            If Hitler had had a referendum to “solve the Jewish problem” without specifying how, because the levels of antisemitism were so high he would have most likely have won and it could be described as the will of the people?

            Happy with that idea? I thought not.

          • DanJ0

            No-one will be forced to marry someone of the same-sex. If you don’t like living in a liberal democracy then you’d probably be better fecking off to some place where the people are not sovereign. Somewhere in the Middle East, perhaps, or North Korea.

          • Phil R

            Everyone in Ireland will be forced to accept same sex marriage. There is nothing liberal in that.

            I have houses overseas and bank accounts. I can feck off whenever I like. I feel sorry for those that may not have this option if things turn nasty, or more likely the economy falls off the cliff

          • DanJ0

            We’re all forced to accept Christianity too, and that’s entirely liberal to my mind. A diverse society needs so accept some shared stuff in the public space in order to function.

            If I thought Jesus existed and actually knew you then I’d be hoping for the Rapture so you’d feck off some place away from normal, well-adjusted people.

          • Phil R

            You describe yourself as “well adjusted” ?

            No I get it… You consider yourself well adjusted so you really are….It is your right as a ………. person to consider themselves well adjusted.

            Life of Brian again Danjo.

            Lets fight for your right to be considered well adjusted.

            Whats the point?

          • DanJ0

            I’m lovely! For starters, I’m not obsessed with wealth. In fact, I often give money away in random acts of kindness. I have enough, you see, and I know it.

          • Phil R

            Well done you. Isn’t guilt wonderful?

            Watch the end of Schindler’s list and you will see that guilt does not motivate in the long run. Guilt destroys you.

          • DanJ0

            Compassion, Phil. I know you’re a stranger to it, given what you write here, but, believe me, it’s a powerful force in a lot of people.

          • Phil R

            Neatly swerved. away from the topic.

            Good tactics

          • DanJ0

            I answered your point about alleged guilt succinctly. I’ve also shredded your comments about voting percentages quite nicely, and shone a light on your comment about the tyranny of the majority. Not that you seem to be accepting the majority! Was there anything else?

          • Phil R

            We will now see how this “brave new world” pans out in reality.

            Another country full of hugs and kisses if you agree and something far worse if you don’t.

          • DanJ0

            So, there wasn’t anything else of significance unaddressed, and you were just blowing smoke about my alleged swerving?

          • Phil R

            For a while I was under the impression that we were having a discussion and I both forgot you were gay and started to think perhaps we could find common ground.

            Then you start behaving as you do at this point in the discussion and I realise that I was wrong on both counts

          • DanJ0

            I doubt there’s much common ground at all from your comments, and in particular on the recent disability thread.

          • Phil R

            Now in Ireland as happened here, family friendly polices and benefits will be curtailed. Why? Because all of a sudden additional costs are added in as new “spouses” become eligible.

            Money for disabled people will come a poor second to most gay men ensuring that now that they are married they get to keep more of their wealth. (See Magnolia’s comment for a more detailed explanation)

          • Hmmm …. if you believed in the Rapture then you’d be hoping it was you who was whisked way and not Phil.

          • DanJ0

            Also, Matthew 19:24. You love your alleged wealth way too much. You can claim you know your spiritual poverty but I’d like to see love, compassion, and good works flow from your claimed faith. The Holy Spirit doesn’t seem to have much efficacy with you given what you mostly write here.

          • Phil R

            I have always said my problem is greed.

            Love, compassion and good works cannot be defined by you.

            Side stepping again. BTW

          • DanJ0

            Side stepping? I addressed your first paragraph below before writing that.

            There’s a simple solution to your problem. Give all your alleged excess away to the needy.

          • Linus

            “Forced to comply” how?

            I’m not aware of any moves by the state to force straight men to marry other men.

            But if you’re forced to acknowledge that gay marriages exist, you’re in no worse a position than Catholics who have to recognize that second marriages exist, or Muslims who are refused permission to marry multiple wives. The definition of marriage is what it is and it’s no tyranny to expect everyone to acknowledge that reality insofar as it’s required by law.

            Disapprove of it all you like. If you’re a baker and a gay couple orders a wedding cake from you, tell them exactly how you feel about the commission. The odds are they’ll take their business elsewhere. But if they don’t, you’ll just have to make the cake. That’s the cost of doing business in today’s economy – you can’t pick and choose your customers, although your customers can pick and choose you.

          • Phil R

            It was never about business or a cake.

            Not even about providing a service

            It was about forcing Christians to state publicly a statement that they did not believe in.

            Despots have always used the same tactics. From Roman Emperors to our lovely Atheist Communist States of the last century

            Christians have always refused to comply and will continue to do so.

          • ‘Vox populi, vox dei.’ That’s your motto is it, Linus?

          • Linus

            The phrase is meaningless. There is no god, so the voice of the people cannot be divine. Democracies make good and bad choices, but they make the right choice more often than not.

            The Irish have chosen inclusivity over exclusivity, acceptance over rejection. I don’t like the idea of civil rights being put to a referendum because it smacks of mob rule and if history has shown us anything, it’s that mobs are spectacularly bad at ruling. But within the context of representative democracy, referenda can be a useful way of affirming and giving validity to a government’s action. This is what the Irish have just done and whether you like their decision or not, it clearly shows that equal marriage is now accepted by even the most conservative of Western societies. This is why the Irish result is so important. Far from causing the conservative backlash that Christians keep threatening us with, equal marriage has been welcomed by a clear majority and those opposed to it look increasingly out of touch and more and more powerless to do anything about it.

            Vox populi, vox sapienciae.

        • The result shows the majority did not actively support the change. Claiming it represents a “massive cultural change” is inaccurate if by that you mean people agree with homosexuality as equivalent to natural sex between a male and a female and that this should be recognised by ‘marriage’.

          What it demonstrates is a massive loss of moral credibility of the Catholic Church for the immorality it showed in failing to respond properly to the sex abuse scandal. It also demonstrates the collapse of orthodox teaching by the Church because of the poor formation of priests since Vatican II.

          Here’s the emotional guff put about by more than one Catholic priest. These comments are from one Tony Flannery, co-founder of the Association of Catholic Priests. He was suspended by the Vatican in 2012 for refusing to affirm the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, contraception and the ordination of women:

          “If the referendum is defeated, there will be enormous anger and bitterness among the under 35s. The Church will be seen as the body that defeated it – old, male, celibate men dictating how people should live their lives…We as a Church have already by and large lost the young generation, they’ve drifted away, and [if the result of Friday’s vote is a no] it is going to be a massive blow.

          Pope Francis has brought us back to some of the very basic teachings of Jesus. He constantly tells us that love, compassion and mercy are fundamental Christian attitudes. If this country rejects the proposal put before us in this referendum, I fear that gay people will hear it as a further rejection, another example of society telling them they are lesser human beings.2
          It’s riddled with logical fallacies, ad hominem and distortion.

          For me, the really Christian thing is to give them a strong and clear message that they are loved and accepted just as they are, and that they deserve to be treated with the same dignity as the rest of us.”

          This ‘argument’ lacks theological reason and is a mixture of ad hominem, emotional blackmail and a distortion of Christ’s teachings. Popular opinion and moods can and do change.

          • DanJ0

            “The result shows the majority did not actively support the change.”

            You’re reduced to desperate measures now. Why not just accept the reality instead?

            “Claiming it represents a “massive cultural change” is inaccurate if by that you mean people agree with homosexuality as equivalent to natural sex between a male and a female and that this should be recognised by ‘marriage’.”

