Will children now be taught homosexual activity as part of sex education classes?

I respectfully respond to Wycombe MP Steve Baker, and Benjamin King (BFP Feb 8) re same sex marriage. Mr. Baker wrote: “I do not think it is right for a view based only on faith to be placed in law.”

On what basis, then, should laws be formed? Society has to have some sort of collective values. What should be the yardstick? The political correctness of the moment? Secularism and the liberal consensus have demonstrated how they cannot be relied upon, because they have immorally permitted the destruction of seven million babies in the womb since 1967; hardly a good recommendation.

To separate British law from any identity with Christianity represents the abandonment of our existing constitution and of the Queen’s coronation oath to “maintain the laws of God”. It also represents a reversal of over a thousand years of English history, going back to King Alfred, and a repudiation of the Bible’s teaching that a nation’s ruler or government should be “the minister of God” for the good of society (Romans 13:4).

Regarding Mr King’s comments, he is mistaken in arguing that the prohibitions on mixed fibres and mingled seed are aspects of God’s moral law. These regulations (which were good and sensible – e.g. wool and linen do not combine well) form part of the Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws. The same goes for the penalty against profaning the sabbath. They applied to the limited period of Israel’s possession of the Promised Land prior to the coming of Christ. The difference between these temporary ordinances and God’s eternal moral law is clearly explained in the New Testament.

In Acts 15:24-29, for example, we learn that that there is no requirement for Christians to be circumcised; yet this was an Old Testament law. What circumcision foreshadowed, however, has now reached its fulfilment in the new birth, which is the removal of inward corruption upon faith in Christ. The setting aside of the law on circumcision (and of the other civil and ceremonial regulations) in no way invalidates God’s moral law concerning stealing, lying, adultery and honouring parents etc.

Homosexuality is a breach of the moral law, and the Bible teaches that the human body is not designed for it. It is an act of compassion to point this out and to make calls to repentance. If same sex marriage becomes legal, there is no logical reason why children should not be taught the physical mechanics of homosexual activity as part of sex education classes, which are mandatory in secondary schools. That would not be a wholesome development.

Yours in polite discussion,

Rev. Peter Simpson.

Penn Free Methodist Church

Comments (54)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:59pm Fri 22 Feb 13

supercraig says...

actually I think you'll find its a breach of your own dubious moral code, and nothing more...
actually I think you'll find its a breach of your own dubious moral code, and nothing more... supercraig
  • Score: -4

2:59pm Fri 22 Feb 13

Monte Cristo says...

There is no reason to suppose that sex eucation should include anything other than normal sexual activity. By "normal", I mean "usual", which clearly will be that between a man and a woman. That is what is done now and there is no reason for it not to continue.
What is happening now is that the word "marriage" is now broadened to include a commitment declared between 2 people - irrespective of their sex - perhaps in a non-religious setting (i.e. not in a church). It does not have to threaten whatsoever those who want to marry in a church, nor those who carry out those services. And please don't continue to promote the notion that Christians are the only people on Earth who are worthy of deciding what is right and wrong. They are not. Many, many non-Christians do not lie, do not steal etc.
Furthermore, I think that your position on this issue has been expressed in these pages numerous times, and little new is now being brought to the table. Yuo have made your point. Perhaps the BFP should cease publishing your missives and balance things up by seeking the views of gay people.....
There is no reason to suppose that sex eucation should include anything other than normal sexual activity. By "normal", I mean "usual", which clearly will be that between a man and a woman. That is what is done now and there is no reason for it not to continue. What is happening now is that the word "marriage" is now broadened to include a commitment declared between 2 people - irrespective of their sex - perhaps in a non-religious setting (i.e. not in a church). It does not have to threaten whatsoever those who want to marry in a church, nor those who carry out those services. And please don't continue to promote the notion that Christians are the only people on Earth who are worthy of deciding what is right and wrong. They are not. Many, many non-Christians do not lie, do not steal etc. Furthermore, I think that your position on this issue has been expressed in these pages numerous times, and little new is now being brought to the table. Yuo have made your point. Perhaps the BFP should cease publishing your missives and balance things up by seeking the views of gay people..... Monte Cristo
  • Score: -4

3:29pm Fri 22 Feb 13

sai-diva says...

Hi pete,
you say..

''Secularism and the liberal consensus have demonstrated how they cannot be relied upon, because they have immorally permitted the destruction of seven million babies in the womb since 1967; hardly a good recommendation.''

And of course religion has, over the years, has done such a good job of preserving human life eh?
Even by your own beliefs, your god was responsible for the killing of millions when he killed all air breathing life with a flood. That'd be all the babies, children in the womb, men, women,the old,the young,the sick,the mentally ill
and the little puppies.
I wont mention the spanish inquisition, have you seen what they used to do to atheists? But I will mention the persecution of homosexuals by evahgelicals in africa.
Lucky they set aside the practice of cicumcision a barbaric act, why do religions concentrate on the male organ so much?

you ask...
''On what basis, then, should laws be formed?''
On the basis of equality for all, We should have autonomy over our bodies, as long as we harm no one else. keep your 'morals' where they belong, in your lovely church, those that want them will, no doubt, seek you out.
Thanks for your answers for my points on your previous letter by the way, I can only assume that you have none.
Hi pete, you say.. ''Secularism and the liberal consensus have demonstrated how they cannot be relied upon, because they have immorally permitted the destruction of seven million babies in the womb since 1967; hardly a good recommendation.'' And of course religion has, over the years, has done such a good job of preserving human life eh? Even by your own beliefs, your god was responsible for the killing of millions when he killed all air breathing life with a flood. That'd be all the babies, children in the womb, men, women,the old,the young,the sick,the mentally ill and the little puppies. I wont mention the spanish inquisition, have you seen what they used to do to atheists? But I will mention the persecution of homosexuals by evahgelicals in africa. Lucky they set aside the practice of cicumcision a barbaric act, why do religions concentrate on the male organ so much? you ask... ''On what basis, then, should laws be formed?'' On the basis of equality for all, We should have autonomy over our bodies, as long as we harm no one else. keep your 'morals' where they belong, in your lovely church, those that want them will, no doubt, seek you out. Thanks for your answers for my points on your previous letter by the way, I can only assume that you have none. sai-diva
  • Score: -3

4:28pm Fri 22 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

In a fair, multi-cultural society, it is important that law, morality and religion are kept seperate. Each may well have an influence on, and be influenced by, each other but that doesn't mean they should be constrained by each other.

English Legal Law has recognition globally as being the leading standard against which other legislative domains are compared. Its origins may well be of a religious and moral code basis but times (and society) moves on. Christianity may well have provided foundations to work from but it formed only a starting point. That doesn't mean it should continued to be shackled to it. An obvious example of incompatibility is the Ten Commandments versus the UK's Equality Act.

British society is now multi-faith and multi-cultural and that's why we shouldn't constrain ourselves to just one religion.
In a fair, multi-cultural society, it is important that law, morality and religion are kept seperate. Each may well have an influence on, and be influenced by, each other but that doesn't mean they should be constrained by each other. English Legal Law has recognition globally as being the leading standard against which other legislative domains are compared. Its origins may well be of a religious and moral code basis but times (and society) moves on. Christianity may well have provided foundations to work from but it formed only a starting point. That doesn't mean it should continued to be shackled to it. An obvious example of incompatibility is the Ten Commandments versus the UK's Equality Act. British society is now multi-faith and multi-cultural and that's why we shouldn't constrain ourselves to just one religion. gpn01
  • Score: -1

5:31pm Fri 22 Feb 13

philbo says...

Presumably Peter thinks that the collective values society "ought to have" should be his: an interpretation of the Bible shared by the tiniest of minorities even in this ostensibly Christian country.

No, Peter. As a poet* once said: "Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." - there is nothing positive or beneficial to be derived from faith alone. Societies have always arrived at their moral values from more contemporary mores: over the years Christian countries have tolerated and even indulged in slavery, torture, murder, war - things we now believe to be wrong. But Christians used to do those things, often in the name of your God, so how can you say faith in Christ and the Christian God is any kind of arbiter of what is right or wrong?

We think these things are wrong because people change their minds, and aren't dogmatically bound to centuries-old texts. As a society today, we have a far better set of ethics than any "Christian" one from the past, *because* we don't use your book as the basis of our morals. It's not perfect, but it beats going back to biblical "morality".


* This poet: http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=KtYkyB35z
kk
Presumably Peter thinks that the collective values society "ought to have" should be his: an interpretation of the Bible shared by the tiniest of minorities even in this ostensibly Christian country. No, Peter. As a poet* once said: "Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." - there is nothing positive or beneficial to be derived from faith alone. Societies have always arrived at their moral values from more contemporary mores: over the years Christian countries have tolerated and even indulged in slavery, torture, murder, war - things we now believe to be wrong. But Christians used to do those things, often in the name of your God, so how can you say faith in Christ and the Christian God is any kind of arbiter of what is right or wrong? We think these things are wrong because people change their minds, and aren't dogmatically bound to centuries-old texts. As a society today, we have a far better set of ethics than any "Christian" one from the past, *because* we don't use your book as the basis of our morals. It's not perfect, but it beats going back to biblical "morality". * This poet: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=KtYkyB35z kk philbo
  • Score: 0

12:15am Sat 23 Feb 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

Will children now be taught homosexual activity as part of sex education classes?


I hope they’re not taught **** (although eight out of ten cat owners said their pets preferred it.
[italic] [quote] Will children now be taught homosexual activity as part of sex education classes? [/quote][/italic] I hope they’re not taught **** (although eight out of ten cat owners said their pets [italic] preferred[/italic] it. ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

12:16am Sat 23 Feb 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

Will children now be taught homosexual activity as part of sex education classes?


I hope they’re not taught b e s t i a l i t y (though eight out of ten cat owners said their pets preferred it.
[italic] [quote] Will children now be taught homosexual activity as part of sex education classes? [/quote][/italic] I hope they’re not taught b e s t i a l i t y (though eight out of ten cat owners said their pets [italic] preferred[/italic] it. ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: -2

12:01am Tue 26 Feb 13

A Source Close to Clyde the Retired Police Horse says...

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Will children now be taught homosexual activity as part of sex education classes?


I hope they’re not taught b e s t i a l i t y (though eight out of ten cat owners said their pets preferred it.
That is right.
[quote][p][bold]ImpeturbableLawrence[/bold] wrote: [italic] [quote] Will children now be taught homosexual activity as part of sex education classes? [/quote][/italic] I hope they’re not taught b e s t i a l i t y (though eight out of ten cat owners said their pets [italic] preferred[/italic] it.[/p][/quote]That is right. A Source Close to Clyde the Retired Police Horse
  • Score: 0

12:17am Tue 26 Feb 13

A Source Close to Clyde the Retired Police Horse says...

As a confidant of one of the most articulate and well-informed equines in the High Wycombe area, I would say to any horse who has recently been approached by a priest, Cardinal other member of the clergy, or by a human from the laity - then - if they ask you to participate in ‘inappropriate behaviour’ - just say 'neigh.'
As a confidant of one of the most articulate and well-informed equines in the High Wycombe area, I would say to any horse who has recently been approached by a priest, Cardinal other member of the clergy, or by a human from the laity - then - if they ask you to participate in ‘inappropriate behaviour’ - just say 'neigh.' A Source Close to Clyde the Retired Police Horse
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Peter Simpson says...

In polite response to Monte Cristo, You wrote, “There is no reason to suppose that sex education should include anything other than normal sexual activity. By "normal", I mean "usual", which clearly will be that between a man and a woman. That is what is done now and there is no reason for it not to continue”.

This is not so. Section 403 (1A) (a) of the Education Act 1996 requires that pupils in schools “learn the nature of marriage” as part of sex education. If marriage includes homosexual unions, then children must be taught about those also as an aspect of sex education. The whole point of redefining marriage is to banish any differentiation between ‘usual’ and ‘unusual’.

Stonewall have already produced materials to promote gay marriage for use in primary schools. Note, not secondary schools, but primary schools. One booklet promoted by Stonewall is called ‘Daddy’s Roommate’. It reads, “My Mommy and Daddy got a divorce last year. Now there’s somebody new at Daddy’s house. Daddy and his roommate Frank live together (and) sleep together (picture of them both in bed). Being gay is just one more kind of love”.

If such material is deemed suitable for primary schools, then why should anyone be coy about more explicit material in secondary schools?

In 2010 the Department for Education singled out Stonewall as an organisation it wished to work with “to make sure sex and relationships education encompasses an understanding of the ways in which humans love each other”.

You wrote of changing the definition of marriage, “It does not have to threaten whatsoever those who want to marry in a church, nor those who carry out those services”.

