And there’ll be a weeping and a gnashing of teeth

Really must stop posting but there’s so much to post on just now. I’m really enjoying this, too.

This women bishops vote is a trial run for when other PCism goes askew and loses traction, so it’s been a treat to see the truly ignorant comments at the Mail – it shows just how far the narrative has been bought by the average joe.

And this was a victory for the laity over the toffs – Banned hit the nail on the head:

As a lapsed CofE I don’t presume to a say in how they run their affairs but neither should Chris (underpants) Bryant and the rest. Those who feel strongly that women should be able to become Bishops are perfectly free to go away and form their own Church.

“This was a grass-roots victory for the laity over the corrupt left-liberal establishment” Other branches of said left-liberal establishment take note.

The most laughable suggestions were that God must get abreast of modern times. They seek to dictate to their Maker? LOL.

Yeah right, God should just get over sodomy and killings, rapings, drugs, families torn apart, children wasted before their time, ignorance and no education, no jobs, neighbour v neighbour, no national pride, nothing produced any more and so on – yep, God should sure embrace modern life.

This was a nice comment [though naturally red-arrowed to near-death]:

The disaster for the Church of England is that the leaders ignore the rank and file. They now want to change the rules like politicians so they get the result that they want, because of course they know better than the poor saps who make up the congregation. If they were more in touch with the people who turn up faithfully every Sunday to sit through their sermons I suggest they would be a little less shocked by the result !

GK Chesterton wrote a story in which Christianity was a little old man, almost dead, always dying but never quite dead. There was a Czech film in Super 8 at one time about the power of the state trying to stamp out dissent and the more they used massive weaponry to stamp it out, [represented by poppies] the more new poppies … er … popped up.

Ditto with Christianity. The more the blind and gullible get apoplectic about it, the more it will survive – don’t they understand that the natural conditions for Christianity to survive is under duress and suppression? It’s even in the Beatitudes, for goodness sake.

So, long after the PC narrative is gone, the church will still be dying … and then in another generation and another … it will continue to “die” on throughout the remainder of history – and what resources will have been expended to stop it!

Bring it on, Cameron and Osborne, Committee of 300 members.

23 comments for “And there’ll be a weeping and a gnashing of teeth

  1. SteveW
    November 21, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    As an irreligious type I may not be overly qualified to comment, but it seems to be quite common amongst Christians to lump drugs in with a while host of other ‘sins’. I don’t recall any mention of drugs from the bits of the Bible I’ve read, although I do recall god putting all the plants and animals (and presumably fungi) there for the benefit of man.

    Are those Christians who object to drugs also seeking to dictate to their maker?

    Other than that, like one of the commenters you highlight, I have no interest whatever in what the club rules are for Christians (of whatever flavour), Muslims, jews or any other religious types. Like you say, if you don’t like it, set up your own club.

    • November 21, 2012 at 4:27 pm

      You’ve touched on something there, Steve and it can’t be shied away from – I’m in agreement with you actually. That will have to be the next post and I shall write on it, not forget about it. The way various “Christians” act needs addressing because it is at the centre of other non-Christians’ attitude towards them and not wrongly, I’ll add.

      • SteveW
        November 21, 2012 at 10:07 pm

        What a refreshing answer, thank you. As I’m sure I’ve mentioned before, I tend to disagree with a lot of your posts. they do, however, generally give cause for thought.

        Open debate without fear/concern as to whether the other debater is likely to ‘take offence’ is genuinely refreshing as far as the majority of Christians are concerned (in my experience at least). I suspect I don’t help much in those instances as I find it so hard to take seriously someone who believes in their deity of choice, as it brings into question, in my mind, their general ability to think coherently and rationally about other issues.