            I suspect most people who voted in favour of the constitutional change did so because they recognise that same-sex couples are basically just like different-sex couples in day to day life when it comes down to it.

            There are enough homosexual men and women out in the open now that we’re not that remarkable any more, and people see that we’re just like other people, except that we are attracted to members of the same sex.

            It’s ‘no biggy’, in other words.

          • The question is whether the majority of Irish people will go beyond mere tolerance and sentimentality when it comes to their children being taught in schools that homosexual acts are ‘normal’ and ‘healthy’ and they have a ‘choice’ about engaging in them if they ‘feel’ so inclined.

            How any of the 25% of the population voting in favour of homosexual ‘marriage’ actually grasped this and weren’t instead registering disfavour with the Catholic Church’s recent history and/or caught up in the buzz of it all?

            The homosexualist lobby has been backed by millions of euros from America for decades so really, all in all, this was a piss poor result if you’re using it as evidence of a “massive cultural change.”

          • DanJ0

            25% of the population? Are you from the same school as Phil?

            Also, this is a Roman Catholic country. Or was, until very recently. Your character must be very sore that it’s hegemony has been broken. That’s one reason why the result is so significant. Ireland has progressed so rapidly.

          • Phil R

            I did not say 25% never that high!

          • DanJ0

            Right above your comment where you said “roughly 25%”, too. Heh.

          • Why would Jack be “sore”? This isn’t a football match where the referee made a poor decision. God is permitting this and though we may not understand why, we know He has His reasons.

            Perhaps it’s His will that His Church becomes smaller, poorer and more faithful to Him as the inevitable consequences of our materialistic, hedonistic and atheistic culture unfold – and the inevitable crash comes.

          • DanJ0

            Your character is more Roman Catholic than the previous pope, that’s why. 🙂

          • One cannot be more or, indeed, less Catholic.

          • DanJ0

            The irony of all this complaining about percentages is that if the referendum over EU membership happens and 62% of a turnout of 62% of the electorate vote to leave then most people would be cock-a-hoop here.

          • (lowers voice) … it’ll never happen.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Yes, change is needed… It is dependent on very strong leadership. As you say the Church is too diversified and unwieldy… the ethos of Catholicism is being eroded. A strong and fearless Pope is the answer. A Pope who is not afraid of the loss of wealth or power for the Church or to be persecuted by public opinion via media. …a Pope who will uphold Catholic doctrine and who will excommunicate all clergy globally, who preach anti Catholic doctrine.No one is compelled to believe in Catholic precepts. They are immutable. This should all be made very clear to everyone.

          • Cardinal Pell? He’s a straight talker.
            Welcome back …. Jack has missed you in Christian agape way.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Cardinal Pell is a very nice man but I am not sure he would be ferocious enough for the task ahead. I am thinking a Benedict with grunt would be the solution…
            You know it’s OK to miss me….you don’t need to qualify the statement….I only come here occasionally….the vicious invective hurled by some of the commenters is a deterrent. Wading in the gutter is not my preferred pastime.

            I suppose it is to your advantage, having experience in engaging with the disturbed, mentally unhinged unfortunates of society in your previous occupation, that enables you to tolerate the appalling abuse that is hurled at you ,particularly by the francophile Linus .It is very apparent that no one objects to it. I wonder if people realise the word Christian was never meant to be a substitue for Coward. Can’t blame them for thinking that really … judging by the few faux Christian commenters left on this blog

          • Cardinal Pell is made of stern stuff – that’s why the liberals have their knives out for him. God will reward him for his stand at last years Synod on the family.

            Linus? He is still a child emotionally who needs a father figure to lash out against. That’s why he hates Christians and the idea of a God who sets limits on behaviour. A spoilt brat who has been molly coddled all his life. Nothing he says impacts negatively on Jack, as one has to respect someone’s opinion for this to happen.

          • CliveM

            Cressida

            A lot of us object to what Linus says, but from my perspective, he’s given to much air time. I don’t aim to give him additional opportunities to add to it.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Slightly off-topic, but it’sbeen announced that Tesco are reviewing whether to continue buying products form Ashers bakery after losing the “gay cake” case. There is a petition to persuade Tesco to keep trading with them, if anybody wants to sign (I know some of you will)…

    https://www.change.org/p/tesco-s-northern-ireland-keep-selling-products-made-by-ashers-bakery?tk=AvGIpLxyi5jaT9mlznE988QOA7RbEDBy4s3mIWe_XAs&utm_medium=email&utm_source=signature_receipt&utm_campaign=new_signature

    • Sirbastion

      Happily signed!

    • “There is now an attempt to force Tesco’s to stop stocking their products. This petition is to ask you to continue stocking products from Ashers. In the event of Tesco’s withdrawing Ashers products from their shelves many people will feel the need to take their business elsewhere.”

      It’s time the ‘Pink Pound’ was countered by the ‘Christian Pound’. People should refuse to purchase goods and services from those using their muscle to advance an anti-Christian agenda.

      • sarky

        Hmmm,where you gonna shop then?

        Might see you in poundland 🙂

        • … or Lidle. One hears they do a ‘deluxe’ range there.

          • sarky

            Two ply toilet roll and everything! !

          • Recycled?

    • I’ve signed, but if the evidence from America is anything to go by, the Ashers’ problems are only just beginning.
      http://www.dennyburk.com/seeking-the-complete-financial-ruin-of-a-christian-family-dailysignal/
      There needs to be a fund started to support the Ashers. They’re going to need it!

    • dannybhoy

      I just signed.
      Here’s the reasons I gave..

      “Tesco’s was founded by Jack Cohen in 1919. Thirty years before Hitler launched the holocaust on European Jewry..
      http://www.tescoplc.com/index.asp?pageid=11

      You as the heirs to Jack Cohen seriously want to side against a Christian bakery that was in existence (1997) before these equality laws were passed?
      I sincerely hope you won’t give in to the same kind of pressure that brought about Kristallnacht for the Jews of Germany..

      http://www.history.com/topics/kristallnacht

      Asher’s is first and foremost a successful and popular bakery, employing people in five or six branches.
      It is my humble opinion that you will find yourselves actively persecuting ordinary business folk and putting their employees out of work, all because they hold Christian values.
      Just as the Jews of Europe held Jewish values.
      Just like Jack Cohen did….

  • LGBT activist Masha Gessen acknowledges homosexual marriage is about the wholesale destruction of marriage and the family:

    (Warning – several strong whiskeys advised before watching)

    • carl jacobs

      Poor Jack. The season ends with a whimper. A draw with Hull City.

      Doesn’t bode well, Jack..

      • A strategic draw, Carl. All part of the master plan.

    • Nothing new in that, Jack.

      Way back in 1971, Peter Tatchell wrote in the preface to the “Gay Liberation Front” manifesto: “The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family..…Formal religious education is still part of everyone’s schooling, and our whole legal structure is supposedly based on Christianity, whose archaic and irrational teachings support the family and marriage as the only permitted condition for sex…Yet although this struggle will be hard, and our victories not easily won, we are not in fact being idealistic to aim at abolishing the family…. the family unit …will not disappear….without a struggle…

      Gay shows the way. In some ways we are already more advanced than straight people. We are already outside the family….We question however as an ideal, the finding and settling down eternally with one ‘right’ partner. This is the blue-print of the straight world which gay people have taken over…. we believe that the suffocating small family unit is by no means the best atmosphere for bringing up children.”