I am afraid that there is a threat. Aidan O’Neill QC, an expert on EU and human rights law, has stated that the ban on the C of E being able to conduct homosexual weddings is “eminently challengeable” under human rights law and “may well not stand up to scrutiny”. Mr O’Neill also states that in his legal opinion the Church of England has a legal duty to conduct weddings for anyone legally entitled to marry. Mr. O’Neill also considers it to be the case that schools will be under an obligation to teach about gay marriage within sex education classes.

Furthermore, in January a source close to the Education Secretary Michael Gove revealed that the Government would be powerless to stop headteachers firing staff who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage.

You wrote, “Please don't continue to promote the notion that Christians are the only people on Earth who are worthy of deciding what is right and wrong. They are not”.

Courteously, this statement assumes that everyone knows what is right and wrong to start with. Yes, unbelievers can often make right moral choices, because they were created in the image of God and have God-given consciences (which evolution could not have given them). This image of God, however, has been severely marred by man’s rebellion, and consciences have been suppressed and marred. The Bible speaks of men “having their conscience seared” (1 Timothy 4:2).

Christianity starts with the teaching that all without exception are sinful. That does not mean that all are going to be wrong on every single moral issue, but it does mean, that, apart from God, all have flawed understandings and hearts inclined to sin.

Secularism, however, has no objective standard other than the prevailing opinions of the day. Many of those vigorously promoting gay marriage in the name of what is ‘right’ nevertheless feel no compulsion to prevent the destruction of life in the womb in the name of what is right. That is proof of secularism’s grave deficiency. How many heart-beating babies will lose their lives even this very day in secularist, liberal, progressive and equality-conscious Britain?

Why has secularism’s ability to discern right from wrong not stopped all crime, all hatred and malice, all drunkenness and drug-taking? Why has natural selection not done away with these negative qualities for survival? Why do human beings continue to behave badly? The reason is that secularism is powerless to change the human heart. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do that.

Yours respectfully and politely, Rev. Peter Simpson.
In polite response to Monte Cristo, You wrote, “There is no reason to suppose that sex education should include anything other than normal sexual activity. By "normal", I mean "usual", which clearly will be that between a man and a woman. That is what is done now and there is no reason for it not to continue”. This is not so. Section 403 (1A) (a) of the Education Act 1996 requires that pupils in schools “learn the nature of marriage” as part of sex education. If marriage includes homosexual unions, then children must be taught about those also as an aspect of sex education. The whole point of redefining marriage is to banish any differentiation between ‘usual’ and ‘unusual’. Stonewall have already produced materials to promote gay marriage for use in primary schools. Note, not secondary schools, but primary schools. One booklet promoted by Stonewall is called ‘Daddy’s Roommate’. It reads, “My Mommy and Daddy got a divorce last year. Now there’s somebody new at Daddy’s house. Daddy and his roommate Frank live together (and) sleep together (picture of them both in bed). Being gay is just one more kind of love”. If such material is deemed suitable for primary schools, then why should anyone be coy about more explicit material in secondary schools? In 2010 the Department for Education singled out Stonewall as an organisation it wished to work with “to make sure sex and relationships education encompasses an understanding of the ways in which humans love each other”. You wrote of changing the definition of marriage, “It does not have to threaten whatsoever those who want to marry in a church, nor those who carry out those services”. I am afraid that there is a threat. Aidan O’Neill QC, an expert on EU and human rights law, has stated that the ban on the C of E being able to conduct homosexual weddings is “eminently challengeable” under human rights law and “may well not stand up to scrutiny”. Mr O’Neill also states that in his legal opinion the Church of England has a legal duty to conduct weddings for anyone legally entitled to marry. Mr. O’Neill also considers it to be the case that schools will be under an obligation to teach about gay marriage within sex education classes. Furthermore, in January a source close to the Education Secretary Michael Gove revealed that the Government would be powerless to stop headteachers firing staff who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage. You wrote, “Please don't continue to promote the notion that Christians are the only people on Earth who are worthy of deciding what is right and wrong. They are not”. Courteously, this statement assumes that everyone knows what is right and wrong to start with. Yes, unbelievers can often make right moral choices, because they were created in the image of God and have God-given consciences (which evolution could not have given them). This image of God, however, has been severely marred by man’s rebellion, and consciences have been suppressed and marred. The Bible speaks of men “having their conscience seared” (1 Timothy 4:2). Christianity starts with the teaching that all without exception are sinful. That does not mean that all are going to be wrong on every single moral issue, but it does mean, that, apart from God, all have flawed understandings and hearts inclined to sin. Secularism, however, has no objective standard other than the prevailing opinions of the day. Many of those vigorously promoting gay marriage in the name of what is ‘right’ nevertheless feel no compulsion to prevent the destruction of life in the womb in the name of what is right. That is proof of secularism’s grave deficiency. How many heart-beating babies will lose their lives even this very day in secularist, liberal, progressive and equality-conscious Britain? Why has secularism’s ability to discern right from wrong not stopped all crime, all hatred and malice, all drunkenness and drug-taking? Why has natural selection not done away with these negative qualities for survival? Why do human beings continue to behave badly? The reason is that secularism is powerless to change the human heart. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do that. Yours respectfully and politely, Rev. Peter Simpson. Peter Simpson
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Peter Simpson says...

One of my above sentences should read "Stonewall have already endorsed (not produced) materials to promote gay marriage in primary schools".
One of my above sentences should read "Stonewall have already endorsed (not produced) materials to promote gay marriage in primary schools". Peter Simpson
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Tue 26 Feb 13

sai-diva says...

Hi Pete,
Me again. Thank you for you answers to the points that I made over your letter.
In answer to what you have just written,
You say,,,,
,,Why has secularism’s ability to discern right from wrong not stopped all crime, all hatred and malice, all drunkenness and drug-taking?
I would ask....
Why has religion's ability to discern right from wrong not stopped all crime, all hatred and malice, all drunkenness and drugtaking?
You've had over 3500 years and the help of an all powerful, vengeful god to help you, with the threat of total genocide for those who don't comply.
And what's this great about drunkenness, didn't jesus imbibe?

you say...
''Christianity starts with the teaching that all without exception are sinful. ''

So you hold with the theory that even little babies are born from sin? I have a bit of a problem with that, we are taught our sins, and one sin that your church teaches quite well is the sin of being judgemental, of condeming,not of all men being 'born equal' but of being 'better than your fellow man'' because you are not homosexual.
You do seem to trade in guilt,which can be such a destructive, negative emotion.

you say.......
''This is not so. Section 403 (1A) (a) of the Education Act 1996 requires that pupils in schools “learn the nature of marriage” as part of sex education''

Do you really think that there are going to be graphic descriptions of what goes on in the bedroom between gay couples? The nature of marriage is a loving relationship, caring and nuturing, one of equality, something your bible doesn't recognise, as you have told me in recent debates, women in your church cannot preach, they have other jobs to do.
Hopefully the schools will educate our children about safe sex,and how to protect themselves from abusive relationships, tools to help them through this life.
Where do you stand on sex education within schools?

Can I ask you for your opinion on what I wrote above.
''And of course religion has, over the years, has done such a good job of preserving human life eh?
Even by your own beliefs, your god was responsible for the killing of millions when he killed all air breathing life with a flood. That'd be all the babies, children in the womb, men, women,the old,the young,the sick,the mentally ill
and the little puppies.''

You see, because I don't think you have any right to comment on abortion, your god kills, and you don't have a womb.
I look forward to your responses,although I am not holding my breath. (unlike those left behind by the ark eh?)
Hi Pete, Me again. Thank you for you answers to the points that I made over your letter. In answer to what you have just written, You say,,,, ,,Why has secularism’s ability to discern right from wrong not stopped all crime, all hatred and malice, all drunkenness and drug-taking? I would ask.... Why has religion's ability to discern right from wrong not stopped all crime, all hatred and malice, all drunkenness and drugtaking? You've had over 3500 years and the help of an all powerful, vengeful god to help you, with the threat of total genocide for those who don't comply. And what's this great about drunkenness, didn't jesus imbibe? you say... ''Christianity starts with the teaching that all without exception are sinful. '' So you hold with the theory that even little babies are born from sin? I have a bit of a problem with that, we are taught our sins, and one sin that your church teaches quite well is the sin of being judgemental, of condeming,not of all men being 'born equal' but of being 'better than your fellow man'' because you are not homosexual. You do seem to trade in guilt,which can be such a destructive, negative emotion. you say....... ''This is not so. Section 403 (1A) (a) of the Education Act 1996 requires that pupils in schools “learn the nature of marriage” as part of sex education'' Do you really think that there are going to be graphic descriptions of what goes on in the bedroom between gay couples? The nature of marriage is a loving relationship, caring and nuturing, one of equality, something your bible doesn't recognise, as you have told me in recent debates, women in your church cannot preach, they have other jobs to do. Hopefully the schools will educate our children about safe sex,and how to protect themselves from abusive relationships, tools to help them through this life. Where do you stand on sex education within schools? Can I ask you for your opinion on what I wrote above. ''And of course religion has, over the years, has done such a good job of preserving human life eh? Even by your own beliefs, your god was responsible for the killing of millions when he killed all air breathing life with a flood. That'd be all the babies, children in the womb, men, women,the old,the young,the sick,the mentally ill and the little puppies.'' You see, because I don't think you have any right to comment on abortion, your god kills, and you don't have a womb. I look forward to your responses,although I am not holding my breath. (unlike those left behind by the ark eh?) sai-diva
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Peter Simpson says...

Dear Sai-diva,

In polite response, You wrote, “I won’t mention the Spanish Inquisition; have you seen what they used to do to atheists?”

This has nothing to do with Bible-believing Christians, who also suffered under that Inquistion. It was to oppose such evil that there was a Protestant Reformation. The kingdom of God is advanced by preaching God’s word, not by the sword or coercion.

You referred to the many deaths in Noah’s Flood. That was the judgement of God. It was not voluntarily entered into human-on-human destruction of life, as abortion is. God warned men that the judgement would come, unless they repented, for 120 years, but they ignored the warnings.

To deny the equity of God’s judgement is, courteously, to argue, not with me, but with Him whom the Father has appointed as Judge, namely the Lord Jesus Christ. He is returning to this earth in order to bring final judgement upon all. The judgement will then be by fire, not by water. God is longsuffering and merciful, but if men keep on refusing to repent, justice must be done.

A world without God’s judgement would be a world where wrongs are never righted and where evil men get off scott-free.

You wrote that our laws should be formed “on the basis of equality for all. We should have autonomy over our bodies, as long as we harm no one else”. But in abortion, others are not only harmed; they are killed, and our equality-embracing society allows it to happen.

“We must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Yours respectfully, Rev. Peter Simpson.
Dear Sai-diva, In polite response, You wrote, “I won’t mention the Spanish Inquisition; have you seen what they used to do to atheists?” This has nothing to do with Bible-believing Christians, who also suffered under that Inquistion. It was to oppose such evil that there was a Protestant Reformation. The kingdom of God is advanced by preaching God’s word, not by the sword or coercion. You referred to the many deaths in Noah’s Flood. That was the judgement of God. It was not voluntarily entered into human-on-human destruction of life, as abortion is. God warned men that the judgement would come, unless they repented, for 120 years, but they ignored the warnings. To deny the equity of God’s judgement is, courteously, to argue, not with me, but with Him whom the Father has appointed as Judge, namely the Lord Jesus Christ. He is returning to this earth in order to bring final judgement upon all. The judgement will then be by fire, not by water. God is longsuffering and merciful, but if men keep on refusing to repent, justice must be done. A world without God’s judgement would be a world where wrongs are never righted and where evil men get off scott-free. You wrote that our laws should be formed “on the basis of equality for all. We should have autonomy over our bodies, as long as we harm no one else”. But in abortion, others are not only harmed; they are killed, and our equality-embracing society allows it to happen. “We must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:10). Yours respectfully, Rev. Peter Simpson. Peter Simpson
  • Score: 0

11:58am Wed 27 Feb 13

sai-diva says...

Hi pete,
I do find the way you pick which points to answer quite frustrating, but here we go.

My reference to the Inquisition was more in response to your point about xtians being 'persecuted'. I suppose I'm finding a bit of common ground there, as historically, and even now there are cases of Atheists being discriminated against. As recently as the mid 70's a man was sent to prison in the US for refusing to swear an oath on the bible, Luckily I am, like you, English,white and middle class and therefore don't suffer any persecution, mild irritation perhaps. Unlike homosexuals who suffer discrimination every day.

You say,
''This has nothing to do with Bible-believing Christians, who also suffered under that Inquistion. It was to oppose such evil that there was a Protestant Reformation.''

In this country, the country in which you live, the Protestant Reformation' was carried out so that the then present king, could redefine marriage, so that he could divorce his then wife, as she could not bear him an heir. If it wasn't for him, your religion would have suffered more persecution, and taken longer to establish as the Roman Catholics would have been the dominant religion for much longer, and you would have had to wait for 'modern, trendy liberals' to initiate change.
Could you define the term 'bible believing christian' for me, as I know an aweful lot of people who believe in the bible, and a christian god who don't seem to fit your criteria, and you all seem to believe in the same 'book' and the same 'god'

you say..

