Pope claims! Harriet Har-person encourages sinful behaviour!

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist

unread,

Feb 2, 2010, 4:21:51 AM2/2/10

to

"The Pope yesterday made an unprecedented attack on Britain's equality
legislation, claiming Harriet Harman's attempts to bring in new laws
enforced sinful behaviour.

Benedict XVl condemned Labour's Equality Bill in extraordinary terms as an
assault on the 'natural law' of Christianity - in other words a sin.

His remarks came in a speech at the Vatican moments after he confirmed he
will visit the UK in September.

Despite praising Britain's 'firm commitment to equality of opportunity for
all members of society', the world's most powerful religious leader turned
his guns on Miss Harman's equality agenda, which many in the hierarchy of
the Roman Catholic Church say could force them to hire homosexuals or
transsexuals."

As we all know by now, women only cause trouble, pain, upheaval and sin,
when ever they disregard Bible teaching.
They don't learn..... neither do the idiot men who support their sinful
antics.
__
Veff...

Baba

unread,

Feb 2, 2010, 4:28:00 AM2/2/10

to

On Feb 2, 4:21 am, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"

<broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "The Pope yesterday made an unprecedented attack on Britain's equality
> legislation, claiming Harriet Harman's attempts to bring in new laws
> enforced sinful behaviour.
>
> Benedict XVl condemned Labour's Equality Bill in extraordinary terms as an
> assault on the 'natural law' of Christianity - in other words a sin.
>
> His remarks came in a speech at the Vatican moments after he confirmed he
> will visit the UK in September.
>
> Despite praising Britain's 'firm commitment to equality of opportunity for
> all members of society', the world's most powerful religious leader turned
> his guns on Miss Harman's equality agenda, which many in the hierarchy of
> the Roman Catholic Church say could force them to hire homosexuals or
> transsexuals."
>

>
> As we all know by now, women only cause trouble, pain, upheaval and sin,
> when ever they disregard Bible teaching.
> They don't learn..... neither do the idiot men who support their sinful
> antics.
> __
> Veff...

>>>----------------------->
Hear, Hear!

*¿*

AGG

unread,

Feb 2, 2010, 8:35:51 AM2/2/10

to

***The pope is entitled to his opinion, is he not?

--

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 2, 2010, 10:22:25 AM2/2/10

to

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:

> "The Pope yesterday made an unprecedented attack on Britain's equality
> legislation, claiming Harriet Harman's attempts to bring in new laws
> enforced sinful behaviour.
>

Of course, the Pope is entitled to his opinion, and I'm equally entitled to
think that in this instance it is a daft one. No-one is forced to sin, be
they gay, straight, male, female etc. etc.

The equality laws prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual
*orientation* only, and since the RCC requires ALL their priests to be
celibate, their sexual orientation is irrelevant. Even Jeff ought to agree
with that.

Tim.

AGG

unread,

Feb 2, 2010, 3:31:48 PM2/2/10

to

- .. -- Tim .-. wrote:

> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> > "The Pope yesterday made an unprecedented attack on Britain's
> > equality legislation, claiming Harriet Harman's attempts to bring
> > in new laws enforced sinful behaviour.
> >
>
> Of course, the Pope is entitled to his opinion, and I'm equally
> entitled to think that in this instance it is a daft one. No-one is
> forced to sin, be they gay, straight, male, female etc. etc.

***True. But because we are all subject to Adam's Sin, we cannot help
but sin.

>
> The equality laws prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual

> orientation only, and since the RCC requires ALL their priests to be

> celibate, their sexual orientation is irrelevant. Even Jeff ought to
> agree with that.

***Seems logical. But it doesn't work that way...for many Christian
groups, not just the RCC.

Claire

unread,

Feb 3, 2010, 3:47:24 AM2/3/10

to

Catholic priests also have to be men Tim. You don’t see woman trying
to impose their will on the Catholic church. We respect that this is
just how the Catholics do things and if we disagree we join a church
where this is not an issue. This is about freedom of religion and
freedom of association. These are very important values for a liberal
society. I can accept that people who are not Christians should be
allowed to choose what they do and live with the consequences as must
we all (I don’t think this is allowing people to sin as people will
sin anyway and we get into the whole predestination discussion which
actually probably had a huge influence on the shaping of Western
liberal values). What Everywhere I look at work there are posters for
the Gay and Lesbian Association after they recently launched a
visibility campaign. My colleague even has a Gay and Lesbian
association ruler. What concerns me is that such a campaign by
Christians would never be allowed for fear of offending anybody. I
respect that homosexuals were severely mistreated in the past and that
was wrong, of course it was. However, equality means living and let
living not giving people you consider the persecuted minority special
privileges above everybody else. Tim, you know I am a moderate about
this issue but even very moderate people are very concerned about this
legislation. The pace of society’s attitudes towards homosexuality
have changed very quickly and in some ways for the better. However
they are now equal and as equal citizens they have to respect the
rights of other equal citizens. Nobody has a right not to be offended,
no matter what extremist Muslims or some in the Gay lobby would have
us believe. We might not only disagree with one another’s views but
literally hate those views however in a liberal society we talk about
TOLERENCE as the basis of individual freedom, rather than respect.
This bill is intolerant. I am writing as somebody who studied the
British constitution and Human Rights Law and has a great respect for
our tradition of civil liberties. I know also though that the Bible
says we will be persecuted. That does not mean we should lie down and
take it though when the law and values of our society should be
protected for all our sakes, not just for Christians.

Hiscoming

unread,

Feb 3, 2010, 5:10:27 AM2/3/10

to

"Claire" <claireo...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:01eaf75a-ea69-40a7...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

We Christians should remember that there is difference between the God's own
Church and the world.
To the Christians, the infallible Word of God governs the Church.
And in the secular world, satan, who is the enemy of our own God, is their
god.

We Christians are in the world, but the infallible scriptures keep reminding
us that we are not of the world.
Let the homosexuals continue to fight for their worldly right in this
condemned world that is awaiting destruction.
But in the Church, that will be forever, the only privilege they have is to
repent of and forsake their sins, and receive the gift of salvation from our
Lord Jesus Christ.
Salvation is a gift and not our right and it must be received in God's term.
The only thing Christians need to do is to tell them the truth - preach the
Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Christians should receive their commendation from Christ and not from the
impenitent sinners who daily condemn God and His infallible word.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist

unread,

Feb 3, 2010, 5:49:44 AM2/3/10

to

"Hiscoming" <salvat...@kingdom.com> wrote in message

> We Christians should remember that there is difference between the God's
> own Church and the world.
> To the Christians, the infallible Word of God governs the Church.
> And in the secular world, satan, who is the enemy of our own God, is their
> god.

And yet they keep coming in our NGs bothering us and protesting how innocent
they are even when committing fornication with each other.

> We Christians are in the world, but the infallible scriptures keep
> reminding us that we are not of the world.

Yes! just because the wicked world has rescinded the sensible and moral laws
on banning homosexual fornication which kept homosexual sin under strict
control, does not mean God has decided to change His Divine mind and also
approve of it.
Far from it.

This is the trap that many weak professing Christians have slowly fallen
into. They let their humanistic liberal mind-set become corrupted to the way
the world now thinks, and so we see the terrible devastation the heretical
churches have suffered by being split-asunder and are decimating their own
flocks because of their spiritual ignorance and rebelion to God.

> Let the homosexuals continue to fight for their worldly right in this
> condemned world that is awaiting destruction.

True indeed!
And everything and everyone that offends and is unfaithful to the Truth, God
will finally destroy.
"It is righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that
afflict you, 7 and to you that are afflicted rest with us, at the revelation
of the The Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming
fire, 8 rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey
not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: 9 who shall suffer punishment, even
eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his
might, 10 when he shall come to be glorified in his saints." 2 Thess 1:7-10
(ASV)

> But in the Church, that will be forever, the only privilege they have is
> to repent of and forsake their sins, and receive the gift of salvation
> from our Lord Jesus Christ.

Without a doubt this is the only way people can be saved from themselves.

> Salvation is a gift and not our right and it must be received in God's
> term.
> The only thing Christians need to do is to tell them the truth - preach
> the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But see how they detest the truth.
Let them show us were even once, does the Bible approve of men having sex
with other men, or women with women.