      You’ve got to hand it to the guy; He’s worked for it and now it’s all coming good for him.

      • DanJ0

        I wonder if he still feels that way now that times have changed and the counter-cultural thing of the 60s fell flat.

        http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/history/gay-liberation-fronts-social-revolution.htm

        • CliveM

          DanJo

          Read the article, although didn’t follow all the sub links. I don’t see any great change of mind there. He was pretty focused on roles and mention family particularly, but it seemed pretty much a article about how successful their early ideals and ambitions had been.

        • Obviously yes.

      • len

        I can go even better than that’ the Gay agenda’ is only a very small cog in a much larger machine (i know I will be labelled a ‘conspiracy nut’ ‘but I have my ‘tin foil hat’ on so no one can harm me 😉 take a look at this;

        http://www.michaeljournal.org/nwo1.htm

      • magnolia

        Clearly loved his own family, didn’t he?

        Why do we allow people to whom sneering comes easily to rise up the ranks? Why do so many people not have the capacity to read faces? I really don’t get it?

        Don’t you just love the “which gay people have taken over” ? “Taken over”???? Can people really not see what is being thought there? It reads like an incipient Hitler, who really thinks his sort are superior and born to rule over the peasants of the rest of the world. Arrogant and wicked nonsense. Knowingly or unknowingly it serves the Great Misanthropist.

        • Owl

          Excellent Magnolia,
          you have summed up Hitler’s predicament in 1934. The SA had virtually taken over and Roehm became a rival to Hitler. The only way Adolf found to stop the viscious queer brigade (SA) is now known as “the night of the long knives”.
          We just have to figure out who is Peter Tatchell’s Hitler.

      • William Lewis

        It seems that the disintegration of the family unit is a clear goal in the further enslavement of people and LGBQT activism is an important tool in that regard.

        • It’s a long standing Marxist-Lenin ambition – aka anti-Christ.

          • The Explorer

            Destroying the family was the overt aim of Georg Lukacs when in charge of education under Bela Kun. The most radical sex-education programme ever devised. Even OFSTED might have been dubious about it.
            Gays an essential element in Marcuse’s new proletariat in its new class war against the heterosexual white male.

  • len

    Christianity has been under constant attack ever since God outlined His Plan for the redemption of mankind in’ the Garden of Eden’.What Satan cannot kill he corrupts and we can see that happening right throughout the history of the Church .God gave us His Living Word (Jesus Christ) and His Written word so that we can know the Truth so that anyone who follows false forms of Christianity is without excuse.
    The LGBT agenda is designed to further displace and to discredit Biblical Christianity and this is part of an ongoing campaign against Christianity of which another important milestone was the creation of’ Darwin`s theory ‘.This ‘theory’ was designed to attack the very foundation of Christianity and has deceived many into accepting Darwin`s false ideology.
    Christian business`s are being sought out and confronted by gay activists and being made ‘examples of’ to force them to conform to ‘the gay agenda’.
    So’ the war’ goes on with the forces of darkness appearing to gain the upper hand but the real victory was won on the Cross of Jesus Christ.

  • The Explorer

    What percentage of a typical western society is gay? KInsey: 10% (But his survey was skewed towards male sex workers.) Media: 25%. Census self-identiication: 3%. General public: haven’t a clue.

    Where does support for same-sex marriage come from? Some from gays; alhough, interestingly, not all gays support it. More from heteros seeking the ultimate confirmation that there is no link between the sex act and procreation.

    One certainty in all the confusion: support for SSM doesn’t come from Muslims. (Although they might welcome it as proof of western decadence, and as speeding up their own eventual supremacy.)

    • Inspector General

      Explorer, Kinsey is discredited. He was himself that way inclined, and his personal life reflected that. He pulled 10% out of the air. He could have gone for 15%, or 12% or 18%. He chose 10%. A nice conveniently round figure.

      The actual figures are thought to be 3% of the population. A further 3% are thought to be bisexual. Out of these figures, one in ten are ‘activists’.

      • The Explorer

        Not enough people know that Kinsey is discredited, even now. His figures for bestiality are even more skewed than his figures for homosexuality; and his main source for paedophilia statistics, besides losing count of how many children he’d raped, claimed to have had sex with his own father and grandmother.

        That Kinsey was a charlatan is a message that cannot be preached often enough.

        • Inspector General

          Interesting thread on PN. “Germaine Greer attacks Elton John for ‘deconstructing’ motherhood”

          In the same way that KInsey is still adhered to, homosexual militants still cling to their ‘natural ally’ the Feminists. They show genuine hurt when these feisty women tell them there is no alliance at all. It particularly pains them when the Fems refuse to accredit trannys as women…

          • The Explorer

            There was a time when a ‘tranny’ was a radio.

          • len

            We used to call Ford transit vans’ trannys’ How times change?.

          • My brother still does. Regulars at the garage a couple in their early sixties and normal heterosexuals, just after this last Christmas the wife died suddenly. They were so looking forward to their retirement and had a list of things to do and places to see planned out. Mr drives a Ford transit for work so when his wing mirror came off in late March he went to see my brother. Only this time he came in dressed as a woman. The full kit from breasts, nail polish, full make-up high heals the lot. The boys didn’t know where to look or what to say. You can imagine gawfs of laughter and exclamations of “Bloody hell look at that” It was left to my brother to serve him. They went into the office and my brother rang the Ford parts people without thinking twice he said “Hi Dave, we’ve got a tranny in missing a wing mirror.” He looked up into the eyes of Mr H. glaring at him. It was then he realised what he’d said.

            He got chatting to him afterwards and it seems that Mr H is so angry about his wife dying. He is now outwardly a woman all the time.

          • DanJ0

            Marie, I need to move to where you live. I’ve pointed this out in the past that you seem to be surrounded by homosexuals, transvestites, and trans-sexuals, You have a fabulously diverse social life!

          • Danj0 you’re welcome any day to come and swap places with me.

            When at the chemist recently Christine an old school friend tapped me on the shoulder and said “Hello”. We had a bit of a natter and she told me she had been married for 20 years and had two boys. She had married a Chinese man who’s family owned a local takeaway so a lot of people knew their business. She didn’t tell me as I guess she
            was ashamed too, but when I mentioned our meeting to my other school friend who used to give Christine a lift to work, apparently her husband dresses as a woman and is seen regularly strutting down the high street in high heals flicking his long red hair like a candidate on Britain’s next top model! They live separate lives.

            I think all this is really sad.

          • Phil R

            Before you start I was going to say that there was only ever has been only one tranny in our village.

            then i thought i had better check with my wife who says there are at least 2

            One is a guy on his 60s who likes to go clothes shopping with younger women.

          • preacher

            I think that is really sad Marie, the poor guy seems to have been hurt so bad by the loss of his wife & the ruin of their plans, that he’s tripped out.
            The sad part is that many people like him are ridiculed by others because they are obviously not of the gender they purport to be. Gait , size of hands & voice are all give away’s & this ridicule only deepens their depression.

          • Hmmm …. those were the days; in bed in the early hours, tranny at one’s side, listening to Radio Caroline and Radio London.

          • Linus

            I understand perfectly well why many radical feminists refuse to recognize trans women as women. Their arguments are not entirely without merit, although as they’re making a case against somebody else’s definition of self, their opinions have to give way to each individual’s sovereign right to make his or her own choices.