''You referred to the many deaths in Noah’s Flood. That was the judgement of God. It was not voluntarily entered into human-on-human destruction of life, as abortion is. God warned men that the judgement would come, unless they repented, for 120 years, but they ignored the warnings''

I have a difficulty with that one in that would a forgiving God really commit a genocide? What about the innocents, do they have to die for the sins of their parents, Does your god's forgiveness really have a sell by date of 120 years?

you say...

''To deny the equity of God’s judgement is, courteously, to argue, not with me, but with Him whom the Father has appointed as Judge, namely the Lord Jesus Christ. He is returning to this earth in order to bring final judgement upon all. The judgement will then be by fire, not by water. God is longsuffering and merciful, but if men keep on refusing to repent, justice must be done. ''

Again I have a difficulty with this, I would love the opportunity to meet your god, but I can't so therefore all I can do is argue with his self appointed represenative, which is you, a man in a suit who says that he knows the mind of a god, backed up by some very flimsy evidence. So the 'don't argue with me 'cos my dad's bigger than you dad' argument doesn't really carry much weight.

You say....

''You wrote that our laws should be formed “on the basis of equality for all. We should have autonomy over our bodies, as long as we harm no one else”. But in abortion, others are not only harmed; they are killed, and our equality-embracing society allows it to happen.''

and that is the autonomy that I refer to,a woman has the right to decide what happens with and to her own body. Do you really find the idea of a nation where every one is treated equally so abhorrent. Do you feel that it is ok that you as a man can dictate what a woman does with her body.
I find it strange that most people who describe themselves as 'pro life' are also in favour of capital punishment, as you have stated in the past that you are.

Thank you for your answers so far,
but you missed out a few, could you comment on these questions, I know I'm a bit like a 'dog with a bone' but I've always been taught to question everything, especially authority, and those who would describe themselves as prophets and teachers, and of course those that preach a particular way of life is 'the only way'

''Do you really think that there are going to be graphic descriptions of what goes on in the bedroom between gay couples? The nature of marriage is a loving relationship, caring and nuturing, one of equality, something your bible doesn't recognise, as you have told me in recent debates, women in your church cannot preach, they have other jobs to do.
Hopefully the schools will educate our children about safe sex,and how to protect themselves from abusive relationships, tools to help them through this life.
Where do you stand on sex education within schools?
And...

So you hold with the theory that even little babies are born from sin? I have a bit of a problem with that, we are taught our sins, and one sin that your church teaches quite well is the sin of being judgemental, of condeming,not of all men being 'born equal' but of being 'better than your fellow man'' because you are not homosexual.
You do seem to trade in guilt,which can be such a destructive, negative emotion.

Once again I look forward to response,did you manage to answer the points that I made on your previous letter yet? I would welcome any questions you wish to pose concerning my belief system.
Hi pete, I do find the way you pick which points to answer quite frustrating, but here we go. My reference to the Inquisition was more in response to your point about xtians being 'persecuted'. I suppose I'm finding a bit of common ground there, as historically, and even now there are cases of Atheists being discriminated against. As recently as the mid 70's a man was sent to prison in the US for refusing to swear an oath on the bible, Luckily I am, like you, English,white and middle class and therefore don't suffer any persecution, mild irritation perhaps. Unlike homosexuals who suffer discrimination every day. You say, ''This has nothing to do with Bible-believing Christians, who also suffered under that Inquistion. It was to oppose such evil that there was a Protestant Reformation.'' In this country, the country in which you live, the Protestant Reformation' was carried out so that the then present king, could redefine marriage, so that he could divorce his then wife, as she could not bear him an heir. If it wasn't for him, your religion would have suffered more persecution, and taken longer to establish as the Roman Catholics would have been the dominant religion for much longer, and you would have had to wait for 'modern, trendy liberals' to initiate change. Could you define the term 'bible believing christian' for me, as I know an aweful lot of people who believe in the bible, and a christian god who don't seem to fit your criteria, and you all seem to believe in the same 'book' and the same 'god' you say.. ''You referred to the many deaths in Noah’s Flood. That was the judgement of God. It was not voluntarily entered into human-on-human destruction of life, as abortion is. God warned men that the judgement would come, unless they repented, for 120 years, but they ignored the warnings'' I have a difficulty with that one in that would a forgiving God really commit a genocide? What about the innocents, do they have to die for the sins of their parents, Does your god's forgiveness really have a sell by date of 120 years? you say... ''To deny the equity of God’s judgement is, courteously, to argue, not with me, but with Him whom the Father has appointed as Judge, namely the Lord Jesus Christ. He is returning to this earth in order to bring final judgement upon all. The judgement will then be by fire, not by water. God is longsuffering and merciful, but if men keep on refusing to repent, justice must be done. '' Again I have a difficulty with this, I would love the opportunity to meet your god, but I can't so therefore all I can do is argue with his self appointed represenative, which is you, a man in a suit who says that he knows the mind of a god, backed up by some very flimsy evidence. So the 'don't argue with me 'cos my dad's bigger than you dad' argument doesn't really carry much weight. You say.... ''You wrote that our laws should be formed “on the basis of equality for all. We should have autonomy over our bodies, as long as we harm no one else”. But in abortion, others are not only harmed; they are killed, and our equality-embracing society allows it to happen.'' and that is the autonomy that I refer to,a woman has the right to decide what happens with and to her own body. Do you really find the idea of a nation where every one is treated equally so abhorrent. Do you feel that it is ok that you as a man can dictate what a woman does with her body. I find it strange that most people who describe themselves as 'pro life' are also in favour of capital punishment, as you have stated in the past that you are. Thank you for your answers so far, but you missed out a few, could you comment on these questions, I know I'm a bit like a 'dog with a bone' but I've always been taught to question everything, especially authority, and those who would describe themselves as prophets and teachers, and of course those that preach a particular way of life is 'the only way' ''Do you really think that there are going to be graphic descriptions of what goes on in the bedroom between gay couples? The nature of marriage is a loving relationship, caring and nuturing, one of equality, something your bible doesn't recognise, as you have told me in recent debates, women in your church cannot preach, they have other jobs to do. Hopefully the schools will educate our children about safe sex,and how to protect themselves from abusive relationships, tools to help them through this life. Where do you stand on sex education within schools? And... So you hold with the theory that even little babies are born from sin? I have a bit of a problem with that, we are taught our sins, and one sin that your church teaches quite well is the sin of being judgemental, of condeming,not of all men being 'born equal' but of being 'better than your fellow man'' because you are not homosexual. You do seem to trade in guilt,which can be such a destructive, negative emotion. Once again I look forward to response,did you manage to answer the points that I made on your previous letter yet? I would welcome any questions you wish to pose concerning my belief system. sai-diva
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Wed 27 Feb 13

buser says...

Students, at secondary level, in their PHSE (personal, health and social education studies) would no doubt discuss homosexuality just as they would discuss alcoholism, drug, abuse, heterosexual relationships, marriage etc. PHSE, along with the rest of the curriculum, starts in primary school and the material presented is designed to develop understanding of self care, making good choices and building a tolerant society, this subject (PHSE) is not based on religious beliefs and whilst some aspects are aimed at discouraging the students from 'dabbling', i.e. drugs, alcohol, under age sex etc. others, including Interpersonal relationship, would not be presented as 'this is right and this is wrong' . Homosexuality and same sex marriage are a part of modern life and arevtherefore part of these studies.
Students, at secondary level, in their PHSE (personal, health and social education studies) would no doubt discuss homosexuality just as they would discuss alcoholism, drug, abuse, heterosexual relationships, marriage etc. PHSE, along with the rest of the curriculum, starts in primary school and the material presented is designed to develop understanding of self care, making good choices and building a tolerant society, this subject (PHSE) is not based on religious beliefs and whilst some aspects are aimed at discouraging the students from 'dabbling', i.e. drugs, alcohol, under age sex etc. others, including Interpersonal relationship, would not be presented as 'this is right and this is wrong' . Homosexuality and same sex marriage are a part of modern life and arevtherefore part of these studies. buser
  • Score: 1

12:44pm Wed 27 Feb 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

buser wrote:
Students, at secondary level, in their PHSE (personal, health and social education studies) would no doubt discuss homosexuality just as they would discuss alcoholism, drug, abuse, heterosexual relationships, marriage etc. PHSE, along with the rest of the curriculum, starts in primary school and the material presented is designed to develop understanding of self care, making good choices and building a tolerant society, this subject (PHSE) is not based on religious beliefs and whilst some aspects are aimed at discouraging the students from 'dabbling', i.e. drugs, alcohol, under age sex etc. others, including Interpersonal relationship, would not be presented as 'this is right and this is wrong' . Homosexuality and same sex marriage are a part of modern life and arevtherefore part of these studies.
Who ever heard of an adolescent needing to be ‘TAUGHT’ about sexual activity anyway in the manner Peter Simpson suggests?

When I was that age my contemporaries and I seldom thought about anything else – we didn’t need to be pointed in any particular direction!
[quote][p][bold]buser[/bold] wrote: Students, at secondary level, in their PHSE (personal, health and social education studies) would no doubt discuss homosexuality just as they would discuss alcoholism, drug, abuse, heterosexual relationships, marriage etc. PHSE, along with the rest of the curriculum, starts in primary school and the material presented is designed to develop understanding of self care, making good choices and building a tolerant society, this subject (PHSE) is not based on religious beliefs and whilst some aspects are aimed at discouraging the students from 'dabbling', i.e. drugs, alcohol, under age sex etc. others, including Interpersonal relationship, would not be presented as 'this is right and this is wrong' . Homosexuality and same sex marriage are a part of modern life and arevtherefore part of these studies.[/p][/quote]Who ever heard of an adolescent needing to be ‘TAUGHT’ about sexual activity anyway in the manner Peter Simpson suggests? When I was that age my contemporaries and I seldom thought about anything else – we didn’t need to be pointed in any particular direction! ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 2

1:04pm Wed 27 Feb 13

buser says...

It certainly isn't 'taught' in the manner Peter Simpson suggests. Things like safe sex, birth control, as I said, interpersonal relationships etc. are discussed/ brought to the forum, however you wish to put it. And no Lawrence, just like us at that age, they are not usually short of information!
It certainly isn't 'taught' in the manner Peter Simpson suggests. Things like safe sex, birth control, as I said, interpersonal relationships etc. are discussed/ brought to the forum, however you wish to put it. And no Lawrence, just like us at that age, they are not usually short of information! buser
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Wed 27 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

Peter Simpson wrote:
One of my above sentences should read "Stonewall have already endorsed (not produced) materials to promote gay marriage in primary schools".
"One booklet promoted by Stonewall is called ‘Daddy’s Roommate’. It reads, “My Mommy and Daddy got a divorce last year. Now there’s somebody new at Daddy’s house. Daddy and his roommate Frank live together (and) sleep together (picture of them both in bed). Being gay is just one more kind of love”.

Is this really being promoted to children at primary schoools? Wow! That's great as it allows young children to become accomstomed to what we recognise as normal and equal in our society.

The same transformation has happened with other areas to ensure equality too - that's why there is far less racism and sexism in 21st Century British society. This has led to improved equality across gender and race. Removing predjudice against gay, bi-, trans, etc. must be a positive too as it promotes true equality.

Perhaps the next level of equality we can hope for is equality irrespective of religious belief (or non belief). I'd be delighted if the current societal indoctrination of religion could be addressed by removing faith schools. Instead children should be taught that there's many beliefs and faiths and atheism and agnosticism should be given equal exposure. Children should be tought that it's morailtiy that's important, not religion.
[quote][p][bold]Peter Simpson[/bold] wrote: One of my above sentences should read "Stonewall have already endorsed (not produced) materials to promote gay marriage in primary schools".[/p][/quote]"One booklet promoted by Stonewall is called ‘Daddy’s Roommate’. It reads, “My Mommy and Daddy got a divorce last year. Now there’s somebody new at Daddy’s house. Daddy and his roommate Frank live together (and) sleep together (picture of them both in bed). Being gay is just one more kind of love”. Is this really being promoted to children at primary schoools? Wow! That's great as it allows young children to become accomstomed to what we recognise as normal and equal in our society. The same transformation has happened with other areas to ensure equality too - that's why there is far less racism and sexism in 21st Century British society. This has led to improved equality across gender and race. Removing predjudice against gay, bi-, trans, etc. must be a positive too as it promotes true equality. Perhaps the next level of equality we can hope for is equality irrespective of religious belief (or non belief). I'd be delighted if the current societal indoctrination of religion could be addressed by removing faith schools. Instead children should be taught that there's many beliefs and faiths and atheism and agnosticism should be given equal exposure. Children should be tought that it's morailtiy that's important, not religion. gpn01
  • Score: 1

1:33pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Elmo says...