On the contrary....this is what God has to say about such wickedness..."13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination." Lev 20:13 (KJV)
How awful is that?

And Paul condemned such unnatural activities outright.
Calling such perverted love..."Vile affection" and their varies lusts for
each other as "Degrading Passions".
How awful is that?

> Christians should receive their commendation from Christ and not from the
> impenitent sinners who daily condemn God and His infallible word.

So true....but sadly very few have the spiritual wisdom to hearken.

"Just as Sodom and Gomorra and the adjacent cities, which similarly glutted
themselves with vice and sensual perversity, are exhibited as a warning of
the everlasting fire they are sentenced to suffer." Jude 1:7 (MOFF)
__
Veff...
Sinners must and "Flee fornication".

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 4, 2010, 3:20:56 AM2/4/10

to

Yes, point taken about RCC priests having to be men.

I doubt that the bill is as 'intolerant' as you suggest, but yes if we were
to talk about *Christian* gay people I would agree that they should not be
over-demonstrative of their sexuality, but rather, it should be a discrete
and private matter. As regards gay people who are not Christians, I see no
reason for them not having an LGBT ruler or coffee mug, any more than I see
no reason for such as myself not wearing a small cross or not having a mug
with a picture and the name of my church on it.

IMO there is NO case whatsoever for any Christian religious group to
excercise prejudice against people on the grounds of their sexual
*orientation* alone. However there IS a case for allowing prejudice against
people who do not believe in God. The latter counts as a qualification for
the job, the former does not.

Tim.

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 4, 2010, 3:21:57 AM2/4/10

to

Hiscoming wrote:

More rubbish about 'We Christians', odd coming from Stephen, who isn't one.

Tim.

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 4, 2010, 3:25:13 AM2/4/10

to

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:

> "Hiscoming" <salvat...@kingdom.com> wrote in message
>
>> We Christians

Hisco isn't one.

>> the infallible scriptures

Full of errors and contradictions.

>> keep
>> reminding us that we are not of the world.

Hisco is certainly "On another planet", that's for sure.

Rest of Bible-fundamentalist Christadelphian rant snipped.

Tim.

Paul Roberts

unread,

Feb 4, 2010, 3:45:56 AM2/4/10

to

"- .. -- Tim .-." <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:T9idnQKIGML2HvfW...@bt.com...

Tim,

Could you please include some context in your replies? It's difficult to
follow a thread when I don't know who and what you're replying to.
--
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address

Hiscoming

unread,

Feb 4, 2010, 4:57:02 AM2/4/10

to

"Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:12652731...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...

>
> "- .. -- Tim .-." <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:T9idnQKIGML2HvfW...@bt.com...
>> Yes, point taken about RCC priests having to be men.
>>

> Could you please include some context in your replies? It's difficult to

> follow a thread when I don't know who and what you're replying to.
> --
> Paul R.

That is how it is done in the uk.r.c. where they can abuse you and never
allow the reply to the abuse.
A newsgroup where atheists and false christians joined together to oppose
the infallible word of God.

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 4, 2010, 5:43:42 AM2/4/10

to

I recommend you ignore Stephen 'Hiscoming'. Just a nut-job.

Tim.

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 4, 2010, 5:46:39 AM2/4/10

to

I would point out that I snipped stuff precisely because I have been
criticised in the past for NOT doing so! Seems the main rule is "You just
can't win".

Here is what I was responding to (from Claire):

OrthodoxNews

unread,

Feb 4, 2010, 10:50:57 AM2/4/10

to

Hiscoming wrote:

> We Christians should remember that there is difference between the
> God's own Church and the world. To the Christians, the infallible
> Word of God governs the Church.

***WRONG! The Church, says Holy Scripture, is the Body of Christ. The
Church (Christ) is the governing source as it was for nearly 400 years
before there ever was the New Testament.canon.

Paul Roberts

unread,

Feb 4, 2010, 5:25:20 PM2/4/10

to

"Hiscoming" <salvat...@kingdom.com> wrote in message

news:hke5l4$h6t$1...@adenine.netfront.net...

>
> "Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:12652731...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...

[snip]

>> Could you please include some context in your replies? It's difficult to
>> follow a thread when I don't know who and what you're replying to.
>> --
>> Paul R.
>
> That is how it is done in the uk.r.c. where they can abuse you and never
> allow the reply to the abuse.
> A newsgroup where atheists and false christians joined together to oppose
> the infallible word of God.

Absolute garbage, and irrelevant to the point at hand.

Since you wish to defend the doctrine of the "infallible word of God",
perhaps you should check what it says about bearing false witness.

Paul Roberts

unread,

Feb 4, 2010, 5:27:27 PM2/4/10

to

"- .. -- Tim .-." <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

news:KLWdnT7nitkPOPfW...@bt.com...
> Paul Roberts wrote:

[snip]

>> Tim,
>>
>> Could you please include some context in your replies? It's difficult
>> to follow a thread when I don't know who and what you're replying to.
>
> I would point out that I snipped stuff precisely because I have been
> criticised in the past for NOT doing so! Seems the main rule is "You just
> can't win".

No, the rule is to snip the *right* amount. Snipping too little is not good,
but in fact too much is worse!

The usual rule-of-thumb is to preserve enough context so that readers can
follow the discussion, and snip out the bits you're not directly replying
to. Opinions differ, of course, but generally somewhere between the two
extremes works well.

Hiscoming

unread,

Feb 4, 2010, 5:52:53 PM2/4/10

to

"Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message

news:12653223...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...

I still have your abusive post on uk.r.c.
The point is that if your own abusive post is allowed, why do your false
christian gate keeper disallowed the reply?

Paul Roberts

unread,

Feb 4, 2010, 7:03:24 PM2/4/10

to

"Hiscoming" <salvat...@kingdom.com> wrote in message

news:hkfj3p$a8t$1...@adenine.netfront.net...

>
> "Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:12653223...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...

[snip]

>> Absolute garbage, and irrelevant to the point at hand.
>>
>> Since you wish to defend the doctrine of the "infallible word of God",
>> perhaps you should check what it says about bearing false witness.
>> --
>> Paul R.
>
> I still have your abusive post on uk.r.c.
> The point is that if your own abusive post is allowed, why do your false
> christian gate keeper disallowed the reply?

Feel free to demonstrate how my post was abusive.

And your "false christian gate keeper" remark is further evidence of your

false witness.
--
Paul R.

Claire

unread,

Feb 5, 2010, 2:43:16 AM2/5/10

to

On 4 Feb, 08:20, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> Yes, point taken about RCC priests having to be men.
>
> I doubt that the bill is as 'intolerant' as you suggest, but yes if we
> were

Hi Tim,

Let me just repeat what I said last time for the benefit of anybody
trying to follow this thread;

“Catholic priests also have to be men Tim. You don’t see woman trying

to impose their will on the Catholic church. We respect that this is
just how the Catholics do things and if we disagree we join a church
where this is not an issue. This is about freedom of religion and

freedom of association.”

Now, why should Gay people expect to deny other people the right to
freedom of religious association when no other group in our society
does? It seems that they only want to be involved in the church on
their own terms, if at all. We are not talking about “orientation”
here, we are talking about their CHOICES and the right of the church
to employ people living a Christian lifestyle and at least trying to
practice what is taught in the Bible. People screw up at trying to do
this and we must all be sympathetic and supportive of one another. But
to claim your sins as a lifestyle seems particularly disobedient. The
Bible forbids prostitution – should that be considered a compatible
life-style choice? What about adultery? Remember what Jesus said to
the adulterous after he told her accusers “let he who is without sin
cast the first stone” he said “you are forgiven, go and sin no more”.

> to talk about *Christian* gay people I would agree that they should > not be over-demonstrative of their sexuality, but rather, it should be >a discrete and private matter.

The trouble is that the “Gay” term is identity politics. Really there
is a choice to be made; what is more important to you; Earthly
identities and political concerns or your identity in Christ? Other
possible examples of this would be patriotism/nationalism and
sectarianism. Jesus was not partial.

> As regards gay people who are not Christians, I see no
> reason for them not having an LGBT ruler or coffee mug, any more > than I see no reason for such as myself not wearing a small cross > or not having a mug

Well this guy is a church-going Anglica! He's married and I am fond of
him as a person and a Christian. :-)

> with a picture and the name of my church on it.