            The identification of trans people with a gender not in accordance with their body morphology is a reality that won’t go away just because radical feminists, and Christians, don’t like it. Trying to pathologize these people and shame them into outward conformity because they offend your idea of what is “right” is an act of cruelty that only a heartless and doctrinaire bigot would engage in.

            Why shouldn’t they dress and live as members of the gender they feel they belong to? What skin is it off your nose? As long as they’re honest about being trans in situations where it might make a difference, I can’t see any problem with it.

          • People may have a ‘right’ to identify themselves as they choose. They have no ‘right’ for society to accept these self definitions and then stake a claim for legal recognition and protected ‘rights’ and special facilities.

            You can call yourself a “Baguette” – but do not demand society provide special toileting facilities for you and other “Baguettes”, or issue new birth certificates, passports and such like.

          • Linus

            Of course people who call themselves baguettes can lobby for recognition as such. That’s their democratic right. Society, and specifically the government that society chooses to govern on its behalf, can choose to listen to them and grant their requests, or ignore them. If the requests are abusive or just plain crazy like your example, they’ll be ignored. If they’re serious and have merit, they’ll be acknowledged.

            Governments are increasingly accepting the merit of the trans community’s case for recognition. So it looks as though gender-neutral toilets will be coming to a shopping centre near you soon enough. At your age you’re probably not capable of using the urinals any more, so I doubt you’ll see anything that would shock you. And although the left-leaning SNP is likely to be pretty exemplary in its application of trans friendly policies, I’d be surprised if they went so far as to designate the potty attached to your wheelchair as a gender-neutral waste disposal zone. So breathe easily. If you come across a trans person who’s caught short and in desperate need of a convenience, the law will not oblige you to give up your seat…

          • Well, the French know all about disgusting urinals.
            To squat or to stand? This is the question.

          • The Explorer

            Gender-neutral toilets won’t last long. The Muslims won’t tolerate them.if they won’t tolerate gender-neutral swimming pools. And the Muslims breed much faster than the Gays and the Trannies.
            As the percentage of Muslims in an environment goes up, the percentage of Gays goes down. Look at Amsterdam and Malmo. Causal connection.

          • Linus

            Replace the word “Muslim” with “Jew” and transpose your last comment to Berlin in the 1930s and it’s easy to see where all this Christian hatred of Islam is heading.

            I don’t much like Islam as a religion, but I don’t spend my days standing on street corners, real or virtual, shouting about how evil Muslims are. That’s obsessive and unbalanced behaviour and shows a real problem with scapegoating and blaming others for all your own problems.

          • The Explorer

            What hatred? What evil? Muslims breed fast. A bloke can keep four bints on the boil at the same time. The more they breed, the higher %age they are of the population. The higher the %age, the more they influence policy. Muslims like sexual segregation. Therefore, gender-neutral toilets have no long-term future.

          • Phil R

            There is a married tranny who has a kid in the same school as our youngest. When he is dressed as a man he has a male name when he is dressed as a woman he has a female name. The school is supposed to “respect” that

            Both kids are off the wall by all accounts

          • Phil R

            Married tranny continued..

            Additional comment the eldest is a girl is only 8 and my wife says she continuously talks about wanting to kill herself.

            The wife who is at least female works for Social Services in the Child Protection Department. All of the parents with kids are scared to death of her and what she could do to their kids if any mum upset her “husband”.

            You couldn’t make it up.

          • Anton

            On April 12th 2014 following the State’s recognition of SSM the headline in the Daily Mirror was My ex hubby is now my wife.

          • Inspector General

            Didn’t expect you of all people to give Feminists free reign to reject men who have had their genitals removed…

            If you must know, the Inspector approaches this trans business with pity for the afflicted. The correct attitude for a Christian, one would say. Ideally, these individuals would have been given long term psychiatric care to overcome their derangement, but it’s far cheaper to bow to their immediate demands and to get them out of the door P.D.Q.

            As it stands, there is no way the ‘disillusioned’ male can have his sex drive replaced with that of the choosy female. It results in these unfortunates being murdered by less than sympathetic punters when they head off into the whoring game after their so called transition, only to be revealed for what they are, usually by the presence downstairs of permanent scar tissue resulting, to wit, extreme homosexual men.

          • Phil R

            “As it stands, there is no way the ‘disillusioned’ male can have his sex drive replaced with that of the choosy female”

            I never really thought of that.

          • Inspector General

            Yes Phil. Rather embarrassing for them as it does tend to blow the ‘trapped in the wrong body’ idea out of the water…

          • Phil R

            I don’t understand homosexual attraction but if you are a guy who does not like women iy sort of makes sense perhaps.

            but having your bits cut off. Why?

            What bloke would be interested in someone like that

            i just don’t get it

          • Anton

            Which of the body and the mind is capable of lying?

          • William Lewis

            The cauldron of identity politics seems riven with contradictions, Inspector. As each new letter is added to LGBQTXYZ pantheon, the space claimed by each identity gets ever smaller and the caterwauling ever louder.

          • 58 ‘genders’ and rising, according to Face Book.

          • William Lewis

            Even more varieties than Heinz.

          • Inspector General

            There’s a substantial degree of in-fighting as it is without the pig f_____s being welcomed in, William. For example, a large proportion of the ilk consider trannys as freaks.

          • Politically__Incorrect

            GG and EJ in a brawl. Now that’s what I call spectator sport.

        • Linus

          Tut tut, shouldn’t Christians know better than to spread rumours and bear false witness?

          I hope you have solid documentary proof of the accusations you level at Kinsey. And by that I mean more than what you may have read in one hatchet-job of a biography.

          It amazes me how Christians feel they have a free pass to break every commandment in the Bible in pursuit of imposing the Bible on everyone else. Christian rules don’t apply to them, apparently. Just to other people.

          There’s only one word for it: hypocrisy. Or you could sum it up with the phrase “do as I say, not as I do”.

          What an advertisement for your faith you people are. You might as well print “Danger! Hazchem! Poison! High Voltage! Perish in a Puff of Hypocrisy All Ye Who Enter Here!” on the doors of your churches.

          Vive l’Irlande ! Vive les Irlandais ! Éirinn go Brách !

          • The Explorer

            Hello Linus old data dodger.

            We’ve been here before. Because a book is a hatchet job, that does not mean it is untrue.

            Want a source other than Jones? Judith Reisman do? Theodore Dalrymple? Gathorne-Hardy, who admired Kinsey, conceded the toothbrush-up-urethra episode, and designated it “brave”, That’s one word for it.

            Where does the Bible come into it? Skewed samples are skewed samples that will produce distorted results. Aristotle would have said as much, and he wasn’t influenced by the Bible.

          • Linus

            Say what you like about Kinsey’s science. If you can back your criticisms up with solid data then your comments will be pertinent.

            What I find so very unbecoming and “small” is the vulgar character assassination you indulge in at the same time. Apparently discrediting the man’s work isn’t enough for you. You also need to discredit him personally and repeat all sorts of unsubstantiated rumour and gossip in order to paint him as evil and twisted.

            Anyone with a modicum of decency who reads your comments will wonder not who Kinsey was, but rather who you are.

          • The Explorer

            Kinsey sought to destroy the modicum of decency. He succeeded. Modern society is the result.

            It’s not unsubstantiated. (Although your claim that’s it’s unsubstantiated is). There his diary. The filmed evidence. I’m not going to reinvent the wheel. I’ve cited four sources. Let people read for themselves, and decide for themselves.