The only problem I have with atheism is the crushing knowledge that one cannot look forward to being smug after death.
The only problem I have with atheism is the crushing knowledge that one cannot look forward to being smug after death. Elmo
  • Score: 1

1:39pm Wed 27 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

Elmo wrote:
The only problem I have with atheism is the crushing knowledge that one cannot look forward to being smug after death.
That's balanced by the smugness of knowing your'e right whilst you're still alive.
[quote][p][bold]Elmo[/bold] wrote: The only problem I have with atheism is the crushing knowledge that one cannot look forward to being smug after death.[/p][/quote]That's balanced by the smugness of knowing your'e right whilst you're still alive. gpn01
  • Score: 1

2:11pm Wed 27 Feb 13

buser says...

The R.E. curriculum, when I last looked, did cover, as you describe, many different beliefs and faiths including atheism and agnosticism and very much covered the importance of morality. Assemblies were often very much based on morality too rather than the old format of hymn, story/ bible reading and prayer which was the norm 50 years ago.
The R.E. curriculum, when I last looked, did cover, as you describe, many different beliefs and faiths including atheism and agnosticism and very much covered the importance of morality. Assemblies were often very much based on morality too rather than the old format of hymn, story/ bible reading and prayer which was the norm 50 years ago. buser
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Wed 27 Feb 13

Francis Harris says...

I acknowledge that this is a digression from the main discussion but a few days ago there were protests (rightly I believe) because 17 year olds in custody were being treated as adults (and denied the presence of a responsible adult) when they are in fact still 'children'.

As the 'age of consent' for homosexual activity is now 16 does this mean that we now condone homosexual activity involving children?

Francis Harris
I acknowledge that this is a digression from the main discussion but a few days ago there were protests (rightly I believe) because 17 year olds in custody were being treated as adults (and denied the presence of a responsible adult) when they are in fact still 'children'. As the 'age of consent' for homosexual activity is now 16 does this mean that we now condone homosexual activity involving children? Francis Harris Francis Harris
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Wed 27 Feb 13

philbo says...

Francis Harris wrote:
I acknowledge that this is a digression from the main discussion but a few days ago there were protests (rightly I believe) because 17 year olds in custody were being treated as adults (and denied the presence of a responsible adult) when they are in fact still 'children'.

As the 'age of consent' for homosexual activity is now 16 does this mean that we now condone homosexual activity involving children?

Francis Harris
It's now treated exactly the same as heterosexual activity involving 16- to 18-year-olds. You think this is a bad thing?
[quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: I acknowledge that this is a digression from the main discussion but a few days ago there were protests (rightly I believe) because 17 year olds in custody were being treated as adults (and denied the presence of a responsible adult) when they are in fact still 'children'. As the 'age of consent' for homosexual activity is now 16 does this mean that we now condone homosexual activity involving children? Francis Harris[/p][/quote]It's now treated exactly the same as heterosexual activity involving 16- to 18-year-olds. You think this is a bad thing? philbo
  • Score: 0

5:16pm Wed 27 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

buser wrote:
The R.E. curriculum, when I last looked, did cover, as you describe, many different beliefs and faiths including atheism and agnosticism and very much covered the importance of morality. Assemblies were often very much based on morality too rather than the old format of hymn, story/ bible reading and prayer which was the norm 50 years ago.
That's very positive and I think it should move from being Religious Education and become Moral / Cultural Education.
[quote][p][bold]buser[/bold] wrote: The R.E. curriculum, when I last looked, did cover, as you describe, many different beliefs and faiths including atheism and agnosticism and very much covered the importance of morality. Assemblies were often very much based on morality too rather than the old format of hymn, story/ bible reading and prayer which was the norm 50 years ago.[/p][/quote]That's very positive and I think it should move from being Religious Education and become Moral / Cultural Education. gpn01
  • Score: -1

8:25pm Wed 27 Feb 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

gpn01 wrote:
Elmo wrote:
The only problem I have with atheism is the crushing knowledge that one cannot look forward to being smug after death.
That's balanced by the smugness of knowing your'e right whilst you're still alive.
Neither one of you can be sure God isn't laughing sarcastically at the pair of you for having it wrong in different ways.
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Elmo[/bold] wrote: The only problem I have with atheism is the crushing knowledge that one cannot look forward to being smug after death.[/p][/quote]That's balanced by the smugness of knowing your'e right whilst you're still alive.[/p][/quote]Neither one of you can be sure God isn't laughing sarcastically at the pair of you for having it wrong in different ways. ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Wed 27 Feb 13

gpn01 says...

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
Elmo wrote:
The only problem I have with atheism is the crushing knowledge that one cannot look forward to being smug after death.
That's balanced by the smugness of knowing your'e right whilst you're still alive.
Neither one of you can be sure God isn't laughing sarcastically at the pair of you for having it wrong in different ways.
True. And I'm willing to acknowledge that possibility. Think it was Blaise Pascal who postulated that when one balances the 'cost' of being wrong against the 'cost' of believing in an afterLife then the risk/reward ratio dictated that it's better to believe than not. Place your bets and take your chances!
[quote][p][bold]ImpeturbableLawrence[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Elmo[/bold] wrote: The only problem I have with atheism is the crushing knowledge that one cannot look forward to being smug after death.[/p][/quote]That's balanced by the smugness of knowing your'e right whilst you're still alive.[/p][/quote]Neither one of you can be sure God isn't laughing sarcastically at the pair of you for having it wrong in different ways.[/p][/quote]True. And I'm willing to acknowledge that possibility. Think it was Blaise Pascal who postulated that when one balances the 'cost' of being wrong against the 'cost' of believing in an afterLife then the risk/reward ratio dictated that it's better to believe than not. Place your bets and take your chances! gpn01
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Elmo says...

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of 'believing' in something through shear force of will, even if you do get everlasting jollies at the end of it.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of 'believing' in something through shear force of will, even if you do get everlasting jollies at the end of it. Elmo
  • Score: 0

12:41pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Francis Harris says...

Philbo writes concerning the legalising of homosexual activity with 16 year olds, "It's now treated exactly the same as heterosexual activity involving 16- to 18-year-olds. You think this is a bad thing?"

I was making the point, 'When is a child not a child?' He/she is not a child at 16 if they are allowed to marry but this seems not to tally with the protest that a 17 year old should be treated as a 'child' when in police custody.

But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age.
Philbo writes concerning the legalising of homosexual activity with 16 year olds, "It's now treated exactly the same as heterosexual activity involving 16- to 18-year-olds. You think this is a bad thing?" I was making the point, 'When is a child not a child?' He/she is not a child at 16 if they are allowed to marry but this seems not to tally with the protest that a 17 year old should be treated as a 'child' when in police custody. But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age. Francis Harris
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Thu 28 Feb 13

philbo says...

Elmo wrote:
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of 'believing' in something through shear force of will, even if you do get everlasting jollies at the end of it.
But it means you don't have to think: life gets so much easier if you can make up what you want to support your fantasies, and if what you believe is disproven by reality then reality must be wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Elmo[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of 'believing' in something through shear force of will, even if you do get everlasting jollies at the end of it.[/p][/quote]But it means you don't have to think: life gets so much easier if you can make up what you want to support your fantasies, and if what you believe is disproven by reality then reality must be wrong. philbo
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Thu 28 Feb 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

These last posts remind me of Mark Twain's remark:

'"Faith is believing something you know ain't true."'
These last posts remind me of Mark Twain's remark: '"Faith is believing something you know ain't true."' ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Thu 28 Feb 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

See also:

http://atheisme.free
.fr/Quotes/Twain.htm
See also: http://atheisme.free .fr/Quotes/Twain.htm ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Thu 28 Feb 13

philbo says...

Francis Harris wrote:
Philbo writes concerning the legalising of homosexual activity with 16 year olds, "It's now treated exactly the same as heterosexual activity involving 16- to 18-year-olds. You think this is a bad thing?"

I was making the point, 'When is a child not a child?' He/she is not a child at 16 if they are allowed to marry but this seems not to tally with the protest that a 17 year old should be treated as a 'child' when in police custody.

But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age.
When is a child not a child? At 16, if you're wanting to watch the England U21 match at Adams Park.

And as far as I'm concerned, if you believe any heterosexual activity outside marriage is "sinful", nobody's forcing you to have sex outside marriage. What other people do is none of your business.

Different people mature at different times: many are fully capable of behaving as an adult before they reach 16, others never seem to get to that level of maturity. We have legal ages for things because it makes definitions easier, though it's always easy to find examples of specific ages being set too high or too low for the people concerned.
[quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: Philbo writes concerning the legalising of homosexual activity with 16 year olds, "It's now treated exactly the same as heterosexual activity involving 16- to 18-year-olds. You think this is a bad thing?" I was making the point, 'When is a child not a child?' He/she is not a child at 16 if they are allowed to marry but this seems not to tally with the protest that a 17 year old should be treated as a 'child' when in police custody. But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age.[/p][/quote]When is a child not a child? At 16, if you're wanting to watch the England U21 match at Adams Park. And as far as I'm concerned, if you believe any heterosexual activity outside marriage is "sinful", nobody's forcing you to have sex outside marriage. What other people do is none of your business. Different people mature at different times: many are fully capable of behaving as an adult before they reach 16, others never seem to get to that level of maturity. We have legal ages for things because it makes definitions easier, though it's always easy to find examples of specific ages being set too high or too low for the people concerned. philbo
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Thu 28 Feb 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

Legal ages for human activities are like rules and 'rules are for the obedience of the inexperienced and the guidance of wise men'. (Often attributed to Sir Douglas Bader).
Legal ages for human activities are like rules and 'rules are for the obedience of the inexperienced and the guidance of wise men'. (Often attributed to Sir Douglas Bader). ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Thu 28 Feb 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

They are a rough and ready safety barrier.
They are a rough and ready safety barrier. ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Thu 28 Feb 13

philbo says...

Thank you, Lawrence, for expressing what I was trying to say far more concisely and pithily :)
Thank you, Lawrence, for expressing what I was trying to say far more concisely and pithily :) philbo
  • Score: 0

6:26pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Peter Simpson says...

Dear Sai-diva,

You wrote, ''Do you really think that there are going to be graphic descriptions of what goes on in the bedroom between gay couples?”

If heterosexual and homosexual marriage are absolutely equal, with no distinction to be allowed, then, as the biological details of the one are already taught in sex education classes, so must be the biological details of the other also be taught, or else there will be no equality, and schools will be guilty of discrimination.

You wrote, “I find it strange that most people who describe themselves as 'pro life' are also in favour of capital punishment, as you have stated in the past that you are”.

I do not consider the execution of one guilty of premeditated murder to be remotely comparable to the destruction of a child in its mother’s womb, a child who is defenceless and has done nothing wrong. Execution is an act of necessary justice to punish evil, but abortion is the destruction of innocent life.

You wrote, “A woman has the right to decide what happens with and to her own body”.

But the body of her child is not her own body. It is a real separate person, with, I might add, an immortal soul. This is proven by John the Baptist in the womb of his mother responding to the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, also in the womb of His mother (Luke 1:44).

You wrote, “Do you feel that it is ok that you as a man can dictate what a woman does with her body”.

My own gender is irrelevant to the debate. There are many women who are horrified by abortion. There are also many women who have had an abortion who deeply regret it. Also, it is not me dictating; it is God, our Maker, decreeing, Do not destroy the life which I have brought into being.

You wrote, “Does your god's forgiveness really have a sell by date of 120 years?”

People have much less than 120 years, because they only have this life in which to make their peace with God. There are no second chances after death, and man’s sin and unbelief are inexcusable (Romans 1:20). This is why the word of God says, “Today if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts” (Hebrews 3:7-8).

You wrote, “So you hold with the theory that even little babies are born from sin? I have a bit of a problem with that”.

I am not clear about the expression “born from sin”. I would use the term “born in sin”, meaning that all come into this world with a sinful nature inherited from their parents. You do not have to teach a child selfishness; it comes naturally. So man by nature is not basically good. By nature he rejects God and prefers sin. That is why Jesus Christ said, “Ye must born again” (John 3:7). Man needs a brand new nature.

Re the charge of claiming to be “better than your fellow man because you are not homosexual”, the Biblical position is that all without exception are in need of salvation through faith in Christ. As I have frequently stated on these blogs, I myself am a sinner in desperate need of God’s mercy, which only Jesus Christ can give.