I'm not keen on the idea really on reflection and I suspect most
Christians are secure enough not to want to do that. They know that
Christ wants faith-based actions not a supporters-club! However the
point about evangalism remains. I fee; tha LGBT group are doing is
just a form of evangalism and let even discussing faith can be
contriversial in the workplace.

> However there IS a case for allowing prejudice against
> people who do not believe in God.

Why? The decision to enter a homosexual relationship is a lot like
the decision not to believe in God!

celia

unread,

>It is possible that the post you are complaining about is one that I
>rejected.
>I followed the rules to the letter,

Then you should be doing the same for the Truth's sake, which is REALLY
important, Celia, like covering your head when praying to God and remaining
silent as the Lord has commanded during the church services. ....{;o;}
__
Veff...

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 6, 2010, 6:10:48 AM2/6/10

to

Claire wrote:
> On 5 Feb, 14:49, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Claire wrote:
>>>> However there IS a case for allowing prejudice against
>>>> people who do not believe in God.
>>
>>> Why? The decision to enter a homosexual relationship is a lot like
>>> the decision not to believe in God!
>>
>> Well, I don't agree with that statement at all. You might as well say
>> bicycles are a lot like fish!
>>
>> Tim.
>
> So are you saying that whoever you are you will have no choice about
> getting into a relationship???

Rather, that we can't 'choose' what we believe, Claire. We just believe one
thing or another, and that's it.

> Many atheists believe they have no
> choice about whether to believe in God �they say they simply can�t.
> Have you never felt so far from God that you believed this? It the
> easiest cop-out clause in the world �I had no choice� and yes it is
> sad when people really believe that. I don�t see why you would not
> employ atheists who �have no choice" either then? ;-)

They are then not qualified for the job. Would you employ a disabled person
with no legs to test bicycles, because to fail to offer her the job would be
'discriminatory'?

I think you're just being silly and playing games here, Claire. A
homosexual orientation does not disqualify a person from any job in the
church, a disbelief in God DOES disqualify them from some jobs, although not
all. I guess it does not matter if someone employed to clean the toilets is
an atheist.

Tim.

Claire

unread,

Feb 6, 2010, 9:53:42 AM2/6/10

to

> >>> Why? The decision to enter a homosexual relationship is a lot >>>>like the decision not to believe in God!
>
> >> Well, I don't agree with that statement at all. You might as well
> >> say bicycles are a lot like fish!
>
> >> Tim.
>
> > So are you saying that whoever you are you will have no choice > >about
> > getting into a relationship???
>
> Rather, that we can't 'choose' what we believe, Claire. We just
> believe one
> thing or another, and that's it.

We can choose either to accept or reject God. “knock and the door will
be opened”. I remember how I came to faith; I wanted to believe so
badly at one point that it hurt – I just cried in frustration. I kept
knocking and eventually it happened. Plus on a purely intellectual
level I have a problem with your statement. We should know what we
each believe and why (That does not mean we have to be opinionative
though.). When we discover we are not quite sure why we believe what
we do, then I think we should be open to discussion and reflection on
our beliefs. At any rate I love learning why people believe the things
they do even if it does not result in me changing my mind or theirs! I
also love a proper debate so please don’t feel I am just “being
silly” and “playing games” I know six or so months back I got
frustrated with you and I had such tunnel vision about the point I was
trying to make that I did not think about how I was making you feel –
I am still very sorry that happened and am not even sure why it did
other than me becoming too indulging of my own feelings to realise the
effect of what I was doing. I think I just got too carried away and
will try to be more respectful of your feelings this time! I do say
things a bit tongue in cheek at times but I honestly questioned the
logic of your statement about atheists. We do agree on a lot and no
doubt after discussion we understand better why we disagree on some
things.

> > Many atheists believe they have no
> > choice about whether to believe in God –they say they simply can’t.
> > Have you never felt so far from God that you believed this? It the
> > easiest cop-out clause in the world “I had no choice” and yes it is
> > sad when people really believe that. I don’t see why you would not
> > employ atheists who “have no choice" either then? ;-)
>
> They are then not qualified for the job. Would you employ a disabled person
> with no legs to test bicycles, because to fail to offer her the job would be
> 'discriminatory'?
>
> I think you're just being silly and playing games here, Claire. A

> homosexual orientation ...,

And I think you are trying to move the goal-posts!!! :-P

> does not disqualify a person from any job in the
> church, a disbelief in God DOES disqualify them from some jobs, although not
> all. I guess it does not matter if someone employed to clean the toilets is
> an atheist.
>
> Tim.

I see what you are saying and no I would not employ somebody unable to
do the job for equality’s sake. This is exactly my point about why
your argument fails you see!! :-) How could a church employ somebody
to promote a Christian lifestyle who was not at least trying to live
one themselves. Just as homosexual acts are not a special sin worthy
of a particular hatred, neither are they a special exception we can
overlook on compassionate grounds. If you are going to start ignoring
teaching about one sin then why not others? Why not mine? Ah, the
Biblical teachings should not apply to me, I’m far too sensitive to
have to confess and face up to my sins when they become clear to
me! ;-)

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 6, 2010, 10:33:01 AM2/6/10

to

Claire wrote:
>
> I see what you are saying and no I would not employ somebody unable to
> do the job for equality�s sake. This is exactly my point about why
> your argument fails you see!! :-) How could a church employ somebody
> to promote a Christian lifestyle who was not at least trying to live
> one themselves.

My point is that having a same-sex orientation does not prevent someone from
living a Christian lifestyle, nor does being in a close and loving
relationship with another of the same sex. My church (C of E) seems to
recognise that fact, which is why our priests are not barred from being in
Civil Partnerships. Their relationships are assumed to be celibate. In
other words, a homosexual orientation in itself does NOT disqualify them
from any position in the church.

> Just as homosexual acts are not a special sin worthy
> of a particular hatred, neither are they a special exception we can
> overlook on compassionate grounds. If you are going to start ignoring
> teaching about one sin then why not others? Why not mine? Ah, the
> Biblical teachings should not apply to me, I�m far too sensitive to
> have to confess and face up to my sins when they become clear to
> me! ;-)

If you want only priests that are without sin, you will have to do without
them altogether! We have one High Priest who IS without sin, and intercedes
for us all. I'm afraid that will just have to do for you Claire, sorry if
that disappoints you.

Tim.

Claire

unread,

Feb 6, 2010, 10:42:56 AM2/6/10

to

On 6 Feb, 15:33, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

You chose to ignore what I said and replace it with what it would be
easier to argue against. <shrug> OK, whatever. :-/

Claire

unread,

Feb 6, 2010, 12:22:36 PM2/6/10

to

On 6 Feb, 15:33, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> Claire wrote:
>
> > I see what you are saying and no I would not employ somebody unable to
> > do the job for equality’s sake. This is exactly my point about why
> > your argument fails you see!! :-) How could a church employ somebody
> > to promote a Christian lifestyle who was not at least trying to live
> > one themselves.
>
> My point is that having a same-sex orientation does not prevent someone from
> living a Christian lifestyle, nor does being in a close and loving
> relationship with another of the same sex. My church (C of E) seems to
> recognise that fact, which is why our priests are not barred from being in
> Civil Partnerships. Their relationships are assumed to be celibate. In
> other words, a homosexual orientation in itself does NOT disqualify them
> from any position in the church.

I agree. I am suspicious of this notion that you would remain celibate
but have civil partnership however. A civil partnership seems to
confer the status of a relationship based on sexual attraction.
Imagine having that sort of temptation in your way! Two of the ladies
quite involved in our church are good friends living together as
single woman. They are like sisters and one was taken under the wing
of the other’s mother when they were younger and she moved in with the
other’s family when they were in their teens. This seems like a good
way to find company if you are single. There is no reason people
should feel lonely with mutual love and support. If people are feeling
lonely it is a sign that their brothers and sisters in Christ are
letting them down rather than the need for a hear no evil see no evil
approach to people’s lust. Either way we will all be called to account
for our actions one day so should focus on ourselves for the most
part. Still, these issues do need to be discussed from time to time.
(Sexuality came up on the lost of problems in a confidential survey
looking at how our church responds to people’s everyday needs and
concerns and how it could be improved). I think because we are clear
about where we stand on the basics this will help us to make everybody
know they are loved and welcomed and get the support they need. I feel
for people being given these mixed messages about the issue and it
worries me to think that genuine people are being misrepresented by
other Christians who take a different stance on the issue. Whatever
you think Tim we are not nasty people.