          • Anton

            I am recently back from vacation and would like to comment on Alfred Kinsey’s child orgasm statistics – as mentioned – and their origins. These statistics appear in Tables 31-34 of the 1948 book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male of which Kinsey was lead author. These tables include data on orgasms in infants younger than one year of age. This webpage from the Kinsey Institute

            http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/about/cont-akchild.html

            shows that Kinsey got all of this data from a single child molester who was perverted enough to keep notes on his activities. Neither Kinsey nor his team indulged in sexual abuse of children to get these statistics, but Kinsey made it appear that the data came from multiple sources when in fact he was taking the word of a single deeply perverted individual.

            Like you I regard the facts about Kinsey as sufficient.

          • Jill

            Kinsey was a fraud and a pervert whose idea of a good time was to pass hot wires up his urethra. He published ‘research’ showing how many orgasms a five-month old baby has in 24 hours along with the results of many other sickening experiments.

          • Inspector General

            He’d fit in well with Pink News commentators…

          • Inspector General

            Linus, nobody quotes Kinsey these days. Certainly no one who would delight in his ‘findings’ to prove a homosexual point. What does that tell you?

        • CliveM

          Even those who agree he is discredited, seem to think his ‘discoveries’ still have value. His influence is simply malign.

      • len

        Does that include Dave Cameron?

    • Dreadnaught

      I find it deeply creepy how ostensibly straight Christian people spend so much time investigating and preoccupying their waking hours (and dreams probably) with the subject of homosexuality. Get a life you guys.

      • The Explorer

        I didn’t raise the subject. If I had, you might have a point. Ireland took a vote about it. Others commented on the vote. I responded.
        If 25% of the population is gay (as the media would have us believe), then we have an issue. If it’s 3%, let them get on with it: it’s too small to be significant.
        Kinsey was the founder of the sexual revolution. From him, much flows. He’s an important figure.

        • There was some German ‘scientist’ back in the late 19th century who was the first to lend credibility to the idea of a ‘third sex’ as ‘natural’ and ‘healthy’ i.e. homosexuals. Jack cannot recall his name just now. Initially, such folk were known throughout Europe as “Berliners” or some such, because of the numbers congregating there. Bit like Brighton today.

        • Dreadnaught

          Why don’t you try discussing the plight of homosexuals being thrown off buildings in Iraq and Syria or public hanging in Iran by mobile crane – at least it would show some Christian compassion for change. Your constant yapping like a pack of demented pups, over and over and over a-bloody-gain is all that seems to serve as you daily entertainment – its pathetic!

          • The Explorer

            Gay cake, gay marriage referendum: 3% of the population is getting attention way beyond its numerical significance.

            Islam, I agree, is a much more significant issue, and a percentage that is growing all the time. And where Muslims run things, the number of self-declared homosexuals disappears to vanishing point. (Not self-declaring, of course, is no excuse. Others may declare your orientation on your behalf, and murder you accordingly.)

      • Inspector General

        One finds it odd that given the recent debasement of marriage, certain atheists continue to fail to grasp the homosexual campaign being waged against society…

        • Dreadnaught

          Homosexuality is as old as mankind let alone Society. There is and was discrimination against anything other than heterosexual missionary position procreational intercourse. Recreational sex? why not bellyache against that. Why the hell should anyone pass judgement on what goes on between consenting adults in private. There is so much diversity available in herterosexual acts that should keep even you permanently curious and entertained and no doubt zoutraged because it doesn’t conform to wham bam thank you mam ZZZzzzz. Sex is satisfying and fun but not fun without a little imagination being deployed.

          • Inspector General

            Woken up in a Lib Dem mood have you?

            How bloody annoying for the rest of us…

            Has it occurred to you that if there was no queer uprising, we could go on to other topics. Yet here we are, and there they go…

          • Dreadnaught

            Lib-Dem? Dammit man, you have pushed me too far this time!

          • Inspector General

            It was not without bitter regret that this man made the accusation…

          • Phil R

            I am starting to remember some of your put downs for later use

            excellent

    • bockerglory

      Re. Muslims – you are correct. Muslims point to SSM as proof that we are corrupted and Xians are weak.Good Muslims will kill any persons in or supporting SSM as an evil corruption which must be removed because you “love and hate for the sake of Allah”. So they bide their time and mock us.

  • preacher

    Well gentlemen, we seem to have an awful lot of critics don’t we? What is it about the Christian faith & it’s followers that Keeps attracting them to this Blog?.
    Some strange force or desire keeps drawing them.
    Perhaps it’s because they secretly want to be part of the Church, but they’re trying to test us first. Pity that they don’t find us perfect eh? – But then none of us would be in need of salvation would we?.
    Ah! maybe they want to share their enlightened discoveries with us, – No, many of us have tried their ways & discovered it was inconsistent, non scientific (I mean, how can Anyone believe that a complex, sophisticated Something, appeared by a series of accidents from Nothing).

    It’s a strange thing, that Moths are drawn to the light – a source that will eventually destroy them, they fly closer & closer but avoid touching it until the last minute, then they are gone.
    But when a human finds God’s light, they don’t die, they gain eternal life. Well that’s quite a paradox eh!.
    Bring it on my friends, your barely hidden doubts & fears, even though cloaked & masked in vanity & pride continue to strengthen us by making us think, pray & reach deeper into the wisdom & love of God.

    Blessings.

    • … the irony is that the more they listen to and then reject and sneer at the Gospel, the more culpable they become in rejecting God. Better to live in ignorance and trust to God’s mercy, than willingly and knowing scorn and scoff at Him.

      • preacher

        There is some truth in that theory jack, but ignorance is no plea in a court of law.
        Anyway, God works in mysterious ways & perhaps this is His way of waking up the sleeping Church & preparing us for battle in the Spirit by showing us how bad things have got. All revivals have begun in some of the worst times imaginable, if anything it should act as an incentive to us to reach out to the very worst examples with the love, grace & mercy of the Lord.

        • Dreadnaught

          Never heard so much self righteous pompously than I have from you – even when I did go to church. And you wonder why people are leaving your brand of religion in droves. Your position is the cause; not the remedy.

          • preacher

            Brother, I gather you mean pomposity? regarding leaving in droves, that is their choice, freewill & all that! You have made your choice & that’s up to you.
            From Moses to Christ, God’s followers have often had to stand alone & I personally wish that more Christians & Church leaders had the courage to stand & preach the truth, rather than attempting to appease & conform to the Worlds errors.
            The remedy is found in Jesus Christ & His death on Calvary & no one & nothing else.
            The cause is the vanity & selfish desires of humanity that caused Him to make that sacrifice.

            Blessings. P.

    • sarky

      Like most moths we fly close and then realisethe light isn’t real.

      • The Explorer

        Ever seen a moth fly into a candle flame?

        • sarky

          We have lightbulbs in our house 🙂

          • The Explorer

            Are you saying lightbulbs aren’t real light?

          • sarky

            They are man made!! They confuse the moth and make him waste time on something that ultimately isn’t real.

          • preacher

            It still kills the moth! So what we are saying here is that the moth is confused by a desire that it can’t understand, but still attracts it & it probably thinks it’s normal so, it can’t leave it alone & in trying to fulfil it’s desire in ignorance it throws caution to the wind & is destroyed in the process. Hmmmmm!.

          • sarky

            The moth is attracted by something that is false. The smart ones fly away, unfortunately some others are drawn in.