Yours courteously, Rev. Peter Simpson.
Dear Sai-diva, You wrote, ''Do you really think that there are going to be graphic descriptions of what goes on in the bedroom between gay couples?” If heterosexual and homosexual marriage are absolutely equal, with no distinction to be allowed, then, as the biological details of the one are already taught in sex education classes, so must be the biological details of the other also be taught, or else there will be no equality, and schools will be guilty of discrimination. You wrote, “I find it strange that most people who describe themselves as 'pro life' are also in favour of capital punishment, as you have stated in the past that you are”. I do not consider the execution of one guilty of premeditated murder to be remotely comparable to the destruction of a child in its mother’s womb, a child who is defenceless and has done nothing wrong. Execution is an act of necessary justice to punish evil, but abortion is the destruction of innocent life. You wrote, “A woman has the right to decide what happens with and to her own body”. But the body of her child is not her own body. It is a real separate person, with, I might add, an immortal soul. This is proven by John the Baptist in the womb of his mother responding to the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, also in the womb of His mother (Luke 1:44). You wrote, “Do you feel that it is ok that you as a man can dictate what a woman does with her body”. My own gender is irrelevant to the debate. There are many women who are horrified by abortion. There are also many women who have had an abortion who deeply regret it. Also, it is not me dictating; it is God, our Maker, decreeing, Do not destroy the life which I have brought into being. You wrote, “Does your god's forgiveness really have a sell by date of 120 years?” People have much less than 120 years, because they only have this life in which to make their peace with God. There are no second chances after death, and man’s sin and unbelief are inexcusable (Romans 1:20). This is why the word of God says, “Today if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts” (Hebrews 3:7-8). You wrote, “So you hold with the theory that even little babies are born from sin? I have a bit of a problem with that”. I am not clear about the expression “born from sin”. I would use the term “born in sin”, meaning that all come into this world with a sinful nature inherited from their parents. You do not have to teach a child selfishness; it comes naturally. So man by nature is not basically good. By nature he rejects God and prefers sin. That is why Jesus Christ said, “Ye must born again” (John 3:7). Man needs a brand new nature. Re the charge of claiming to be “better than your fellow man because you are not homosexual”, the Biblical position is that all without exception are in need of salvation through faith in Christ. As I have frequently stated on these blogs, I myself am a sinner in desperate need of God’s mercy, which only Jesus Christ can give. Yours courteously, Rev. Peter Simpson. Peter Simpson
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Peter Simpson says...

Mark Twain : “Faith is believing something you know ain't true”

Not so. Christianity is founded on historical fact. Jesus Christ really lived 2000 years ago. This world’s authors, wits and philosophers did not rise from the dead. Jesus Christ did. This world’s authors, wits and philosophers are not living in people’s hearts right now, but Jesus Christ is by His Spirit.

Christians believe what they know is true. Part of that truth is the realisation of their own sinfulness and of their need of Christ to save them. Any Christian will testify that turning from sin and coming to faith in Christ is the most real thing that has ever happened to him or her.

“I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth” (Job 19:25).

The Samaritans in John’s Gospel declared, “Now we believe ... and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world” (John 4:42).

Gpn01 wrote, “Children should be taught that it's morality that's important, not religion”.

But, respectfully, who decides what the morality is, and does it include the legitimacy of abortion, the taking away of real heart-beating human life? Also secularist morality changes with fashion, and so is never absolute.

Yours courteously, Rev. Peter Simpson.
Mark Twain : “Faith is believing something you know ain't true” Not so. Christianity is founded on historical fact. Jesus Christ really lived 2000 years ago. This world’s authors, wits and philosophers did not rise from the dead. Jesus Christ did. This world’s authors, wits and philosophers are not living in people’s hearts right now, but Jesus Christ is by His Spirit. Christians believe what they know is true. Part of that truth is the realisation of their own sinfulness and of their need of Christ to save them. Any Christian will testify that turning from sin and coming to faith in Christ is the most real thing that has ever happened to him or her. “I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth” (Job 19:25). The Samaritans in John’s Gospel declared, “Now we believe ... and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world” (John 4:42). Gpn01 wrote, “Children should be taught that it's morality that's important, not religion”. But, respectfully, who decides what the morality is, and does it include the legitimacy of abortion, the taking away of real heart-beating human life? Also secularist morality changes with fashion, and so is never absolute. Yours courteously, Rev. Peter Simpson. Peter Simpson
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Thu 28 Feb 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

Mark Twain : “Faith is believing something you know ain't true”
Not so. Christianity is founded on historical fact. Jesus Christ really lived 2000 years ago.


Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God and that Christ rose from the dead. People like me believe that ain’t true.
This world’s authors, wits and philosophers did not rise from the dead. Jesus Christ did. This world’s authors, wits and philosophers are not living in people’s hearts right now, but Jesus Christ is by His Spirit.

Mark Twain and this world’s authors et cetera live in people’s hearts through their writings and even if they didn’t it would not prove your words or disprove those of Mark Twain.

Christians believe what they know is true.

“Faith is believing something you know ain't true”
[italic] [quote] Mark Twain : “Faith is believing something you know ain't true” Not so. Christianity is founded on historical fact. Jesus Christ really lived 2000 years ago. [/quote][/italic] Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God and that Christ rose from the dead. People like me believe that ain’t true. [italic] [quote] This world’s authors, wits and philosophers did not rise from the dead. Jesus Christ did. This world’s authors, wits and philosophers are not living in people’s hearts right now, but Jesus Christ is by His Spirit. [/quote][/italic] Mark Twain and this world’s authors et cetera live in people’s hearts through their writings and even if they didn’t it would not prove your words or disprove those of Mark Twain. [italic] [quote] Christians believe what they know is true. [/quote][/italic] “Faith is believing something you know ain't true” ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

10:58pm Thu 28 Feb 13

philbo says...

Also secularist morality changes with fashion, and so is never absolute.

..which makes it exactly like religious morality. Only a blinkered idiot with no knowledge of history would suggest that religious morality is absolute.

The difference is, as far as I can see, that secularist morality deals with the world as it is.

As for Christians "believing what they know is true" - that requires a definition of the word "know" that does not exist in any dictionary.
[quote]Also secularist morality changes with fashion, and so is never absolute. [/quote] ..which makes it exactly like religious morality. Only a blinkered idiot with no knowledge of history would suggest that religious morality is absolute. The difference is, as far as I can see, that secularist morality deals with the world as it is. As for Christians "believing what they know is true" - that requires a definition of the word "know" that does not exist in any dictionary. philbo
  • Score: 0

12:30am Fri 1 Mar 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

philbo wrote:
Thank you, Lawrence, for expressing what I was trying to say far more concisely and pithily :)
Lawrence shrugs his shoulders modestly: 'All part of the service!'
[quote][p][bold]philbo[/bold] wrote: Thank you, Lawrence, for expressing what I was trying to say far more concisely and pithily :)[/p][/quote]Lawrence shrugs his shoulders modestly: 'All part of the service!' ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

12:37am Fri 1 Mar 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

Francis Harris wrote:
Philbo writes concerning the legalising of homosexual activity with 16 year olds, "It's now treated exactly the same as heterosexual activity involving 16- to 18-year-olds. You think this is a bad thing?"

I was making the point, 'When is a child not a child?' He/she is not a child at 16 if they are allowed to marry but this seems not to tally with the protest that a 17 year old should be treated as a 'child' when in police custody.

But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age.
You say:

But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age.


I said above that when I and my generation were adolescents we seldom thought about anything else - what I can’t understand is why God makes young people absolutely burn with unignoreable sexual passion if he wants them to do nothing about it - unless I am mistaken the Catholic Church believes that if a young man gives himself what is commonly referred to as 'a hand job' he is in a state of 'mortal sin' and if he dies without confessing this he will go to hell.
[quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: Philbo writes concerning the legalising of homosexual activity with 16 year olds, "It's now treated exactly the same as heterosexual activity involving 16- to 18-year-olds. You think this is a bad thing?" I was making the point, 'When is a child not a child?' He/she is not a child at 16 if they are allowed to marry but this seems not to tally with the protest that a 17 year old should be treated as a 'child' when in police custody. But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age.[/p][/quote]You say: [italic] [quote] But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age. [/quote][/italic] I said above that when I and my generation were adolescents we seldom thought about anything else - what I can’t understand is why God makes young people absolutely [italic] burn[/italic] with unignoreable sexual passion if he wants them to do nothing about it - unless I am mistaken the Catholic Church believes that if a young man gives himself what is commonly referred to as 'a hand job' he is in a state of 'mortal sin' and if he dies without confessing this he will go to hell. ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

12:38am Fri 1 Mar 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

Where is the commonsense underlying these beliefs?
Where is the commonsense underlying these beliefs? ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

6:18am Fri 1 Mar 13

gpn01 says...

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Where is the commonsense underlying these beliefs?
Often the necessarily strong bond to a belief overrides common sense. Emperor's new clothes, Canute, etc.
[quote][p][bold]ImpeturbableLawrence[/bold] wrote: Where is the commonsense underlying these beliefs?[/p][/quote]Often the necessarily strong bond to a belief overrides common sense. Emperor's new clothes, Canute, etc. gpn01
  • Score: 0

10:47am Fri 1 Mar 13

KingpinWriter says...

Peter Simpson wrote:
In polite response to Monte Cristo, You wrote, “There is no reason to suppose that sex education should include anything other than normal sexual activity. By "normal", I mean "usual", which clearly will be that between a man and a woman. That is what is done now and there is no reason for it not to continue”. This is not so. Section 403 (1A) (a) of the Education Act 1996 requires that pupils in schools “learn the nature of marriage” as part of sex education. If marriage includes homosexual unions, then children must be taught about those also as an aspect of sex education. The whole point of redefining marriage is to banish any differentiation between ‘usual’ and ‘unusual’. Stonewall have already produced materials to promote gay marriage for use in primary schools. Note, not secondary schools, but primary schools. One booklet promoted by Stonewall is called ‘Daddy’s Roommate’. It reads, “My Mommy and Daddy got a divorce last year. Now there’s somebody new at Daddy’s house. Daddy and his roommate Frank live together (and) sleep together (picture of them both in bed). Being gay is just one more kind of love”. If such material is deemed suitable for primary schools, then why should anyone be coy about more explicit material in secondary schools? In 2010 the Department for Education singled out Stonewall as an organisation it wished to work with “to make sure sex and relationships education encompasses an understanding of the ways in which humans love each other”. You wrote of changing the definition of marriage, “It does not have to threaten whatsoever those who want to marry in a church, nor those who carry out those services”. I am afraid that there is a threat. Aidan O’Neill QC, an expert on EU and human rights law, has stated that the ban on the C of E being able to conduct homosexual weddings is “eminently challengeable” under human rights law and “may well not stand up to scrutiny”. Mr O’Neill also states that in his legal opinion the Church of England has a legal duty to conduct weddings for anyone legally entitled to marry. Mr. O’Neill also considers it to be the case that schools will be under an obligation to teach about gay marriage within sex education classes. Furthermore, in January a source close to the Education Secretary Michael Gove revealed that the Government would be powerless to stop headteachers firing staff who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage. You wrote, “Please don't continue to promote the notion that Christians are the only people on Earth who are worthy of deciding what is right and wrong. They are not”. Courteously, this statement assumes that everyone knows what is right and wrong to start with. Yes, unbelievers can often make right moral choices, because they were created in the image of God and have God-given consciences (which evolution could not have given them). This image of God, however, has been severely marred by man’s rebellion, and consciences have been suppressed and marred. The Bible speaks of men “having their conscience seared” (1 Timothy 4:2). Christianity starts with the teaching that all without exception are sinful. That does not mean that all are going to be wrong on every single moral issue, but it does mean, that, apart from God, all have flawed understandings and hearts inclined to sin. Secularism, however, has no objective standard other than the prevailing opinions of the day. Many of those vigorously promoting gay marriage in the name of what is ‘right’ nevertheless feel no compulsion to prevent the destruction of life in the womb in the name of what is right. That is proof of secularism’s grave deficiency. How many heart-beating babies will lose their lives even this very day in secularist, liberal, progressive and equality-conscious Britain? Why has secularism’s ability to discern right from wrong not stopped all crime, all hatred and malice, all drunkenness and drug-taking? Why has natural selection not done away with these negative qualities for survival? Why do human beings continue to behave badly? The reason is that secularism is powerless to change the human heart. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do that. Yours respectfully and politely, Rev. Peter Simpson.
Peter Simpson wrote:
"which evolution could not have given them"