Hiscoming

unread,

Feb 6, 2010, 5:28:32 PM2/6/10

to

"Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message

news:12654212...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...

The point I am making is that if this your remark is acceptable, why was my
reply blocked.
You know why you blocked all the Christians posts and allowed posts from
atheists and false christians.
Stop lying about it.

> Stephen, I have no wish to fight you. But if you have something to say,
> you would be far better advised to treat people with respect rather than
> insult them - that way you are far more likely to be heard.
> --
> Paul R.

There is no respect for false christians who use their newsgroup (synagogue
of satan) to despise the word of God and insult and blackmail the true
Christians.

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 7, 2010, 8:03:50 AM2/7/10

to

Definition of True Christian:

Anyone professing Christ as Lord and Saviour and agrees with Stephen
'Hiscoming'.

Definition of False Christian:

Anyone professing Christ as Lord and Saviour, but who disagrees with Stephen
'Hiscoming'.

Definition of the One who knows who is a Christian and who is not:

Stephen 'Hiscoming'.

Conclusion:

Stephen 'Hiscoming' is God.

Tim.

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 7, 2010, 8:31:35 AM2/7/10

to

Claire wrote:
> On 6 Feb, 15:33, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Claire wrote:
>>
>>> I see what you are saying and no I would not employ somebody unable
>>> to do the job for equality�s sake. This is exactly my point about
>>> why your argument fails you see!! :-) How could a church employ
>>> somebody to promote a Christian lifestyle who was not at least
>>> trying to live one themselves.
>>
>> My point is that having a same-sex orientation does not prevent
>> someone from living a Christian lifestyle, nor does being in a close
>> and loving relationship with another of the same sex. My church (C
>> of E) seems to recognise that fact, which is why our priests are not
>> barred from being in Civil Partnerships. Their relationships are
>> assumed to be celibate. In other words, a homosexual orientation in
>> itself does NOT disqualify them from any position in the church.
>
> I agree. I am suspicious of this notion that you would remain celibate
> but have civil partnership however. A civil partnership seems to
> confer the status of a relationship based on sexual attraction.

Yes, and this is why personally I would advocate extending this legal
provision to include other mutually supportive relationships between people
who are not otherwise married. By that I mean separate it from any notions
of sexual attraction or sexual activity, and make it a purely legal
arrangement. The way I see it is this: A person can choose to marry.
However, should they not choose to marry, then I would advocate that they
could confer the same *legal* rights onto another person of choice instead.
So that could mean two friends of the same sex, opposite sex, related or
unrelated. It could be two siblings or a daughter and the elderly mother
she is caring for, etc. Such a broadening of Civil Partnership would still
cover the case of same-sex couples, but would dispel the connotation that
the two friends are, or are automatically deemed to be, sexually involved.

> Imagine having that sort of temptation in your way!

There is a counter-argument that there is worse temptation without that,
i.e., to 'play the field'. At least a Civil Partnership encourages
monogamy, if there IS any sexual involvement.

> Two of the ladies
> quite involved in our church are good friends living together as
> single woman. They are like sisters and one was taken under the wing
> of the other�s mother when they were younger and she moved in with the
> other�s family when they were in their teens. This seems like a good
> way to find company if you are single. There is no reason people
> should feel lonely with mutual love and support.

Yes, and if I had my way they could be Civil Partners without any sexual
connotation, if they so wished. That would confer on them things like
hospital visiting rights, tax advantages, etc.

> If people are feeling
> lonely it is a sign that their brothers and sisters in Christ are
> letting them down rather than the need for a hear no evil see no evil
> approach to people�s lust.

I don't believe people who love one-another should be denied the right to be
together, just because they might be tempted to sin.

> Either way we will all be called to account
> for our actions one day so should focus on ourselves for the most
> part. Still, these issues do need to be discussed from time to time.
> (Sexuality came up on the lost of problems in a confidential survey
> looking at how our church responds to people�s everyday needs and
> concerns and how it could be improved).

Yes, each Christian needs to examine themselves. It is all too easy to be
distracted into concerning oneself more with the sins of others!

> I think because we are clear
> about where we stand on the basics this will help us to make everybody
> know they are loved and welcomed and get the support they need. I feel
> for people being given these mixed messages about the issue and it
> worries me to think that genuine people are being misrepresented by
> other Christians who take a different stance on the issue. Whatever
> you think Tim we are not nasty people.

I'm not sure who you mean by 'we' Claire! Maybe you mean 'evangelicals'
rather than 'catholics'? I don't think you and I have vastly differing
views on the issue, I rather think it is a matter of emphasis. The church I
go to emphasises love, rather than strict obedience, but that does not mean
we don't believe in obedience as well, any more than your church does not
recognise the importance of love. Both, I'm sure, are presented in both our
church fellowships, it's just a matter of emphasis.

No, I don't think you're 'nasty people'!

Tim.

Paul Roberts

unread,

Feb 7, 2010, 3:32:36 PM2/7/10

to

"Hiscoming" <salvat...@kingdom.com> wrote in message

news:hkkqeg$118p$1...@adenine.netfront.net...

>
> "Paul Roberts" <p.t.r...@nospam.ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:12654212...@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...

[snip]

>> Firstly, it is quite astonishing that you see that as "abuse" when you
>> routinely find it appropriate to call people "false Christians". In
>> addition to your false witness, I'd have a look at the things Jesus has
>> to say about hypocrisy.
>>
>
> The point I am making is that if this your remark is acceptable, why was
> my
> reply blocked.

I have no idea - I haven't seen your reply.

> You know why you blocked all the Christians posts and allowed posts from
> atheists and false christians.

Who is this "you"? If you're referring to me, I have no moderatorial
responsibilities.

That said, the moderators are there to ensure people post within the
charter. I keep saying that, you keep choosing to ignore it.

> Stop lying about it.

There you are with that false witness again.

>> Stephen, I have no wish to fight you. But if you have something to say,
>> you would be far better advised to treat people with respect rather than
>> insult them - that way you are far more likely to be heard.
>> --
>> Paul R.
>
> There is no respect for false christians who use their newsgroup
> (synagogue
> of satan) to despise the word of God and insult and blackmail the true
> Christians.

And again.

Please could you explain why you feel the need to accuse your brothers and
sisters in Christ of being "false" without any evidence?

Claire

unread,

Feb 8, 2010, 4:11:28 PM2/8/10

to

<cut> sorry to cut the other comments you made. I wanted to deal with
the bit below first before I replied to the other bit. I think this
way around you will understand my responses better.

> I'm not sure who you mean by 'we' Claire! Maybe you mean
> 'evangelicals'

Well, I can't talk for all "evangelicals", I cannot even talk for my
whole church really to be honest! But I know our ministers and many
people who I fellowship with, and those of my previous churches, well
enough
to have a sense that we believe strongly in love and compassion, are
probably the majority, and are not at odds with our tradition.

I don't think you and I have vastly differing
> views on the issue, I rather think it is a matter of emphasis. The church I
> go to emphasises love, rather than strict obedience, but that does not mean
> we don't believe in obedience as well, any more than your church does not
> recognise the importance of love.

I really do not agree with that statement as I do not think you can
place one above the other and claim to have a correct understanding.
The “liberals” tend to think the “evangelicals” are less loving, and
the “evangelicals” tend to think that “liberals” are less faithful.
Well, I think I’d be offended if somebody said I was less faithful
just as I am offended by the “less loving” assumption, so I can
understand where you are coming from. My understanding is that to love
one another properly we have to love God first. I think that just as
we cannot hate a brother or sister in Christ and claim to be OK with
God, we cannot be disobedient to God and demonstrate God’s love
(rather than worldly love) to one another. “liberals” seem very caught
up in the idea that somehow the love between a husband and wife is
the highest form of love. I do not believe this for a minute and it is
a bit insulting to anybody who chooses to remain single!! I think our
society is plagued by this idea of “true love” being romantic love (it
is why we have the devorce rate we do!). There is an assumption (which
is thankfully changing) that nobody would choose to be single and if
you are you must just have been “left on the shelf!” It is no wonder
then that faced with worldly preasures and people reiterating these
worldly notions of love within the church that people would feel they
must all shack up and it is their devine right somehow.