          • The Explorer

            Hence my reference to a candle flame. (We light candles at Christmas time.) Candle flames are real. Burns their wings right off.

      • preacher

        Look in your lampshade brother!.

        • sarky

          What’s a bit of dust got to do with it?

  • David

    More of Tim Farron’s Christian “wisdom”, released by the Christian Institute and just posted on Anglican Mainstream, for those who are interested.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Indeed. What more need one say about Tin Farron’s “faith” except that he obviously has none.

  • Inspector General

    It is against the natural order, dear thing.

    • Hi inspector

      Glad you enjoyed Durham and the lake district (aren’t they bit apart from eachsh other ?). I’ve been to Israel and had the cool experience of being on a planted forest, which is inside a desert , but also has a niche winery* : you can only get their bottles in posh shops , like Selfridges, over here .

      Now as for the naturalism of gay relationships, I’ve never been more happy or content since I took the plunge to have a girlfriend (no neither of us are butch) . Gays ain’t out to get you. I know you’ll never understand. Bless

      *Yatir

  • Hi Gillian

    Isn’t Tim’s hair a bit less yellow or is that a lib dem thingy?

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Because of all the political and cultural baggage that comes with it Hannah. We all know the agenda goes much further than giving a gay couple a marriage certificate

    • Hi

      This gay person isn’t out to get people and she dosent have an agenda. It’s like the conspiracy theories against Catholics and also us Jewish people. Gays aren’t a homogeneous bloc for a start.

  • CliveM

    Some thoughts on the Irish vote:

    My marriage isn’t threatened by this vote.

    My marriage, in the eyes of God, is no less legitimate then it was.

    The result is a defeat for the Church in Ireland.

    The behaviour of the Catholic Church in relation to is handling of scandles means it must take some responsibility for the result.

    I’m not going to have to divorce my wife and marry someone of the same sex.

    This isn’t the biggest threat to the family. It is the selfish behaviour of both men and women who see commitment as temporary. Sex as simply recreational. The unborn child as disposable and self as more important then other.

    However there are worse things going on in the world and these present a greater threat to our way of life, then two men going through a ceremony that we don’t have to attend.

    And anyone who things all this would be improved by a Dictatorship, is dillusional.

    • Shadrach Fire

      You are right but there is a great concern as a result of these decisions to introduce SSM.
      The point is that to those of senior disposition it will mean nothing, but what it does do is give greater credence to the LGBT cause. This in turn wiil give them greater authority to impose their despicable ideas on our grandchildren in schools.

      • not a machine

        I wonder if the question to vote upon had been phrased differently how it might have gone “would you like to change the meaning of 4000 plus years of understanding that marriage is between one and one woman only ?” YES or NO

        • not a machine

          Drat missed man out , oh well

          • Lol …. in the ‘New World’ men and women are mere social constructs reflecting an oppressive, capitalist, patriarchal system. There are now at least 58 ‘genders’.

    • If you don’t mind Jack saying so, that is a rather limited perspective, Clive.

      You are overlooking the harm to future generations this will cause and the damage to the common good. We have moved from tolerance to legitimacy. We are making sexual pleasure the basis of our family unit.

      Children will have to be ‘educated’ to ‘understand’ same sex relationships, based on “feelings”, “emotions” and “desire”, are sufficient. And, not only will this be proclaimed, children will have to be ‘taught’ what these new ways of expressing ‘love’ actually entail so they have the full menu to pick from, are ’empowered’ and ‘forewarned’ about the many health risks.

      It’s a deeply troubling development.

      • Linus

        You’re using the wrong tense. Education already encompasses all kinds of relationship. Children will not have to be educated about same sex relationships, they already are educated about them.

        Your “deeply troubling development” happened years ago. Strange that you’ve only just heard about it.

        • Then why are Ofsted threatening schools who do not instruct 10 year old girls in the delights of lesbianism?

          • Linus

            Details of my private life and associations are none of your business, vicious old satyr. You already have far too much to fantasize about. At your age you’d better calm down or you’ll burst a blood vessel.

            There are probably a few hold-out schools staffed by prurient religious bigots such as yourself that fail to apply the national curriculum when it comes to teaching their pupils about human relationships. But whatever control and verification procedures have been put in place by your ministry of education will deal with them as they deal with all schools that take public money while refusing to adhere to public policy.

            Want children to grow up in a bubble where they learn nothing about human relationships, apart from the harsh lessons taught to them by Catholic priests and other paedophiles, of course? Fund your own schools then and then provide jobs for the unemployable graduates they produce with their unrecognised qualifications. But you’d better make sure you have a huge capital sum available for compensation payouts when former pupils file abuse charges. Between the priests trying to get into their pants and the nuns beating them to within an inch of their lives, it isn’t any easier to be a Catholic schoolchild nowadays than it was in the past, or so I’m told.

          • Hmmm …. being sheepish about your knowledge of children’s sexual awareness of queer practices there, Linus. Not a good sign.

          • Linus

            You can tell you’re dealing with the worst kind of evil manipulator when he takes your refusal to be drawn on questions that do not concern him as an admission of guilt.

            Guilt about what exactly, I’m not sure. And neither is he, probably. All he wants to do is set up suspicions in people’s minds and get them to condemn me of unnamed acts without having the slightest evidence of any wrong-doing.

            In doing so he proves himself to be a veritable human cesspit of dishonour and moral turpitude. No reputation can remain unsullied when the likes of Sad Jack start hurling their excrement at it hoping something will stick.

            What an advertisement for Christianity! All who come into contact with Sad Jack should look upon him and understand what religion does to people.

          • Jack was enquiring how a middle aged man with no children claims insight into the extent of modern day children’s knowledge about homosexual acts. Why the drama? Are you prone to hysteria and paranoia?

          • Linus

            That’s right, old bigot. Drop the handful of muck you were just about to hurl at me and claim surprised and wounded innocence. The stain on your hands is proof enough of what your real intentions were. But even when you’re caught in the act, you can’t bring yourself to admit wrong-doing, can you?

            You do know, do you not, that not every Catholic family disowns its gay members and bans them from all contact with its younger members? I have nieces and nephews who now have their own children, and who come to visit regularly. My home is a wonderful place for children to spend holidays in. There are nooks and crannies and lakes and woods enough to keep them occupied for days or even weeks at a time without disturbing me in the slightest.

            Of course none of this will mean anything to you because if there are any gay members in your family, they’ll have been ostracised years ago. Unpleasant for them, I’m sure. But if they know you, they must also know that anything is preferable to contact with you, so I’m sure they’re sanguine about the situation and wouldn’t change it for the world.

            And just think, when you’re safely dead and gone, relationships may be rekîndled and your toxic hatred relegated to the status of a family horror story. “Remember how mad old Uncle Jack the rabid homophobe used to fall to the ground and foam at the mouth whenever young Timmy played with his sister’s Barbie doll?” they’ll say. “And to think, when the coroner looked at his browsîng history after he was found dead and slumped over his computer, and found all that gay pornography and other stuff too terrible to mention! And we let him play with our children! Never trust a Christian who makes such a song and dance of the purity of his faith. You never know what’s lurking underneath.”

          • But Linus how do these visits from children of your nieces and nephews give you authority to comment on the levels of knowledge amongst children about same sex practices?

          • Powerdaddy

            I love the way Linus highlights your stupidity.

            Glutton. For. Punishment.