Are we to interpret this as you showing that you don't believe in Darwin's Treatise on Evolution, Mr. Simpson? If so you will also find yourself on the losing side of that battle as well.
[quote][p][bold]Peter Simpson[/bold] wrote: In polite response to Monte Cristo, You wrote, “There is no reason to suppose that sex education should include anything other than normal sexual activity. By "normal", I mean "usual", which clearly will be that between a man and a woman. That is what is done now and there is no reason for it not to continue”. This is not so. Section 403 (1A) (a) of the Education Act 1996 requires that pupils in schools “learn the nature of marriage” as part of sex education. If marriage includes homosexual unions, then children must be taught about those also as an aspect of sex education. The whole point of redefining marriage is to banish any differentiation between ‘usual’ and ‘unusual’. Stonewall have already produced materials to promote gay marriage for use in primary schools. Note, not secondary schools, but primary schools. One booklet promoted by Stonewall is called ‘Daddy’s Roommate’. It reads, “My Mommy and Daddy got a divorce last year. Now there’s somebody new at Daddy’s house. Daddy and his roommate Frank live together (and) sleep together (picture of them both in bed). Being gay is just one more kind of love”. If such material is deemed suitable for primary schools, then why should anyone be coy about more explicit material in secondary schools? In 2010 the Department for Education singled out Stonewall as an organisation it wished to work with “to make sure sex and relationships education encompasses an understanding of the ways in which humans love each other”. You wrote of changing the definition of marriage, “It does not have to threaten whatsoever those who want to marry in a church, nor those who carry out those services”. I am afraid that there is a threat. Aidan O’Neill QC, an expert on EU and human rights law, has stated that the ban on the C of E being able to conduct homosexual weddings is “eminently challengeable” under human rights law and “may well not stand up to scrutiny”. Mr O’Neill also states that in his legal opinion the Church of England has a legal duty to conduct weddings for anyone legally entitled to marry. Mr. O’Neill also considers it to be the case that schools will be under an obligation to teach about gay marriage within sex education classes. Furthermore, in January a source close to the Education Secretary Michael Gove revealed that the Government would be powerless to stop headteachers firing staff who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage. You wrote, “Please don't continue to promote the notion that Christians are the only people on Earth who are worthy of deciding what is right and wrong. They are not”. Courteously, this statement assumes that everyone knows what is right and wrong to start with. Yes, unbelievers can often make right moral choices, because they were created in the image of God and have God-given consciences (which evolution could not have given them). This image of God, however, has been severely marred by man’s rebellion, and consciences have been suppressed and marred. The Bible speaks of men “having their conscience seared” (1 Timothy 4:2). Christianity starts with the teaching that all without exception are sinful. That does not mean that all are going to be wrong on every single moral issue, but it does mean, that, apart from God, all have flawed understandings and hearts inclined to sin. Secularism, however, has no objective standard other than the prevailing opinions of the day. Many of those vigorously promoting gay marriage in the name of what is ‘right’ nevertheless feel no compulsion to prevent the destruction of life in the womb in the name of what is right. That is proof of secularism’s grave deficiency. How many heart-beating babies will lose their lives even this very day in secularist, liberal, progressive and equality-conscious Britain? Why has secularism’s ability to discern right from wrong not stopped all crime, all hatred and malice, all drunkenness and drug-taking? Why has natural selection not done away with these negative qualities for survival? Why do human beings continue to behave badly? The reason is that secularism is powerless to change the human heart. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do that. Yours respectfully and politely, Rev. Peter Simpson.[/p][/quote]Peter Simpson wrote: "which evolution could not have given them" Are we to interpret this as you showing that you don't believe in Darwin's Treatise on Evolution, Mr. Simpson? If so you will also find yourself on the losing side of that battle as well. KingpinWriter
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Dr James says...

Peter Simpson wrote:
Mark Twain : “Faith is believing something you know ain't true” Not so. Christianity is founded on historical fact. Jesus Christ really lived 2000 years ago. This world’s authors, wits and philosophers did not rise from the dead. Jesus Christ did. This world’s authors, wits and philosophers are not living in people’s hearts right now, but Jesus Christ is by His Spirit. Christians believe what they know is true. Part of that truth is the realisation of their own sinfulness and of their need of Christ to save them. Any Christian will testify that turning from sin and coming to faith in Christ is the most real thing that has ever happened to him or her. “I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth” (Job 19:25). The Samaritans in John’s Gospel declared, “Now we believe ... and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world” (John 4:42). Gpn01 wrote, “Children should be taught that it's morality that's important, not religion”. But, respectfully, who decides what the morality is, and does it include the legitimacy of abortion, the taking away of real heart-beating human life? Also secularist morality changes with fashion, and so is never absolute. Yours courteously, Rev. Peter Simpson.
Reading your posts, you personnally cannot prove that JC arose from the dead, neither can anyone on this planet, you base all facts on your belief and only your belief, you quote what is written by writers, although what you quote is re-wriiten from Aramaic in the middle ages, you really should not been pontifcating your views on others, live by all means, but live and let live Mr Simpson
[quote][p][bold]Peter Simpson[/bold] wrote: Mark Twain : “Faith is believing something you know ain't true” Not so. Christianity is founded on historical fact. Jesus Christ really lived 2000 years ago. This world’s authors, wits and philosophers did not rise from the dead. Jesus Christ did. This world’s authors, wits and philosophers are not living in people’s hearts right now, but Jesus Christ is by His Spirit. Christians believe what they know is true. Part of that truth is the realisation of their own sinfulness and of their need of Christ to save them. Any Christian will testify that turning from sin and coming to faith in Christ is the most real thing that has ever happened to him or her. “I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth” (Job 19:25). The Samaritans in John’s Gospel declared, “Now we believe ... and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world” (John 4:42). Gpn01 wrote, “Children should be taught that it's morality that's important, not religion”. But, respectfully, who decides what the morality is, and does it include the legitimacy of abortion, the taking away of real heart-beating human life? Also secularist morality changes with fashion, and so is never absolute. Yours courteously, Rev. Peter Simpson.[/p][/quote]Reading your posts, you personnally cannot prove that JC arose from the dead, neither can anyone on this planet, you base all facts on your belief and only your belief, you quote what is written by writers, although what you quote is re-wriiten from Aramaic in the middle ages, you really should not been pontifcating your views on others, live by all means, but live and let live Mr Simpson Dr James
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Dr James says...

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Francis Harris wrote: Philbo writes concerning the legalising of homosexual activity with 16 year olds, "It's now treated exactly the same as heterosexual activity involving 16- to 18-year-olds. You think this is a bad thing?" I was making the point, 'When is a child not a child?' He/she is not a child at 16 if they are allowed to marry but this seems not to tally with the protest that a 17 year old should be treated as a 'child' when in police custody. But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age.
You say:
But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age.
I said above that when I and my generation were adolescents we seldom thought about anything else - what I can’t understand is why God makes young people absolutely burn with unignoreable sexual passion if he wants them to do nothing about it - unless I am mistaken the Catholic Church believes that if a young man gives himself what is commonly referred to as 'a hand job' he is in a state of 'mortal sin' and if he dies without confessing this he will go to hell.
Oh my word.......Im going to hell, ......Dr J starts sweating, eyes wobbling in deep confusion, thought bubble appears above head....... at least 3 times a day, since the age of 12, now 44, Dr J grabs for the calculator......that
s 35,040 times at say 5 mins each time Crickey I've spent 121.66 days self pleasuring.

First question, why I am not blind, second question, how the earth is it still attached to my body, third question I ve confessed to 500 readers, phew...Im saved
[quote][p][bold]ImpeturbableLawrence[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Francis Harris[/bold] wrote: Philbo writes concerning the legalising of homosexual activity with 16 year olds, "It's now treated exactly the same as heterosexual activity involving 16- to 18-year-olds. You think this is a bad thing?" I was making the point, 'When is a child not a child?' He/she is not a child at 16 if they are allowed to marry but this seems not to tally with the protest that a 17 year old should be treated as a 'child' when in police custody. But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age.[/p][/quote]You say: [italic] [quote] But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age. [/quote][/italic] I said above that when I and my generation were adolescents we seldom thought about anything else - what I can’t understand is why God makes young people absolutely [italic] burn[/italic] with unignoreable sexual passion if he wants them to do nothing about it - unless I am mistaken the Catholic Church believes that if a young man gives himself what is commonly referred to as 'a hand job' he is in a state of 'mortal sin' and if he dies without confessing this he will go to hell.[/p][/quote]Oh my word.......Im going to hell, ......Dr J starts sweating, eyes wobbling in deep confusion, thought bubble appears above head....... at least 3 times a day, since the age of 12, now 44, Dr J grabs for the calculator......that s 35,040 times at say 5 mins each time Crickey I've spent 121.66 days self pleasuring. First question, why I am not blind, second question, how the earth is it still attached to my body, third question I ve confessed to 500 readers, phew...Im saved Dr James
  • Score: 1

1:49pm Fri 1 Mar 13

sai-diva says...

Hi Pete,thanks for taking the time to answer some of the points I raised, but..

you say...
''I do not consider the execution of one guilty of premeditated murder to be remotely comparable to the destruction of a child in its mother’s womb, a child who is defenceless and has done nothing wrong. Execution is an act of necessary justice to punish evil, but abortion is the destruction of innocent life. ''

Except when it is done in error, as has happened innumerable times as no justice system is perfect. I know you and I have debated this one before, but in he 10 commandments it says thou shalt not murder. It's quite clear, there is no 'except'. To try and teach people not to murder, by murdering someone is daft. It's still taking a life, the rest is just a judgement call, and ''judge not'' and all that. If you really believe in a judgement day it is then you murderer will get their come uppance.

You say
''If heterosexual and homosexual marriage are absolutely equal, with no distinction to be allowed, then, as the biological details of the one are already taught in sex education classes, so must be the biological details of the other also be taught, or else there will be no equality, and schools will be guilty of discrimination.''

They will be taught things that are appropriate to their age an understanding, as has been said above. Do you get 'hot under the collar'' imagining what will be taught in sex education in schools. I'm sure that they don't teach about alot of things that go on between consenting, married heterosexual couples, who are also well able to carry out the 'acts' that you seem to find so awful.
Do you think that there should be any sex education in school at all? If the answer is no, would you pull your child from school during that lesson, and would you give them your own sex education lesson?

On these two points..
''But the body of her child is not her own body. It is a real separate person, with, I might add, an immortal soul. This is proven by John the Baptist in the womb of his mother responding to the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, also in the womb of His mother (Luke 1:44). ''

and..
''My own gender is irrelevant to the debate. There are many women who are horrified by abortion. There are also many women who have had an abortion who deeply regret it. Also, it is not me dictating; it is God, our Maker, decreeing, Do not destroy the life which I have brought into being. ''

Do you believe then, as the catholics do, that life begins at conception, even tho it would not be viable outside the womb?A lot of pregnancies 'self terminate' for lots of reasons, who is responsible there? Is there any reason that you would accept for a termination? A foetus who is badly formed perhaps, or a threat to the life of the mother, or a pregnancy that is the result of some abuse, rape or incest?
Your gender s very relevent to this debate,men have been imposing their will on women for millennia, even within your church there is not 'equality' as you will not allow women to preach. The bible is full of mysoginistic quotes. There is only a 'god the father' where's the mother in all of this. You cannot bear children, yet you want to force women to have children they don't feel able to bear.Women, amongst your version of bible believing xtians, come across as being second class citizens.

you say..
''People have much less than 120 years, because they only have this life in which to make their peace with God. There are no second chances after death, and man’s sin and unbelief are inexcusable (Romans 1:20). This is why the word of God says, “Today if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts” (Hebrews 3:7-8). ''

on this point we may agree apart from the 'make their peace with god'' bit. I would put ''make the most of their lives'' at that point.

you say..
''I am not clear about the expression “born from sin”. I would use the term “born in sin”, meaning that all come into this world with a sinful nature inherited from their parents. You do not have to teach a child selfishness; it comes naturally. So man by nature is not basically good. By nature he rejects God and prefers sin. That is why Jesus Christ said, “Ye must born again” (John 3:7). Man needs a brand new nature.''

So when you see a new born baby, what do you think? Do you think look at this lovely perfect creature, a product born from the love of two humans, or do you think look at that poor little sinner, carrying the guilt of his/her parents sin.
Just a question, at this point, do you think that sex between a man and a woman, using contraception, so that it's not for procreation,to be a 'sin'?

There were one or two more points that you didn't answer,
this one in particular.

''In this country, the country in which you live, the Protestant Reformation' was carried out so that the then present king, could redefine marriage, so that he could divorce his then wife, as she could not bear him an heir. If it wasn't for him, your religion would have suffered more persecution, and taken longer to establish as the Roman Catholics would have been the dominant religion for much longer, and you would have had to wait for 'modern, trendy liberals' to initiate change.
Could you define the term 'bible believing christian' for me, as I know an aweful lot of people who believe in the bible, and a christian god who don't seem to fit your criteria, and you all seem to believe in the same 'book' and the same 'god'.