> No, I don't think you're 'nasty people'!

:-)

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 9, 2010, 3:01:27 AM2/9/10

to

Claire wrote:
> <cut> sorry to cut the other comments you made. I wanted to deal with
> the bit below first before I replied to the other bit. I think this
> way around you will understand my responses better.
>
>> I'm not sure who you mean by 'we' Claire! Maybe you mean
>> 'evangelicals'
>
> Well, I can't talk for all "evangelicals", I cannot even talk for my
> whole church really to be honest! But I know our ministers and many
> people who I fellowship with, and those of my previous churches, well
> enough
> to have a sense that we believe strongly in love and compassion, are
> probably the majority, and are not at odds with our tradition.

I would say exactly the same for MY church!! So why the 'we', worded as
though somehow you and I are something apart? Did you mean Baptists? Well,
I used to BE one!

>
> I don't think you and I have vastly differing
>> views on the issue, I rather think it is a matter of emphasis. The
>> church I go to emphasises love, rather than strict obedience, but
>> that does not mean we don't believe in obedience as well, any more
>> than your church does not recognise the importance of love.
>
> I really do not agree with that statement as I do not think you can
> place one above the other and claim to have a correct understanding.

Well, actually I DIDN'T 'claim to have a [more] correct understanding', I
only said what I said, which is that we place different *emphasis*, rightly
OR wrongly.

> The �liberals� tend to think the �evangelicals� are less loving, and
> the �evangelicals� tend to think that �liberals� are less faithful.

Well, maybe. But having been on both sides of that fence I know neither
statement is true. From my perspective, I would say it's more about
flexibility: I feel that many "evangelicals" are too rigid, whereas they
might say we (the 'Inclusives', which include some 'evangelicals', BTW!) are
too flexible.

> Well, I think I�d be offended if somebody said I was less faithful
> just as I am offended by the �less loving� assumption, so I can
> understand where you are coming from.

Precisely.

> My understanding is that to love
> one another properly we have to love God first. I think that just as
> we cannot hate a brother or sister in Christ and claim to be OK with
> God, we cannot be disobedient to God and demonstrate God�s love
> (rather than worldly love) to one another.

Yes, I would agree with this, too. Of course, I might argue with some of
the more fundamentalist persuasion about what constitutes 'disobedience',
but I agree with the sense of what you say here.

> �liberals� seem very caught

> up in the idea that somehow the love between a husband and wife is
> the highest form of love.

No, I don't think they do, Claire! Political liberals might, but Christian
liberals in the main put God's love, and love for God at the top, and then
the love we are to have for one-another next. Probably most put 'eros' or
romantic love quite low on the list, but of course in Bible times in many
(probably most) cases husband and wife were put together in arranged
marriages, not necessarily on the basis of romantic love. St Paul
encourages us to have a special sort of love for our spouse, but that would
have been a practical instruction for people AFTER they were married, not so
much for the love that brings them together.

> I do not believe this for a minute and it is
> a bit insulting to anybody who chooses to remain single!!

Well, as I said, I don't believe it either, and I don't think many
'liberals' do!

> I think our
> society is plagued by this idea of �true love� being romantic love (it
> is why we have the devorce rate we do!).

Yes, but that is rather a secularist view, and not one that would be held by
many Christians, be they 'liberal', 'evangelical', or any other labels we
might try to slap on.

> There is an assumption (which
> is thankfully changing) that nobody would choose to be single and if
> you are you must just have been �left on the shelf!� It is no wonder
> then that faced with worldly preasures and people reiterating these
> worldly notions of love within the church that people would feel they
> must all shack up and it is their devine right somehow.

I think it is rather a question of what 'some' people need in life, rather
than what *all* people need. Many, probably most individuals, do feel they
need a "significant other", a special companion in life with whom they can
feel most comfortable and share an openness that perhaps they would not
share with other friends, even close friends. For many of course that will
be their marriage partner, but not for all. For some it can be a friend, a
sibling, another relative, or a person to whom they are unrelated, but with
whom they find a special affinity. There needs to be no *sexual*
involvement, (and in the case of relatives most of us would hope there would
not be). I would defend the right of anyone to share their life with the
companion of their choice, OR (as you point out) to 'go it alone'. In other
words, I would not question two people deciding to share lives and
accommodation. The rest is up to them and their own conscience. But I
think it would be an affront to any 'two friends sharing' to go up to them
and ask them if they 'fancy' each other, or are they 'doing it'? Such
things are personal matters.

>
>> No, I don't think you're 'nasty people'!
>
> :-)

Pax Christi.

Tim.

Claire

unread,

Feb 11, 2010, 3:55:46 PM2/11/10

to

On 9 Feb, 08:01, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

> Claire wrote:
> > <cut> sorry to cut the other comments you made. I wanted to deal with
> > the bit below first before I replied to the other bit. I think this
> > way around you will understand my responses better.
>
> >> I'm not sure who you mean by 'we' Claire! Maybe you mean
> >> 'evangelicals'
>
> > Well, I can't talk for all "evangelicals", I cannot even talk for my
> > whole church really to be honest! But I know our ministers and many
> > people who I fellowship with, and those of my previous churches, well
> > enough
> > to have a sense that we believe strongly in love and compassion, are
> > probably the majority, and are not at odds with our tradition.
>
> I would say exactly the same for MY church!! So why the 'we', worded as
> though somehow you and I are something apart? Did you mean Baptists? Well,
> I used to BE one!

I meant me and mine really Tim. I don’t want to be apart from you. I
feel you can be rather dogmatic about things even though you feel you
are just opposing dogma yourself. Its all “ we believe in love over
obedience”. As mentioned I believe both are equally important and we
cannot place one above the other. In reality we agree on a lot –
however I know and respect that you are trying to find a position on
the issue where your views can co-exist with those who disagree. For
example “don’t ask, don’t tell” I would not ask but I do feel this is
a wrong stance because somehow it is saying “sin all you like so long
as nobody is looking”. I’m not saying this to focus on homosexual
people, but on how I understand myself and the role of the church in
helping people in their walk with God. I’m not really even saying that
I would want people pointing out my sins (unless done with genuine
love and tact by somebody I trust). However I do think we should be
consistent. People should be able to read the Bible and not have
contradicting church get-out clauses from very consistent biblical
teaching. I appreciate that you do not put the same weight on the
authority of scripture and so this may not make sense to your way of
looking at it. However when you imply those in the evangelical
tradition are less loving somehow it drives me potty! I think it is a
lot to do with how you would define love more than anything. You said
yourself we have a lot in common. When you talk to bigots I think you
have to remember them as just that and not treat it as a theological
issue. People will always try to clothe their bigotry with
respectability but I think you have to see through it and recognise it
for what it is.

>
> >> No, I don't think you're 'nasty people'!
>
> > :-)
>
> Pax Christi.
>
> Tim.

Christ's peace to you too Tim. :-)

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 6:07:18 AM2/12/10

to

Claire wrote:
> On 9 Feb, 08:01, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> I would say exactly the same for MY church!! So why the 'we', worded
>> as though somehow you and I are something apart? Did you mean
>> Baptists? Well, I used to BE one!
>
> I meant me and mine really Tim. I don�t want to be apart from you. I
> feel you can be rather dogmatic about things even though you feel you
> are just opposing dogma yourself. Its all � we believe in love over
> obedience�.

Well, I would dispute that. I would argue that obedience comes OUT of love,
"God is love", and, "If you love me you will keep my commandments". Then we
are told that the First and Second commands, Love God, Love thy Neighbour,
are the most important. The Bible is unequivocal in that. Therefore yes,
obedience IS vitally important, but it is so because it is part-and-parcel
of keeping the First Command, Love God.

> As mentioned I believe both are equally important and we
> cannot place one above the other.

And I believe one is a part of the other. But we end up both accepting the
importance of obedience, even if we get there by different routes.

> In reality we agree on a lot �
> however I know and respect that you are trying to find a position on
> the issue where your views can co-exist with those who disagree.

Yes, and that cuts both ways. That is, to co-exist not only with those more
'conservative' than I, but also those more 'liberal'.