            🙂

          • dannybhoy

            Jack,
            That Linus is homosexual does not make him any the less a member of the human race! He obviously has family, he is probably a devoted uncle too.
            Like all of us he inhabits different roles. When he’s with his friends is different to how he is within his birth family. As we all are.

          • Jack is not querying that. Linus claimed authority about the sexual understanding and, by implication, liberalisation of children’s knowledge of same sex activities. One doubts this and is attempting to ascertain the basis of his assertion.

          • dannybhoy

            We all seek to rationalise or justify who we are and what we believe. In the absence of an overarching morality anything goes. Or rather, people accept the idea that as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else we should try to accommodate everyone, respect everyone, and protect everyone’s right to be.
            Linus and other gays have equality in law, and wants young people to be informed about gayness through education.
            He calls it education, we call it propaganda. On the other hand he would/does call what we believe and wish to share, also unprovable propaganda!
            Two interesting pieces I have read recently. One on homosexuality and Christianity by Christopher Yuan in Christianity Today 2014..

            http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/june-web-only/why-matthew-vines-is-wrong-about-bible-same-sex-relationshi.html

            and this one on Atheism and morality..
            http://www.epm.org/blog/2015/May/25/atheism-morality

          • Linus

            Nom de Zeus, if you’re going to try to manipulate me into making a compromising statement, you could at least be a little more subtle with your leading questions.

            If you’re the best Catholicism can do, no wonder your Church is in terminal decline. From clueless Irish archbishops scratching their heads and wondering where they went wrong, to random and anonymous geriatric blog commentators, the common thread wandering through modern Catholicism clearly takes the form of a blundering amateur utterly mystified as to why his dull and ineffective attempts to influence public opinion just aren’t working.

            If anyone wants to know why Christianity loses virtually every battle it engages in, look no further than Sad Jack. Limp biscuits make ineffective offensive weapons…

          • So, to be clear, you have no evidence at all and all the above is a smokescreen.

          • The Explorer

            You have more than one lake on your property? Wow. Blenheim Palace only runs to one. (Mind you, it’s a big one.)

          • Linus

            Ugh ! Les Churchill ! Of course they only have one lake. And of course it’s the size of Texas. Nothing that family does is ever subtle.

            They had an oversized bridge they didn’t know what to do with, so they plonked an oversized lake underneath it hoping to balance the awful thing out and ended up with something that resembles the Caspian Sea on one side, with a pea green duck pond on the other.

            The lake at Blenheim is like an obese woman’s stomach following a stapling operation. A small fetid pouch where everything backs up and rots before slowly seeping through a tiny gap in a massive obstruction, and then floating away to infinity on the wind and the tide.

            There is most certainly nothing quite so silly in my grinds…

          • The Explorer

            Still, Blenheim Palace was a reward to Marlborough for thrashing Les Frogs. Fortuitous origins.

      • CliveM

        Happy Jack

        Sexual pleasure has already become the de facto purpose of marriage (for many) and whilst I share your concerns about what we teach our children and when (as a mother I know put it “my son still believes in Santa and the school is teaching him about sex!!”) as has been pointed out, these changes have happened seperately to SSM.

        The biggest threat to marriage (and the benefits that gives through a stable society) is when the Govt decides to address the “injustice” of the current situation where long term cohabiting couples have no financial rights when they split. When that is addressed (and it will be at some stage, if not this Govt then the next), then marriage is differentiated simply by a ceremony.

        This is the fight that will determine the future stability of family life.

        • dannybhoy

          You are quite right to say,
          “This isn’t the biggest threat to the family. It is the selfish behaviour of both men and women who see commitment as temporary.”

          So the problem is not that marriage or the duties of parenthood have failed or are no longer relevant; but that our own culture has abandoned God’s morality and replaced it with personal or individual morality. A personal morality whose guiding light is the right to seek our personal happiness and fulfilment first and foremost.

          I think this is why we are seeing a breakdown not just in family life but other aspects of social behaviour.

          I read this article on Saturday..

          “Portrait of a 21st Century family: Meet Britain’s
          first gay dads and their twins Aspen and Saffron, who say the mind-bogglingly tangled biological web behind their birth is TOTALLY normal.”
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3093554/Meet-Britain-s-gay-dads-twins.html
          I think what these two men have done is another manifestation of that same seeking of personal happiness and personal fulfilment without regard to any moral teachings.
          Surely then, as Christians we can condone neither?

          • CliveM

            Dannybhoy

            I share your concept over the commodification of children. Frankly even more so then with a father, young children especially need a mother. One of the problems here is to adopt you don’t even have to be married, so uncertainty and insecurity is built into the relationship from the start.

            However I’m not asking anyone to condone (or condemn) anything. What I think we need to do is focus more on what’s driving the breakdown of family life, not the end results.

          • dannybhoy

            What I think we need to do is focus more on what’s driving the breakdown of family life, not the end results.

            That’s a good point there, and it’s a major part of why I differentiate between my main identity as a Christian, and my secondary role as a citizen, fortunate enough to have been born and reside in England.

            As Christians we are called to be available and obedient to our Lord Jesus in living and proclaiming the Gospel.
            That’s a full time job in itself!

            Then as earthly creatures we are earthly citizens of an earthly kingdom, which the Bible says is under the influence of Satan. Certainly Jesus did not dispute Satan’s claim to ownership of all the kingdoms of the earth..

            5 “And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, 6 and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will…”
            Luke 4.

            The longer I live the more I think I see how he corrupts and distorts the good things that God has given us and the good things that men do.
            Not only is he a liar and a deceiver, but a corrupter too.

            If we take hold of the salvation that God offers us through Christ Jesus, not only do we become a citizen of heaven, we begin to reflect more of God’s love and compassion in the world.
            Otherwise we remain rebellious and unredeemed sinners under the influence of Satan, living in the kingdom of darkness.
            So as citizens we promote what is good and just, and in line with God’s commandments. The worth and dignity of man, his freedoms and responsibilities, and justice and compassion for all.
            We also promote God’s ideal of the (heterosexual) family, the pleasures and responsibilities of procreation and parenting.
            I could go on, but essentially we Christians have to get our priorities right…..

          • CliveM

            I think we have to put the positive case as you say. Otherwise we simply look obsessed.

            Which frankly some are!

            Personally I’m more concerned by the heterosexual male, shagging his way around multiple partners, leaving pregnant girlfriends behind and not caring about the consequences.

          • CliveM

            DB

            just a quick thought. It is clear that Hannah’s family are close, cohesive and loving. The fact that Hannah is Gay hasn’t impacted on that. If we are looking for the causes of the breakdown of family life, we have to look elsewhere.

            One of the reasons I think is the geographical disconnectness of a lot of families and the lack of family bonding rituals (like Shabat).

            I remember reading a comment by the Amish “why do your children leave the family they love for a job they hate?”.

            I think we are all probably guilty.

          • dannybhoy

            I think you’re quite right Clive.
            All situations are different, but Hannah’s family are by and large, devout Sephardi Jews. They have a large network of family, they have a strong identity, their family history binds them even closer.
            That’s the strength of family and religious bonds. My own family history as tumultous and sometimes violent as it was, didn’t destroy us as a unit. (Although it certainly damaged us kids emotionally!)
            The fact that my parents had strong family ties in the north east and they were both morally old fashioned also helped.
            I am so glad that they didn’t divorce and so glad we weren’t taken into care!
            When we were young (I still am of course in a grey templed, windswept and interesting kind of way) shops shut on Sunday, Christian festivals were respected, most people were poorer but didn’t have televison to show them their poverty..
            It is not things that make us happy or strong as a society, it is a sense of identity, of belonging and shared values.
            (Tiny Tim said that I think)

          • CliveM

            Oops didn’t mean to put that response on this blog…… Sigh.