Any chance you could answer the points raised?
Hi Pete,thanks for taking the time to answer some of the points I raised, but.. you say... ''I do not consider the execution of one guilty of premeditated murder to be remotely comparable to the destruction of a child in its mother’s womb, a child who is defenceless and has done nothing wrong. Execution is an act of necessary justice to punish evil, but abortion is the destruction of innocent life. '' Except when it is done in error, as has happened innumerable times as no justice system is perfect. I know you and I have debated this one before, but in he 10 commandments it says thou shalt not murder. It's quite clear, there is no 'except'. To try and teach people not to murder, by murdering someone is daft. It's still taking a life, the rest is just a judgement call, and ''judge not'' and all that. If you really believe in a judgement day it is then you murderer will get their come uppance. You say ''If heterosexual and homosexual marriage are absolutely equal, with no distinction to be allowed, then, as the biological details of the one are already taught in sex education classes, so must be the biological details of the other also be taught, or else there will be no equality, and schools will be guilty of discrimination.'' They will be taught things that are appropriate to their age an understanding, as has been said above. Do you get 'hot under the collar'' imagining what will be taught in sex education in schools. I'm sure that they don't teach about alot of things that go on between consenting, married heterosexual couples, who are also well able to carry out the 'acts' that you seem to find so awful. Do you think that there should be any sex education in school at all? If the answer is no, would you pull your child from school during that lesson, and would you give them your own sex education lesson? On these two points.. ''But the body of her child is not her own body. It is a real separate person, with, I might add, an immortal soul. This is proven by John the Baptist in the womb of his mother responding to the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, also in the womb of His mother (Luke 1:44). '' and.. ''My own gender is irrelevant to the debate. There are many women who are horrified by abortion. There are also many women who have had an abortion who deeply regret it. Also, it is not me dictating; it is God, our Maker, decreeing, Do not destroy the life which I have brought into being. '' Do you believe then, as the catholics do, that life begins at conception, even tho it would not be viable outside the womb?A lot of pregnancies 'self terminate' for lots of reasons, who is responsible there? Is there any reason that you would accept for a termination? A foetus who is badly formed perhaps, or a threat to the life of the mother, or a pregnancy that is the result of some abuse, rape or incest? Your gender s very relevent to this debate,men have been imposing their will on women for millennia, even within your church there is not 'equality' as you will not allow women to preach. The bible is full of mysoginistic quotes. There is only a 'god the father' where's the mother in all of this. You cannot bear children, yet you want to force women to have children they don't feel able to bear.Women, amongst your version of bible believing xtians, come across as being second class citizens. you say.. ''People have much less than 120 years, because they only have this life in which to make their peace with God. There are no second chances after death, and man’s sin and unbelief are inexcusable (Romans 1:20). This is why the word of God says, “Today if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts” (Hebrews 3:7-8). '' on this point we may agree apart from the 'make their peace with god'' bit. I would put ''make the most of their lives'' at that point. you say.. ''I am not clear about the expression “born from sin”. I would use the term “born in sin”, meaning that all come into this world with a sinful nature inherited from their parents. You do not have to teach a child selfishness; it comes naturally. So man by nature is not basically good. By nature he rejects God and prefers sin. That is why Jesus Christ said, “Ye must born again” (John 3:7). Man needs a brand new nature.'' So when you see a new born baby, what do you think? Do you think look at this lovely perfect creature, a product born from the love of two humans, or do you think look at that poor little sinner, carrying the guilt of his/her parents sin. Just a question, at this point, do you think that sex between a man and a woman, using contraception, so that it's not for procreation,to be a 'sin'? There were one or two more points that you didn't answer, this one in particular. ''In this country, the country in which you live, the Protestant Reformation' was carried out so that the then present king, could redefine marriage, so that he could divorce his then wife, as she could not bear him an heir. If it wasn't for him, your religion would have suffered more persecution, and taken longer to establish as the Roman Catholics would have been the dominant religion for much longer, and you would have had to wait for 'modern, trendy liberals' to initiate change. Could you define the term 'bible believing christian' for me, as I know an aweful lot of people who believe in the bible, and a christian god who don't seem to fit your criteria, and you all seem to believe in the same 'book' and the same 'god'. Any chance you could answer the points raised? sai-diva
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Fri 1 Mar 13

philbo says...

KingpinWriter wrote:
Peter Simpson wrote:
In polite response to Monte Cristo, You wrote, “There is no reason to suppose that sex education should include anything other than normal sexual activity. By "normal", I mean "usual", which clearly will be that between a man and a woman. That is what is done now and there is no reason for it not to continue”. This is not so. Section 403 (1A) (a) of the Education Act 1996 requires that pupils in schools “learn the nature of marriage” as part of sex education. If marriage includes homosexual unions, then children must be taught about those also as an aspect of sex education. The whole point of redefining marriage is to banish any differentiation between ‘usual’ and ‘unusual’. Stonewall have already produced materials to promote gay marriage for use in primary schools. Note, not secondary schools, but primary schools. One booklet promoted by Stonewall is called ‘Daddy’s Roommate’. It reads, “My Mommy and Daddy got a divorce last year. Now there’s somebody new at Daddy’s house. Daddy and his roommate Frank live together (and) sleep together (picture of them both in bed). Being gay is just one more kind of love”. If such material is deemed suitable for primary schools, then why should anyone be coy about more explicit material in secondary schools? In 2010 the Department for Education singled out Stonewall as an organisation it wished to work with “to make sure sex and relationships education encompasses an understanding of the ways in which humans love each other”. You wrote of changing the definition of marriage, “It does not have to threaten whatsoever those who want to marry in a church, nor those who carry out those services”. I am afraid that there is a threat. Aidan O’Neill QC, an expert on EU and human rights law, has stated that the ban on the C of E being able to conduct homosexual weddings is “eminently challengeable” under human rights law and “may well not stand up to scrutiny”. Mr O’Neill also states that in his legal opinion the Church of England has a legal duty to conduct weddings for anyone legally entitled to marry. Mr. O’Neill also considers it to be the case that schools will be under an obligation to teach about gay marriage within sex education classes. Furthermore, in January a source close to the Education Secretary Michael Gove revealed that the Government would be powerless to stop headteachers firing staff who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage. You wrote, “Please don't continue to promote the notion that Christians are the only people on Earth who are worthy of deciding what is right and wrong. They are not”. Courteously, this statement assumes that everyone knows what is right and wrong to start with. Yes, unbelievers can often make right moral choices, because they were created in the image of God and have God-given consciences (which evolution could not have given them). This image of God, however, has been severely marred by man’s rebellion, and consciences have been suppressed and marred. The Bible speaks of men “having their conscience seared” (1 Timothy 4:2). Christianity starts with the teaching that all without exception are sinful. That does not mean that all are going to be wrong on every single moral issue, but it does mean, that, apart from God, all have flawed understandings and hearts inclined to sin. Secularism, however, has no objective standard other than the prevailing opinions of the day. Many of those vigorously promoting gay marriage in the name of what is ‘right’ nevertheless feel no compulsion to prevent the destruction of life in the womb in the name of what is right. That is proof of secularism’s grave deficiency. How many heart-beating babies will lose their lives even this very day in secularist, liberal, progressive and equality-conscious Britain? Why has secularism’s ability to discern right from wrong not stopped all crime, all hatred and malice, all drunkenness and drug-taking? Why has natural selection not done away with these negative qualities for survival? Why do human beings continue to behave badly? The reason is that secularism is powerless to change the human heart. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do that. Yours respectfully and politely, Rev. Peter Simpson.
Peter Simpson wrote:
"which evolution could not have given them"

Are we to interpret this as you showing that you don't believe in Darwin's Treatise on Evolution, Mr. Simpson? If so you will also find yourself on the losing side of that battle as well.
Kingpinwriter wrote:
Peter Simpson wrote:
"which evolution could not have given them"

Are we to interpret this as you showing that you don't believe in Darwin's Treatise on Evolution, Mr. Simpson? If so you will also find yourself on the losing side of that battle as well.

You haven't come across our "reverend" Simpson before? A quick catch-up:

Peter has a lot of factually incorrect beliefs - that the Earth is six thousand years old, that (vegetarian) dinosaurs shared the world with earliy humans, etc. ad infinitum.

He has a fundamental ("fundamentalist's", even) lack of understanding of as far as I can tell pretty much everything, yet still feels he can pontificate about about subjects where his ignorance is total.

Compared to the perfection in proof that he expects from others, his ability to assert total and utter rubbish backed by no evidence whatsoever is about as hypocritical as anybody I've come across in a decade on the internet; when I have brought this up before, instead of addressing his failings he ignores me.
[quote][p][bold]KingpinWriter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter Simpson[/bold] wrote: In polite response to Monte Cristo, You wrote, “There is no reason to suppose that sex education should include anything other than normal sexual activity. By "normal", I mean "usual", which clearly will be that between a man and a woman. That is what is done now and there is no reason for it not to continue”. This is not so. Section 403 (1A) (a) of the Education Act 1996 requires that pupils in schools “learn the nature of marriage” as part of sex education. If marriage includes homosexual unions, then children must be taught about those also as an aspect of sex education. The whole point of redefining marriage is to banish any differentiation between ‘usual’ and ‘unusual’. Stonewall have already produced materials to promote gay marriage for use in primary schools. Note, not secondary schools, but primary schools. One booklet promoted by Stonewall is called ‘Daddy’s Roommate’. It reads, “My Mommy and Daddy got a divorce last year. Now there’s somebody new at Daddy’s house. Daddy and his roommate Frank live together (and) sleep together (picture of them both in bed). Being gay is just one more kind of love”. If such material is deemed suitable for primary schools, then why should anyone be coy about more explicit material in secondary schools? In 2010 the Department for Education singled out Stonewall as an organisation it wished to work with “to make sure sex and relationships education encompasses an understanding of the ways in which humans love each other”. You wrote of changing the definition of marriage, “It does not have to threaten whatsoever those who want to marry in a church, nor those who carry out those services”. I am afraid that there is a threat. Aidan O’Neill QC, an expert on EU and human rights law, has stated that the ban on the C of E being able to conduct homosexual weddings is “eminently challengeable” under human rights law and “may well not stand up to scrutiny”. Mr O’Neill also states that in his legal opinion the Church of England has a legal duty to conduct weddings for anyone legally entitled to marry. Mr. O’Neill also considers it to be the case that schools will be under an obligation to teach about gay marriage within sex education classes. Furthermore, in January a source close to the Education Secretary Michael Gove revealed that the Government would be powerless to stop headteachers firing staff who refuse to endorse same-sex marriage. You wrote, “Please don't continue to promote the notion that Christians are the only people on Earth who are worthy of deciding what is right and wrong. They are not”. Courteously, this statement assumes that everyone knows what is right and wrong to start with. Yes, unbelievers can often make right moral choices, because they were created in the image of God and have God-given consciences (which evolution could not have given them). This image of God, however, has been severely marred by man’s rebellion, and consciences have been suppressed and marred. The Bible speaks of men “having their conscience seared” (1 Timothy 4:2). Christianity starts with the teaching that all without exception are sinful. That does not mean that all are going to be wrong on every single moral issue, but it does mean, that, apart from God, all have flawed understandings and hearts inclined to sin. Secularism, however, has no objective standard other than the prevailing opinions of the day. Many of those vigorously promoting gay marriage in the name of what is ‘right’ nevertheless feel no compulsion to prevent the destruction of life in the womb in the name of what is right. That is proof of secularism’s grave deficiency. How many heart-beating babies will lose their lives even this very day in secularist, liberal, progressive and equality-conscious Britain? Why has secularism’s ability to discern right from wrong not stopped all crime, all hatred and malice, all drunkenness and drug-taking? Why has natural selection not done away with these negative qualities for survival? Why do human beings continue to behave badly? The reason is that secularism is powerless to change the human heart. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do that. Yours respectfully and politely, Rev. Peter Simpson.[/p][/quote]Peter Simpson wrote: "which evolution could not have given them" Are we to interpret this as you showing that you don't believe in Darwin's Treatise on Evolution, Mr. Simpson? If so you will also find yourself on the losing side of that battle as well.[/p][/quote]Kingpinwriter wrote: [quote]Peter Simpson wrote: "which evolution could not have given them" Are we to interpret this as you showing that you don't believe in Darwin's Treatise on Evolution, Mr. Simpson? If so you will also find yourself on the losing side of that battle as well.[/quote] You haven't come across our "reverend" Simpson before? A quick catch-up: Peter has a lot of factually incorrect beliefs - that the Earth is six thousand years old, that (vegetarian) dinosaurs shared the world with earliy humans, etc. ad infinitum. He has a fundamental ("fundamentalist's", even) lack of understanding of as far as I can tell pretty much everything, yet still feels he can pontificate about about subjects where his ignorance is total. Compared to the perfection in proof that he expects from others, his ability to assert total and utter rubbish backed by no evidence whatsoever is about as hypocritical as anybody I've come across in a decade on the internet; when I have brought this up before, instead of addressing his failings he ignores me. philbo
  • Score: 1

3:41pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Francis Harris says...