> For
> example �don�t ask, don�t tell� I would not ask but I do feel this is
> a wrong stance because somehow it is saying �sin all you like so long
> as nobody is looking�.

Yes, I accept it CAN be taken that way, but true 'catholic' teaching never
loses sight of the grave nature of sin, so if that is understood then it can
be seen that I am NOT saying that, I am saying it is a matter of personal
conscience between the individuals and God. IMO the alternative is to have
some sort of 'Inquisition', and if we are to question people about one sort
of sin, then we would (to be consistent) need to cross-examine them over all
sorts of sin. The 'catholic' view is that each person must examine
*themselves* before receiving the Sacrament at Mass.

> I�m not saying this to focus on homosexual
> people, but on how I understand myself and the role of the church in
> helping people in their walk with God. I�m not really even saying that
> I would want people pointing out my sins (unless done with genuine
> love and tact by somebody I trust).

Yes, and that is my point. Trust people to have a right attitude to sin, or
have 'Inquisitions'.

> However I do think we should be
> consistent. People should be able to read the Bible and not have
> contradicting church get-out clauses from very consistent biblical
> teaching.

AFAIK there has always been a sort-of 'Get out clause' in traditional
Christianity, with regard to Church Teaching. That is, if someone privately
dissents from Church Teaching, and keeps it to *themselves*, then it is a
matter of conscience. The reason for that being so is it is recognised that
Church Teaching CAN be in error, i.e., that it is not 'Infallible'.
Basically, it is considered that if Church Teaching is in error, but a
person follows it in good faith, then they are not culpable, whereas if a
person privately dissents from Church Teaching, and that teaching is NOT in
error, then that person IS culpable before God. It is a bit different for
Roman Catholics than it is for Anglo-Catholics, but even for the former
there seems to be a degree of 'Right of Conscience', as long as dissent is
kept private and others are not encouraged to follow that dissent. I have
pointed out before, that I consider practicing such a 'Right of Conscience'
is actually very dangerous, but nevertheless I defend the right of
individuals to *privately* dissent if they feel they must and are prepared
to risk it. Just as long as traditional teaching remains unaffected.

> I appreciate that you do not put the same weight on the
> authority of scripture and so this may not make sense to your way of
> looking at it.

Yes, Scripture, Reason and Tradition. The middle one of those enables us to
reconsider our understanding or interpretation of the other two, when
knowledge or cultural changes make existing understandings appear to be
'Unreasonable'. Like in engineering, *some* flexibility is needed. A very
rigid bridge will snap under stress, and a too flexible one will flop around
in the wind (there are actual examples of both of these, with bridges that
have failed). I believe the Pharisees (for example) were often too rigid.

> However when you imply those in the evangelical
> tradition are less loving somehow it drives me potty!

Well, I don't really think that is so, so I apologise. After all, I was 'in
the evangelical tradition' myself at one time, and I was certainly no more
or less loving than I am now.

> I think it is a
> lot to do with how you would define love more than anything. You said
> yourself we have a lot in common. When you talk to bigots I think you
> have to remember them as just that and not treat it as a theological
> issue. People will always try to clothe their bigotry with
> respectability but I think you have to see through it and recognise it
> for what it is.

Yes, there IS a vast difference between genuine Christians with whom I might
disagree, and people who are merely misusing scripture to prop up their
bigotry.

>
>
>>
>>>> No, I don't think you're 'nasty people'!
>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> Pax Christi.
>>
>> Tim.
>
>
> Christ's peace to you too Tim. :-)

And with thy spirit.

(This could go on forever!)

Tim.

Michael James

unread,

Feb 12, 2010, 6:20:38 AM2/12/10

to

On Feb 12, 6:07 am, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk>

Hopefully!

Claire

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 8:04:53 AM2/13/10

to

On 12 Feb, 11:20, Michael James <michaelrja...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 6:07 am, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Claire wrote:
> > > On 9 Feb, 08:01, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > >> I would say exactly the same for MY church!! So why the 'we', worded
> > >> as though somehow you and I are something apart? Did you mean
> > >> Baptists? Well, I used to BE one!
>
> > > I meant me and mine really Tim. I don’t want to be apart from you. I
> > > feel you can be rather dogmatic about things even though you feel you
> > > are just opposing dogma yourself. Its all “ we believe in love over
> > > obedience”.
>
> > Well, I would dispute that. I would argue that obedience comes >> OUT of love,

Yes Tim, that is what I mean. To me trying to be obedient to God is
part of how we love and honour God. I have not had to explain my
feelings on it before but I was trying explain why you were wrong to
claim that you can emphosise love over obediance which is what you
said.

> > > As mentioned I believe both are equally important and we
> > > cannot place one above the other.
>
> > And I believe one is a part of the other. But we end up both
> >accepting the
> > importance of obedience, even if we get there by different routes.

We don't. You changed you mind all of a sudden! ;-) Before you said
you put more emphosis on love than obedience which suggested we could
seperate the two. I am glad it turns out we agree after all though and
wonder what you meant before?

> > but true 'catholic' teaching never
> > loses sight of the grave nature of sin,

Catholics tend to be very conscious of their own sin, as should all
Christians seek to be. How best to resolve that is another matter and
quite open to debate - there was a reformation over it after all! ;-)

> > so if that is understood then it can
> > be seen that I am NOT saying that, I am saying it is a matter of > >personal
> > conscience between the individuals and God.

This whole dispute in the Anglican church started because some people
disagree with you there. Now there is no dispute in other churches so
guess who seems to have started the problem. Not anybody seeking an
inquisition but those seeking a revolution! It would be silly to
accuse those with a more traditional view of wanting an inquisition. I
think what has happened as certain people have pushed so far that they
have got conservative backs up and now what you are seeing is a
backlash. It is all very sad and something other Christians want to
make sure does not happen in our churches.

> > sorts of sin. The 'catholic' view is that each person must examine
> > *themselves* before receiving the Sacrament at Mass.

That is actually rather a Protestant notion of conscience! ;-)

> > AFAIK there has always been a sort-of 'Get out clause' in >>traditional
> > Christianity, with regard to Church Teaching.

I don't really like the idea of "Church Teaching" - even in one of the
first churches I attended which was very conservative and did not let
woman preach to men, they made it clear on that this was not "church
teaching" and people had the right to disagree. I think in this
respect Anglicanism has more in common with Roman Catholicism in that
people above you decide what you should and should not do in your
churches.

That is, if someone privately
> > dissents from Church Teaching, and keeps it to *themselves*, then it is a
> > matter of conscience. The reason for that being so is it is recognised that
> > Church Teaching CAN be in error, i.e., that it is not 'Infallible'.
> > Basically, it is considered that if Church Teaching is in error, but a
> > person follows it in good faith, then they are not culpable, whereas if a

I don't buy that. I guess this is me being more Protestant than
catholic again but as far as I understand it we are responsible for
our own choices and cannot blame the church we attend (which is only
as wise as the members who choose to worship there)

> > there seems to be a degree of 'Right of Conscience', as long as dissent is
> > kept private and others are not encouraged to follow that dissent. I have
> > pointed out before, that I consider practicing such a 'Right of Conscience'
> > is actually very dangerous, but nevertheless I defend the right of
> > individuals to *privately* dissent if they feel they must and are > > > prepared

It is not about dissenting from the church. Obviously non-conformists
were descanters and persecuted for it. It is about dissenting from the
will of God. All this church authority and tradition is just a
distraction from what really matters. I agree with you though that
people have the right to their own consciences though.

> > Yes, Scripture, Reason and Tradition. The middle one of those enables us to

> > reconsider our understanding or interpretation of the other two, when

I agree that we should be reasonable but we should also seek to be
faithful, not to traditions but to the word of God (which is more than
just the Bible). People make mistakes and others copy them. A lot of
traditions are like this and lead us astray. That is why I do not
trust tradition very much. But then I am following a tradition of not
trusting tradition!!! ;-)

Claire

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 8:05:33 AM2/13/10

to

On 12 Feb, 11:20, Michael James <michaelrja...@videotron.ca> wrote:

Shalom! ;-)

Claire

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 8:26:00 AM2/13/10

to

Replied to Michael by mistake at first!