        The same view they take of me on the odd occasion that I lay claim to being some kind of polytheistic Odinist (I’m not, but I can be quite convincing when the fancy takes me). The point at which a Christian starts to question how I can believe in something so primitive in the absence of any real evidence is usually where my mettle cracks and I let on what I was up to. Oddly, they rarely see the point I’m trying to make or the funny side 🙂

        I’ll look forward to the next post (something I’ve definitely not said to you before).

        As with my bickering with Panorama over Joan Bakewell’s ‘alcohol lives saved’ bollocks (courtesy of Sheffield University ScHARR), I am again forced to re-assess my preconceptions about someone (in that case it was the very reasonable deputy editor of Panorama,in this case it’s you good self). Yet again, I’m happy to do so.

    • Budvar
      November 22, 2012 at 4:43 am

      The Bible doesn’t mention drugs as you say, but it does mention “Intoxication” and “Drunkeness”. It also mentions wine specifically, and as Jesus turned water into wine, that in itself indicates to me there is nothing inherently wrong with imbibing a decent shiraz. Gluttony is also a sin, that doesn’t mean that people should refrain from eating does it?

      It’s the “Abuse” of things that are patently wrong, as an example, I wouldn’t mind flying on a plane where the pilot has had a glass of Chardonnay with his fish, but would you feel comfortable climbs into the cockpit so shitfaced he can’t stand?

      • SteveW
        November 22, 2012 at 11:51 am

        I wouldn’t get on any plane where they made the pilot stand up 😉

      • David A. Evans
        November 23, 2012 at 5:59 pm

        but would you feel comfortable climbs into the cockpit so shitfaced he can’t stand?

        I could tell you some stories about fast jet pilots that would make your hair curl. Groundcrew too.

        Arrive for work in the early hours, 30 seconds with the O2 mask does wonders & start work.

        DaveE.

  2. November 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    Just to clarify here about the term: “I’m really enjoying this.” I’m not enjoying anything vis-a-vis the bishops or not bishops – it was unfortunate that the PTB chose this as the vehicle. It could have been any other vehicle, e.g. gay rights.

    The thing was – and this is where the enjoyment is – that it was a complete set-up by the PTB through Cameron/Osborne, with the collusion with the left-liberal clergy at the top – you saw that. And they tried to browbeat the laity into falling in line.

    The method is pure C300 or CP or PTB, whichever you like. It is to soften people up with the vague concept of “equality” and then vigorously try to apply it in any context, particularly where it is inappropriate or there is a chance it might be rejected.

    So, having white-anted the church from within for years and having an agenda of only wanting themselves in charge [the PTB], the church therefore has to be disestablished. The Lords has to be dismantled and given over to PM controlled pollies. Any institution in the society which can stand up to the PTB is to be marginalized, then dismantled.

    Thus, anyone opposing weomen bishops would be seen to be:

    1. neanderthal throwbacksin the public consciousness;
    2. in breach of the PC discriminatory legislation.

    So the PTB get you onside with them and against a tiny minority which stuck to their principles according to their lights. They wanted this result to get the howls of outrage going and then everyone would turn savagely on the church, at which point Lynne Featherstone or someone comes inwith her “Final Solution”.

    Well, the church is to be disestablished and suppressed. It will be a crime from now on.

    Now the non-religious who have been blogging for years know that that’s how it’s done. Trouble is, they agree with the government on this issue and against the small minority who carried this vote. On smoking, they’re agin the governernment. But the PTB are never going to let you guys get an issue where you can rally the troops.

    So, using salami tactics, they suppress first one unpopular group, then another, then another and because you guys don’t like those groups, you let it happen and so it goes on. finally there is only you left with no one to defend you. I’ll be long incarcerated by then.

    That’s how it’s done. So while the worst is yet to come, yet today we can be ecstatic that the PTB did provoke the hardcore in the church to stick with their principles and their manoeuvering might well come unstuck now it’s started, now there’s been this first rebellion.

    I bet the good Captain Ranty and all the other non-religious libertarians would never have dreamed that this is where the fightback would begin. [Actually, it began in Paris but let’s not dwell on that].]