            We need to regain again the importance of community. Not the socialist bastardisation, but the real community of family, bonded together by faith and love.

            Our social isolation is a result of secularisation. The rising levels of mental health problems, loneliness and isolation are the results. Surely secular society is bad for your health.

      • magnolia

        Don’t forget that Shakespeare’s sonnet, “Let me not to the marriage of true minds…” will be given a new meaning, as will much else in literature. False unintended meanings, but then there are literary theories all ready …..

  • Shadrach Fire

    God is not fair. He is righteous.

  • Old Blowers

    Well praise the Lord!

    Just as old Ernst thought the EU Referendum might be swinging against us, like the vote for SSM in leprechaun land, a mighty hand has swung onto the battleground to aid our cause.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11628601/Tony-Blair-to-campaign-to-keep-Britain-in-the-EU.html

    Just like near the end of Tolkein’s The Two Towers, as it looks like a defeat is possible, someone comes riding on white charger to the rescue, except in this case the Blair thing rides over the mountain and promises to go careering into his own Orc comrades below.

    Blowers

    Blair beast never apologised for demanding we enter the eurozone, did he..or that he wanted to do it covertly from public view as Peter Hains states in his autobiography? So why trust the chancer on Europe when he deludedly believes he is the perfect person to rule Europe. Hail Caesar Avaricious.

    { think this is called a Boon!!!}

    Robert Oulds wise words in 2003 hold more water and shine more light than ever.:http://www.brugesgroup.com/eu/tony-blair-the-euro-and-europe-can-he-be-trusted.html?keyword=15

    • not a machine

      The orcs ? I think Mr Blair left them to Wonga , besides I would have thought Saruman would be more to his liking , there was overseeing Isengard , next thing the ents have given him a good kicking .Just hope PM returns from battle with the Belroc “you shall not pass” … nor pay £35mn a day . 🙂

    • Could he be Saruman or Sauron?
      Nah, he’s just one of the many Gríma Wormtongues infesting the political ‘elite’ at the moment.

      • not a machine

        don’t worry happy jack no one has yet cheated the truth out of being revealed in the end

        • Just as in the world of nature there are discoverable laws, in the moral universe there are immutable laws which generate self rectifying consequences if transgressed..

          • Linus

            What, like miserable old bigots die friendless and alone?

          • Lol …. you have a wicked mind. God has given you wit and intelligence to serve a better purpose. Don’t leave it too late.

          • Old Blowers

            ” God has given you wit and intelligence ” Please, please puhlease get your eyes checked urgently…tout de suite!

          • Well, He has – Linus perverts it.

          • Old Blowers

            thought you may have been confusing this Filous with the sarky chap..He appears to be the best of a very bad bunch and that’s saying something!!! *giggles*

          • Linus est un coquina.

          • The Explorer

            Bit of a bleak future you’re envisioning for yourself, isn’t it?

          • not a machine

            I must admit Happy Jack , self rectifying consequences if transgressed , is perhaps the fear of god , we have to consider in our ignorance .The will of god and the love of god do not lose any of their difficulty for us to comprehend and be righteous. A most difficult subject and in some ways I sometimes prefer the more simple feelings of just knowing you have salvation of the self , never mind the upscaling of your neighbour and beyond .

      • Old Blowers

        I especially enjoyed his ‘take’ on Pontius Pilate…”

        “The intriguing thing about Pilate is the degree to which he tried to do the good thing rather than the bad. He commands our moral attention not because he was a bad man but because he was so nearly a good man. One can imagine him agonising, seeing that Jesus had done nothing wrong, and wishing to release him.
        Just as easily, however, one can envisage Pilate’s advisors telling him of the risks, warning him not to cause a riot or inflame Jewish opinion.

        It is possible to see Pilate as the archetypal politician, caught on the horns of an age-old political (moral??) dilemma. We know he did wrong, yet his is the struggle between what is right and what is expedient that has occurred throughout history. Should we do what appears principled or what is politically expedient?”

        Think we know which one you took, you money grabbing lying chancer and we are reaping the whirlwind, morally!!!!!!!!!!

        The chancer offered his opinion on THE BIBLE in April 1996 article in Sunday Telegraph

        “As a private individual, I find prayer a source of solace and I
        read the Gospels (only those, nothing from the letters that states christian doctrine and how to live as a Christian??). They are compelling texts and a most extraordinary expression of sensitive human values (It appears they continually go in one lug and t’ow t’other…especially Matthew 19:16-22!!). I also read the Old Testament, which is in some ways more detailed and vivid than the New Testament.(Like a bit of blood and thunder, eh? Thought you might..Got a little bit of Nebuchadnezzar about you, fella.)”

        • Mr Blair describes himself as an “Ecumenical Christian”. When preparing for reception into the Catholic Church, he had the gall to exchange theological ‘pistols at dawn’ with Cardinal Hume when he was asked to cease his improper participation in reception of the Eucharist.

          Jack mentions this not to open a dispute over open and closed Communion and the finer points of Catholic Canon Law, but to illustrate his … er … confidence.

          The next Pope or President of a United States of Europe – or maybe both? A new “Romanorum Imperator” – Blair the First.

          • Old Blowers

            “Ecumenical Christian”. Another bland statement that means my Christianity is pragmatic (aka opportunistically flexible)..He obviously told Davy boy about the Chilton radio station he tuned into that made the current PM such a massive fan..Hear it’s a terrible transmission from there, especially when the presenter is trying to call back and answer their questions direct…appears an all one way signal?

          • Anton

            We may be glad that nowadays anybody, not just powerful rulers, may dissent from the opinion of a Cardinal. Mr Blair’s understanding of Christianity is not different from that of (unfortunately) a large number of others; what is strange is that he was granted entry into the Roman Catholic church while holding views contrary to much of its theology. A clue to why might be found in the statement at the time of Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi, that “The choice of joining the Catholic church made by such an authoritative personality can only arouse joy and respect.” In whom, I wondered…

          • As Jack said, and it was specifically directed at the argumentative, he did not post his comment to provoke a discussion on Catholic Canon Law but more to illustrate Blair’s character. As for his conversion and his reception into the Church, neither you nor Jack is privy to information about this and it is unwise to speculate.

          • Anton

            When a man of much worldly influence is accepted into an organisation despite disagreeing with it, the overwhelmingly likely reason why is obvious.

          • … which is?

          • Anton

            I thought you thought it was unwise to speculate…

          • It is to unwise to speculate. However, you did when you commented: “… the overwhelmingly likely reason why is obvious.” Now you’ve gone all coy.

          • Anton

            You flip to Scrumpy (sorry, Grumpy) Jack for similar reasons…

          • Grumpy?
            Happy Jack disassociates himself from all ‘his’ comments.

  • len

    Please no more politicians ‘that ‘do God’ because you do more harm than good.When it ‘comes to the crunch you will compromise with the world just as most of the church has done.
    Well said Blowers Pilate knew the truth but didn`t have the courage to enforce it…..

    • Phil R

      “Well said Blowers Pilate knew the truth but didn`t have the courage to enforce it.”

      For which we are eternally grateful.

  • Manfarang

    Tim Farron believes in the separation of Church and State.

    • len

      Which I believe would be the best possible option for the Church .