Yes Tim, that is what I mean. To me trying to be obedient to God is
part of how we love and honour God. I have not had to explain my
feelings on it before but I was trying explain why you were wrong to
claim that you can emphosise love over obediance which is what you
said.

> > > As mentioned I believe both are equally important and we

> > > cannot place one above the other.

> > And I believe one is a part of the other. But we end up both
> >accepting the
> > importance of obedience, even if we get there by different routes.

We don't. You changed you mind all of a sudden! ;-) Before you said

you put more emphosis on love than obedience which suggested we could
seperate the two. I am glad it turns out we agree after all though and
wonder what you meant before?

> > but true 'catholic' teaching never

> > loses sight of the grave nature of sin,

Catholics tend to be very conscious of their own sin, as should all

Christians seek to be. How best to resolve that is another matter and
quite open to debate - there was a reformation over it after all! ;-)

> > so if that is understood then it can

> > be seen that I am NOT saying that, I am saying it is a matter of > >personal
> > conscience between the individuals and God.

This whole dispute in the Anglican church started because some people

disagree with you there. Now there is no dispute in other churches so
guess who seems to have started the problem. Not anybody seeking an
inquisition but those seeking a revolution! It would be silly to
accuse those with a more traditional view of wanting an inquisition. I
think what has happened as certain people have pushed so far that they
have got conservative backs up and now what you are seeing is a
backlash. It is all very sad and something other Christians want to
make sure does not happen in our churches.

> > sorts of sin. The 'catholic' view is that each person must examine

> > *themselves* before receiving the Sacrament at Mass.

That is actually rather a Protestant notion of conscience! ;-)

> > AFAIK there has always been a sort-of 'Get out clause' in >>traditional

> > Christianity, with regard to Church Teaching.

I don't really like the idea of "Church Teaching" - even in one of the

first churches I attended which was very conservative and did not let
woman preach to men, they made it clear on that this was not "church
teaching" and people had the right to disagree. I think in this
respect Anglicanism has more in common with Roman Catholicism in that
people above you decide what you should and should not do in your
churches.

That is, if someone privately

> > dissents from Church Teaching, and keeps it to *themselves*, then it is a
> > matter of conscience. The reason for that being so is it is recognised that
> > Church Teaching CAN be in error, i.e., that it is not 'Infallible'.
> > Basically, it is considered that if Church Teaching is in error, but a
> > person follows it in good faith, then they are not culpable, whereas if a

I don't buy that. I guess this is me being more Protestant than

catholic again but as far as I understand it we are responsible for
our own choices and cannot blame the church we attend (which is only
as wise as the members who choose to worship there)

> > there seems to be a degree of 'Right of Conscience', as long as dissent is

> > kept private and others are not encouraged to follow that dissent. I have
> > pointed out before, that I consider practicing such a 'Right of Conscience'
> > is actually very dangerous, but nevertheless I defend the right of
> > individuals to *privately* dissent if they feel they must and are > > > prepared

It is not about dissenting from the church. Obviously non-conformists

were descanters and persecuted for it. It is about dissenting from the
will of God. All this church authority and tradition is just a
distraction from what really matters. I agree with you though that
people have the right to their own consciences though.

> > Yes, Scripture, Reason and Tradition. The middle one of those enables us to

> > reconsider our understanding or interpretation of the other two, when

I agree that we should be reasonable but we should also seek to be

- .. -- Tim .-.

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 9:36:01 AM2/13/10

to

Claire wrote:
> Replied to Michael by mistake at first!
>
> Yes Tim, that is what I mean. To me trying to be obedient to God is
> part of how we love and honour God. I have not had to explain my
> feelings on it before but I was trying explain why you were wrong to
> claim that you can emphosise love over obediance which is what you
> said.

Well, I guess what I said before may not have been well thought-through,
I'm not perfect! I still maintain that love is the first concern, and
therefore we *start* from there, including when considering obedience.

>
>>>> As mentioned I believe both are equally important and we
>>>> cannot place one above the other.
>
>>> And I believe one is a part of the other. But we end up both
>>> accepting the
>>> importance of obedience, even if we get there by different routes.
>
> We don't. You changed you mind all of a sudden! ;-)

Not really. Maybe I didn't express my self all that well, and it was
possible then to get the wrong end of the stick. You're not perfect either,
you know! I always feel as though you are 'picking holes' in me all the
time.

> Before you said
> you put more emphosis on love than obedience which suggested we could
> seperate the two. I am glad it turns out we agree after all though and
> wonder what you meant before?

Don't worry about what went before, it seems we have cleared it up.

>
>>> but true 'catholic' teaching never
>>> loses sight of the grave nature of sin,
>
> Catholics tend to be very conscious of their own sin, as should all
> Christians seek to be. How best to resolve that is another matter and
> quite open to debate - there was a reformation over it after all! ;-)

Yes, well, I am a Protestant, if 'only just', mainly because I don't feel I
can accept as authorative many of the things that come out of the Vatican.
(Most Roman Catholics I know disagree with much of that anyway!)

>
>>> so if that is understood then it can
>>> be seen that I am NOT saying that, I am saying it is a matter of >
>>> >personal conscience between the individuals and God.
>
> This whole dispute in the Anglican church started because some people
> disagree with you there. Now there is no dispute in other churches

Eh? I think there is!

> so
> guess who seems to have started the problem. Not anybody seeking an
> inquisition but those seeking a revolution!

I don't think so. I'm not seeking a revolution, I am only seeking
continuing the traditional breadth and tolerance of Anglicanism. I don't
want to see it degenerate into just another authoritarian church
organisation.

> It would be silly to
> accuse those with a more traditional view of wanting an inquisition.

And I don't think they do. I was just trying to point out the problems with
trying to 'police' private matters. IMO it is better for all just to leave
it as a matter of conscience.

> I
> think what has happened as certain people have pushed so far that they
> have got conservative backs up and now what you are seeing is a
> backlash. It is all very sad and something other Christians want to
> make sure does not happen in our churches.

It is because some (certainly not all) conservatives seem totally unable to
be flexible and tolerant. My view on that is why do they want to be in a
church organisation that is traditionally flexible and tolerant, if they
don't want to be so themselves?

>
>>> sorts of sin. The 'catholic' view is that each person must examine
>>> *themselves* before receiving the Sacrament at Mass.
>
> That is actually rather a Protestant notion of conscience! ;-)

Well, I am a Protestant... But no, it is STILL up to the individual to
examine themselves in this regard, whether they confess to a priest, in
their heart, or as part of a congregation.

>
>>> AFAIK there has always been a sort-of 'Get out clause' in
>>> >>traditional Christianity, with regard to Church Teaching.
>
> I don't really like the idea of "Church Teaching" - even in one of the
> first churches I attended which was very conservative and did not let
> woman preach to men, they made it clear on that this was not "church
> teaching" and people had the right to disagree. I think in this
> respect Anglicanism has more in common with Roman Catholicism in that
> people above you decide what you should and should not do in your
> churches.

Well, that is precisely what I do NOT want. Authoritarianism.

>
> That is, if someone privately
>
>>> dissents from Church Teaching, and keeps it to *themselves*, then
>>> it is a matter of conscience. The reason for that being so is it
>>> is recognised that Church Teaching CAN be in error, i.e., that it
>>> is not 'Infallible'.
>>> Basically, it is considered that if Church Teaching is in error,
>>> but a
>>> person follows it in good faith, then they are not culpable,
>>> whereas if a
>
> I don't buy that. I guess this is me being more Protestant than
> catholic again but as far as I understand it we are responsible for
> our own choices and cannot blame the church we attend (which is only
> as wise as the members who choose to worship there)
>
>>> there seems to be a degree of 'Right of Conscience', as long as
>>> dissent is
>>> kept private and others are not encouraged to follow that dissent.
>>> I have pointed out before, that I consider practicing such a 'Right
>>> of Conscience'
>>> is actually very dangerous, but nevertheless I defend the right of
>>> individuals to *privately* dissent if they feel they must and are >
>>> > > prepared
>
> It is not about dissenting from the church. Obviously non-conformists
> were descanters and persecuted for it. It is about dissenting from the
> will of God.

No Claire, it is a matter of dissenting (descanting?) from *some people's
opinions* as to what the will of God is.

> All this church authority and tradition is just a
> distraction from what really matters. I agree with you though that
> people have the right to their own consciences though.

Thank you.

>
>>> Yes, Scripture, Reason and Tradition. The middle one of those
>>> enables us to reconsider our understanding or interpretation of the
>>> other two, when
>
> I agree that we should be reasonable but we should also seek to be
> faithful, not to traditions but to the word of God (which is more than
> just the Bible). People make mistakes and others copy them. A lot of
> traditions are like this and lead us astray. That is why I do not
> trust tradition very much. But then I am following a tradition of not
> trusting tradition!!! ;-)

Ok. I still think we have more in common than separates us.

Tim.

Claire

unread,

Feb 13, 2010, 11:41:32 AM2/13/10

to

> Well, I guess what I said before may not have been well thought-through,

Thats like how I tried to expleain my thoughst on it - it is
difficult to express so we have both struggled to explain how we think
about it. I think we both agree from the sounds of it though?

> I'm not perfect!

Neither am I Tim, please don't take anything I say personally.

>I still maintain that love is the first concern, and
> therefore we *start* from there, including when considering >obedience.

I agree with that. We can't have one without the other.

>
>
>
> >>>> As mentioned I believe both are equally important and we
> >>>> cannot place one above the other.

> > We don't. You changed you mind all of a sudden! ;-)

>
> Not really. Maybe I didn't express my self all that well, and it was
> possible then to get the wrong end of the stick. You're not perfect > either,
> you know! I always feel as though you are 'picking holes' in me all >the
> time.

From what I can tell several things about my style upset you which is
not at all my intenntion and I will try to keep in mind in future. One
is that I can pull people's arguements apart and rather enjoy this. I
think you may see this as me pulling you apart as a person or
something but that is not how it is meant. Another problem I think is
that I do tend to be sarcastic. I think because I came over from the
political and cultural news groups where there was always a lot of
banter and posturing which we took in our stride. Perhaps I should
leave that in the politics groups were it belongs? I too can be
overly sensitive and some things do genuinely bug me but as you say we
have far more in common than what we disagree on. That is procisely
why I enjoy talking to you about where we differ and it is why I care
what you think of me. I am going to quite whilst I'm ahead though as
it seems I always manage to hurt your feelings and that is not my
intention. Sorry Tim.

> Don't worry about what went before, it seems we have cleared it
> up.
>

I like talking things out, it helps me work out where I am coming from
myself as much as it helps me to understand other people.

> Yes, well, I am a Protestant, if 'only just', mainly because I don't feel I
> can accept as authorative many of the things that come out of the Vatican.
> (Most Roman Catholics I know disagree with much of that anyway!)

Yeah I know.

> >>> so if that is understood then it can
> >>> be seen that I am NOT saying that, I am saying it is a matter of >
> >>> >personal conscience between the individuals and God.
>
> > This whole dispute in the Anglican church started because some people
> > disagree with you there. Now there is no dispute in other churches
>
> Eh? I think there is!

About homosexual acts? Really? The methodists maybe?

>
> > so
> > guess who seems to have started the problem. Not anybody seeking an
> > inquisition but those seeking a revolution!
>
> I don't think so. I'm not seeking a revolution,

But Tim, I know yoou are not and I started by talking about people who
disagree with your "don't tell" approach which I respect is your means
of trying to "keep the peace" and respecting those who disagree with
you on the issue.

>I am only seeking
> continuing the traditional breadth and tolerance of Anglicanism.

I understand and respect that. It seems that not everybody is though.
I know you focus a lot on the hard-line conservatives having a rant
about the sins of a particular group, but you also have people saying
they want openly Gay bishops and campaining for this. Really I think
everybody should just find something better to talk about! I think I
have fallen into the trap and need to get out!

> I don't
> want to see it degenerate into just another authoritarian church
> organisation.

If it was more democratic I guess it could be as liberal or
conservative as it liked and still not be authoritarian.If either
extreme get their way it will be authoritarian - both lots seem to be
having an-holy power-battle! I respect you for keeping out of that.

> > It would be silly to
> > accuse those with a more traditional view of wanting an inquisition.
>
> And I don't think they do. I was just trying to point out the problems with
> trying to 'police' private matters. IMO it is better for all just to leave
> it as a matter of conscience.

yes.

>
> > I
> > think what has happened as certain people have pushed so far that they
> > have got conservative backs up and now what you are seeing is a
> > backlash. It is all very sad and something other Christians want to
> > make sure does not happen in our churches.
>
> It is because some (certainly not all) conservatives seem totally unable to
> be flexible and tolerant.

A problem for Christians is that although we have a strong sense of
individual conscience, we are not a string of islands but are supposed
to be one body of Christ. Our own disobedience keeps us disjointed
from one another but that is not how it is supposed to be. We could
be for ever and a day assessing who caused what schisms but as my
mother said to us as kids “it take two to argue”. I guess politically
those calling for openly gay ministers in the Anglican church are
following in a fine Protestant tradition of standing by their
consciences and we must respect them for that much. :-) If they are
really saying “here I stand, I can do no other” than really I think
they have to follow their conscience and either expect everybody to
finally agree with them (doubtful but it seems to be their current
tact) or leave and set up their own church. Until they either get
everybody else to back down, back down themselves, or form their own
group, I don't think this will ever be resolved? Do you think they are
backing down now btw?

> My view on that is why do they want to be in a
> church organisation that is traditionally flexible and tolerant, if they
> don't want to be so themselves?

I think both extremes are waiting to see who will leave first. It
seems that both feel a great attachment to their Anglican traditions
and want the other lot to leave.

>
> >>> sorts of sin. The 'catholic' view is that each person must examine
> >>> *themselves* before receiving the Sacrament at Mass.
>
> > That is actually rather a Protestant notion of conscience! ;-)
>
> Well, I am a Protestant... But no, it is STILL up to the individual to
> examine themselves in this regard, whether they confess to a priest, in
> their heart, or as part of a congregation.

I agree and I know that this is what many Catholics do. What I mean
though is that to be a full member of the Catholic church you must
learn the catechism of Catholic teaching and be affirmed. More weight
is given to the church’s teaching because dogma states that it is
infallible on matters of theology.

>
> >>> AFAIK there has always been a sort-of 'Get out clause' in
> >>> >>traditional Christianity, with regard to Church Teaching.
>
> > I don't really like the idea of "Church Teaching" - even in one of the
> > first churches I attended which was very conservative and did not let
> > woman preach to men, they made it clear on that this was not "church
> > teaching" and people had the right to disagree. I think in this
> > respect Anglicanism has more in common with Roman Catholicism in that
> > people above you decide what you should and should not do in your
> > churches.
>
> Well, that is precisely what I do NOT want. Authoritarianism.
>

I don't want to sound disrespectful to your church Tim but it is less
domocratic than other traditions. I think this may be why the Anglican
church is tearing itself apart on this issue as BOTH sides try to
assert their influence and authority over the church as a whole.
If it was left to memebers at a church by church level it would not
cause the hurt it has. Like how Baptists don't seem cought up in
bitter rangling = about the issue of woman ministers. We can simply
agree to differ without fearing that anybody is trying to impose
things on us.

Yes, sorry "descenting".

> from *some people's
> opinions* as to what the will of God is.

<shrug> We have to agree to differ Tim. Just because we disagree does
not mean we cannot understand one anothers views though.

> > All this church authority and tradition is just a
> > distraction from what really matters. I agree with you though that
> > people have the right to their own consciences though.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> >>> Yes, Scripture, Reason and Tradition. The middle one of those
> >>> enables us to reconsider our understanding or interpretation of the
> >>> other two, when
>
> > I agree that we should be reasonable but we should also seek to be
> > faithful, not to traditions but to the word of God (which is more than
> > just the Bible). People make mistakes and others copy them. A lot of
> > traditions are like this and lead us astray. That is why I do not
> > trust tradition very much. But then I am following a tradition of not
> > trusting tradition!!! ;-)
>
> Ok. I still think we have more in common than separates us.

Absolutely and from now on I will only talk about what we have in
common. I just wanted you to know how I feel about it as somebody who
often agrees with a lot of what you say but does disagree about some
of what you say. Also in our current political climate I suspect this
is a sensitive issue for many Christians and I just wanted to let a
moderate voice be heard because often they don't and I think many
atheists have a lot of misconceptions of Christians.

>
> Tim.