  3. IanPJ
    November 21, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    don’t they understand that the natural conditions for Christianity to survive is under duress and suppression? –

    After 70 years of communist rule, after the ruthless suppression of Christians and the Church by Stalin, the first thing that the Russian peoples did following the collapse of the communist regimes was to rebuild the cathedrals and churches that Stalin had demolished.

    It did not die, it did not come anywhere near to death, it just went underground.

    • Greg Tingey
      November 22, 2012 at 6:40 pm

      MORE BOLLOCKS
      It is old-fashioned misogyny.
      “A Man is the head of a woman” (I may be misquoting there)
      “Women are inferior to men & subject to their orders.”

      Besides, it is siding with the RC church, the probably most evil body corporate on the face of the planet ….

  4. Greg Tingey
    November 21, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    WHo gives a flaming fuck about what sects of stupid rules a collection of brainwashed followers of Bronze-Age goatherders’ myths think or do, provided it does not affect us?

    • November 21, 2012 at 7:59 pm

      Greg you just have this way with words – I go all weak at the knees.

      • Greg Tingey
        November 22, 2012 at 6:41 pm

        Well, if, on the way to the shops, you were accosted AGAIN by these brainwahed followers of some Bronze-Age sect or other (& this happens a lot) you’s be royally pissed-off, too!

  5. November 21, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    Mr Tingey’s delicate way with words reflects my own opinion of this matter, which does not concern me in the slightest, but I do find myself puzzled to hear news reports claiming that it was the lay members who “rejected” the change (that’s the very word many reports use), when the same reports say that 64% of the lay members voted in favour of the change. I am going to check my dictionary definition of rejection, and democracy.

    • November 22, 2012 at 8:03 am

      Yes, what struck me about all of this is that the majority voted for a change, but the voting rules didn’t allow it. I’m not sure that this makes James’ case for a sea change in favour of conservatism.

      • November 22, 2012 at 12:12 pm

        Should we apply the same system to any EU referendum? So if “only” 64% of us vote to leave we have to stay in? 🙂

        • November 22, 2012 at 1:43 pm

          Don’t give ’em ideas.

        • johnnyrvf
          November 22, 2012 at 8:06 pm

          With the EU, even a 100% majority is seen as a minority vote if it is not the vote the t*ssers in Brussels want. 😈

  6. November 22, 2012 at 8:52 am

    “this was a victory for the laity over the toffs”

    So this was more than a bare majority, such as got us in to the EU?

    “against a tiny minority which stuck to their principles according to their light”

    Both of these things can’t be true at the same time. Which is it? Either it’s a convincing victory for the laity because they represent the majority view of the church, or it’s a technical majority which tells us that the church is badly split and that the laity vote might not be as representative as they think.

    I have no dog in this fight but I’d like to know which it is because it may affect the handling of later votes on political constitutional matters (and in those I have a strong view).

  7. JimS
    November 22, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Some commentators imply that the C o E, as the established church, should fall in line with the current thoughts of the liberal elite.

    Isn’t the purpose of an established church to provide guidance to the state, not the other way around?

    Current liberal elite thought is that the UK is a secular country, but doesn’t HM derive her authority from ‘God’, according to the rites of the C of E and acknowledged in her coronation oath. Similarly the MPs and judges take an oath of allegiance to HM. The liberal elite,(and maybe most of us), would like it to be different but that does seem to be the nature of the current top-level ‘contracts’ that define the state within the UK.

    • November 22, 2012 at 9:33 am

      We fought a war over the issue of divine rights of kings. 😉

  8. November 22, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Why aren’t we making the same fuss about Muslims not allowing women to be Immams?

    Not all Muslim sects ban women, but the majority do. Just like not all Christian sects stop women being equal at all levels.

    • November 22, 2012 at 10:25 am

      Possibly because they haven’t been holding a very public vote on it?

  9. November 22, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    🙂

Comments are closed.