ImpeturbableLawrence wrote:
Francis Harris wrote: Philbo writes concerning the legalising of homosexual activity with 16 year olds, "It's now treated exactly the same as heterosexual activity involving 16- to 18-year-olds. You think this is a bad thing?" I was making the point, 'When is a child not a child?' He/she is not a child at 16 if they are allowed to marry but this seems not to tally with the protest that a 17 year old should be treated as a 'child' when in police custody. But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age.
You say:
But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age.

I said above that when I and my generation were adolescents we seldom thought about anything else - what I can’t understand is why God makes young people absolutely burn with unignoreable sexual passion if he wants them to do nothing about it - unless I am mistaken the Catholic Church believes that if a young man gives himself what is commonly referred to as 'a hand job' he is in a state of 'mortal sin' and if he dies without confessing this he will go to hell.

Imperturbable Lawrence - what do you think of the first point - 'when is a child not a chlld?' Manifestly not when entering marriage but evidently, according to some, when in police custody. Oh, by the way, if you mean the Roman catholic church, please say so. I am a Protestant but a member of the catholic church (that is the universal church consisting of all true believers).
ImpeturbableLawrence wrote: Francis Harris wrote: Philbo writes concerning the legalising of homosexual activity with 16 year olds, "It's now treated exactly the same as heterosexual activity involving 16- to 18-year-olds. You think this is a bad thing?" I was making the point, 'When is a child not a child?' He/she is not a child at 16 if they are allowed to marry but this seems not to tally with the protest that a 17 year old should be treated as a 'child' when in police custody. But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age. You say: But I do believe that heterosexual activity is sinful when practised outside marriage at whatever age. I said above that when I and my generation were adolescents we seldom thought about anything else - what I can’t understand is why God makes young people absolutely burn with unignoreable sexual passion if he wants them to do nothing about it - unless I am mistaken the Catholic Church believes that if a young man gives himself what is commonly referred to as 'a hand job' he is in a state of 'mortal sin' and if he dies without confessing this he will go to hell. Imperturbable Lawrence - what do you think of the first point - 'when is a child not a chlld?' Manifestly not when entering marriage but evidently, according to some, when in police custody. Oh, by the way, if you mean the Roman catholic church, please say so. I am a Protestant but a member of the catholic church (that is the universal church consisting of all true believers). Francis Harris
  • Score: 0

11:18am Sat 2 Mar 13

sai-diva says...

Hi Francis, when you say you are a member of the catholic( I understand the term) church, I think you will have to be more specific. I know of many 'bible believing' xtians who seem to believe in the same god,read the same book,yet do not fill Pete's criteria as to what makes a true believer.Certainly being c of e is not good enough.
As for your question, if a person is old enough to marry, work,pay taxes have children,then they are certainly old enough to engage in sex of whatever kind they like, as long as they have been given the information and freedom to make an informed choice.The anomaly that they can do these things, yet are still considered children in the eyes of the law is because,I feel, that mistakes made in that 16 to 18 year age group,should not be carried forward to affect their whole lives.
And although it may not fit in with your moral standards, by the time most children reach 16, they have already been engaging in some form of sexual activity.What is your view on masturbation?
Hi Francis, when you say you are a member of the catholic( I understand the term) church, I think you will have to be more specific. I know of many 'bible believing' xtians who seem to believe in the same god,read the same book,yet do not fill Pete's criteria as to what makes a true believer.Certainly being c of e is not good enough. As for your question, if a person is old enough to marry, work,pay taxes have children,then they are certainly old enough to engage in sex of whatever kind they like, as long as they have been given the information and freedom to make an informed choice.The anomaly that they can do these things, yet are still considered children in the eyes of the law is because,I feel, that mistakes made in that 16 to 18 year age group,should not be carried forward to affect their whole lives. And although it may not fit in with your moral standards, by the time most children reach 16, they have already been engaging in some form of sexual activity.What is your view on masturbation? sai-diva
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Sat 2 Mar 13

KingpinWriter says...

Hello Philbo, I've seen some of his recent rhetoric... but that account you've written confirms my worst fears of his being a literal interpretist.

It's a shame, I'm a former Christian gone atheist and despite that I have a tremendous amout of love and respect for two priests who've played large roles in my life... and they, as well as other reasonable and open-minded Christians are all done a disservice by the Bible-thumping of people like Mr. Simpson.

I remember the particular tantrum he threw regarding a show the Wycombe Swan was showing three years ago... it seems he's assumed the role of moral judge in the Wycombe and Penn area, even though nobody asked or wanted him to.


Thankfully, Mr. Simpson's power equates to a big fish in a very, very miniscule pond, and regardless of his "moral" crusade (though it's more a crusade of his warped morals) he won't be able to prevent the fair treatment of gay and lesbian couples with the very likely passage of the same-sex marriage bill.
Hello Philbo, I've seen some of his recent rhetoric... but that account you've written confirms my worst fears of his being a literal interpretist. It's a shame, I'm a former Christian gone atheist and despite that I have a tremendous amout of love and respect for two priests who've played large roles in my life... and they, as well as other reasonable and open-minded Christians are all done a disservice by the Bible-thumping of people like Mr. Simpson. I remember the particular tantrum he threw regarding a show the Wycombe Swan was showing three years ago... it seems he's assumed the role of moral judge in the Wycombe and Penn area, even though nobody asked or wanted him to. Thankfully, Mr. Simpson's power equates to a big fish in a very, very miniscule pond, and regardless of his "moral" crusade (though it's more a crusade of his warped morals) he won't be able to prevent the fair treatment of gay and lesbian couples with the very likely passage of the same-sex marriage bill. KingpinWriter
  • Score: 1

10:30pm Wed 6 Mar 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

Apologies for not replying before – I did not realise you had asked me a question – I think we stop being children and become adults unevenly and in different ways at different times – it would be absurd to put two heterosexual eighteen year-olds together for long periods on their own as if they were non-sexual children but it would be silly to rely on the advice of an eighteen year old concerning financial matters - that is why I said that Legal ages for human activities are like rules and are only a rough and ready safety barrier.
I take your point about the universality of the church of Christ and I realise Catholic means ‘universal’ but used the phrase Catholic Church as with the capital letters as that is usually considered to denote Roman Catholicism - the Anglican Church considers itself to be Catholic and reformed but I would always call it the Anglican Church – likewise if someone were a Wesleyan Methodist or a member of the United Reformed Church I refer to them as a Wesleyan Methodist or a member of the URC.
Apologies for not replying before – I did not realise you had asked me a question – I think we stop being children and become adults unevenly and in different ways at different times – it would be absurd to put two heterosexual eighteen year-olds together for long periods on their own as if they were non-sexual children but it would be silly to rely on the advice of an eighteen year old concerning financial matters - that is why I said that Legal ages for human activities are like rules and are only a rough and ready safety barrier. I take your point about the universality of the church of Christ and I realise Catholic means ‘universal’ but used the phrase Catholic Church as with the capital letters as that is usually considered to denote Roman Catholicism - the Anglican Church considers itself to be Catholic and reformed but I would always call it the Anglican Church – likewise if someone were a Wesleyan Methodist or a member of the United Reformed Church I refer to them as a Wesleyan Methodist or a member of the URC. ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

10:48pm Wed 6 Mar 13

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

(Last post in reply to Francis Harris
3:41pm Fri 1 Mar 13)
(Last post in reply to Francis Harris 3:41pm Fri 1 Mar 13) ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

10:10pm Sat 23 Mar 13

solafide says...

The Protestant Reformation was not the result of Henry VIII seeking a divorce. All that Henry did was to remove the Pope as head of the RC Church and made himself the head instead. He retained all other beliefs peculiar to the RC Church.

Henry burned several Bible believing Christians, who were called Lollards. The only good thing he did, which did help the Reformation to advance, was the placing of a bible in English in every parish church. Prior to that, he had the Bible translator, William Tyndale, tracked down and burnt at the stake in Vilvorde, Belgium.

The difference between divorce and annulment is as follows. Divorce is the breaking of the marriage covenant for various reasons, two of which, as Rev Simpson has already pointed out, are Biblical. An annulment, on the other hand, was granted if a marriage was not lawful or consummated. Henry's appeal was on the grounds that he had married his brother's wife. He thought that the failure of Catherine to produce a male heir was because of this. He was fearful that another long war would break out if the succession was not secured.

The pope was the only one in those days who could annul a marriage. He was willing to grant Henry his request. In fact, the Papal Nuncio, Campeggio, was on the way with the document when he was recalled. The reason for this was that Catherine's nephew happened to be the Holy Roman Emperor. He threatened to flatten the Vatican if the petition was granted so the pope annulled the annulment.

I repeat, Henry lived and died a Roman Catholic. He left money for masses to be said for the repose of his soul in purgatory. They are still said to this very day. The Mass and purgatory are Roman Catholic dogmas which have no Biblical warrant and which Biblical Christians have no truck with.

The difference between Bible believing Christians and others who call themselves Christian is that true Christians take the Bible as the sole authority for what is to be believed while others, such as so-called modernists, pick and choose what they want to believe, and yet others, such as Roman Catholics, place tradition on an equal footing with the Bible. In reality, tradition supplants the Bible because these traditions, in many instances, contradict Biblical teaching.

This is not to be wondered at because both Christ and his Apostles repeatedly warned that false prophets would arise and deceive many.

I wasn't aware that any atheists were burned in the Spanish, or any other Inquisition. It was Bible believing Christians who were principally tortured and burnt. Many Jews were likewise persecuted, as were a number of Muslims.

Many wealthy Roman Catholics were also accused of heresy in order that the RC Church could get hold of their wealth. If a person was accused of heresy their estate became the property of the RC Church even if heresy wasn't proved.

Those who point out the misdemeanors of many Bible characters seem to ethink that this discredits the Bible. The fact is that these individuals were acting contrary to what the Bible teaches. It is like blaming the driving test for the bad driving of car owners.

For the one who said judge not etc. How does he know that another person is judging?

I have seen educational material that depicts homosexual acts in cartoon form. Since a number of contributors have stated their satisfaction that children should be taught these things seems to say all that needs to be said about atheistic morality.
The Protestant Reformation was not the result of Henry VIII seeking a divorce. All that Henry did was to remove the Pope as head of the RC Church and made himself the head instead. He retained all other beliefs peculiar to the RC Church. Henry burned several Bible believing Christians, who were called Lollards. The only good thing he did, which did help the Reformation to advance, was the placing of a bible in English in every parish church. Prior to that, he had the Bible translator, William Tyndale, tracked down and burnt at the stake in Vilvorde, Belgium. The difference between divorce and annulment is as follows. Divorce is the breaking of the marriage covenant for various reasons, two of which, as Rev Simpson has already pointed out, are Biblical. An annulment, on the other hand, was granted if a marriage was not lawful or consummated. Henry's appeal was on the grounds that he had married his brother's wife. He thought that the failure of Catherine to produce a male heir was because of this. He was fearful that another long war would break out if the succession was not secured. The pope was the only one in those days who could annul a marriage. He was willing to grant Henry his request. In fact, the Papal Nuncio, Campeggio, was on the way with the document when he was recalled. The reason for this was that Catherine's nephew happened to be the Holy Roman Emperor. He threatened to flatten the Vatican if the petition was granted so the pope annulled the annulment. I repeat, Henry lived and died a Roman Catholic. He left money for masses to be said for the repose of his soul in purgatory. They are still said to this very day. The Mass and purgatory are Roman Catholic dogmas which have no Biblical warrant and which Biblical Christians have no truck with. The difference between Bible believing Christians and others who call themselves Christian is that true Christians take the Bible as the sole authority for what is to be believed while others, such as so-called modernists, pick and choose what they want to believe, and yet others, such as Roman Catholics, place tradition on an equal footing with the Bible. In reality, tradition supplants the Bible because these traditions, in many instances, contradict Biblical teaching. This is not to be wondered at because both Christ and his Apostles repeatedly warned that false prophets would arise and deceive many. I wasn't aware that any atheists were burned in the Spanish, or any other Inquisition. It was Bible believing Christians who were principally tortured and burnt. Many Jews were likewise persecuted, as were a number of Muslims. Many wealthy Roman Catholics were also accused of heresy in order that the RC Church could get hold of their wealth. If a person was accused of heresy their estate became the property of the RC Church even if heresy wasn't proved. Those who point out the misdemeanors of many Bible characters seem to ethink that this discredits the Bible. The fact is that these individuals were acting contrary to what the Bible teaches. It is like blaming the driving test for the bad driving of car owners. For the one who said judge not etc. How does he know that another person is judging? I have seen educational material that depicts homosexual acts in cartoon form. Since a number of contributors have stated their satisfaction that children should be taught these things seems to say all that needs to be said about atheistic morality. solafide
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree