What is it about religion and sex

Posted on by
Reply

Malcolm Muggeridge used to say that sex is the mysticism of materialism; and I think he was right. Sex is probably the closest the material can get to the numinous. That is probably why mainline churches are so obsessed with sex: having lost their faith, it is all that is left.

None of this explains why a celibate monk would choose to write a book about sex, though:

A Polish priest has raised eyebrows with the publication of sex manual that advises couples to have a ‘saucy and fantasy packed’ love life.

In Sex as you don’t know it: For married couples who love God, which has been described in Poland as a “Catholic Kama Sutra”, Father Ksawery Knotz goes against the traditional attitudes of the church towards sex.

“I compare sex to a football match,” he said. “There are rules, for example you can’t foul or kick the ball out. However, what goes on on the pitch may involve matches of different standards, different leagues. There can be fantastic matches as well as boring ones.”

While some Poles have questioned the competency of a celibate monk who lives in monastery to write about sex, Father Knotz remains unfazed.
He said that his experience comes from listening to married couples talk about sex, and he has run a website giving sexual advice in both Polish and English for almost a year.

Is this the equivalent of a vegetarian waxing eloquent on specific cuts of meat or a teetotaller dwelling on the joys of wine tasting; well, yes, probably. The ineptitude due to inexperience give-away is the comparison to a football match.

Hundreds of Anglican priests in March for life in Ottawa

Posted on by
Reply

That was a joke.

There is a March for life in Ottawa today and 10,000 people are expected to attend. As Michael Coren observes, the media is ignoring it. What I would like to know is, since the Anglican Church of Canada is so keen on social justice, where is Fred Hiltz, Colin Johnson, or John Chapman? In fact, will any Anglican priest attend to demonstrate their support for protecting the most vulnerable members of our society?Add an Image

Today, the 12th annual March for Life will take place in Ottawa. Up to 10,000 people, half of them under the age of 25, will walk, sing and pray for an end to abortion in Canada. If past patterns are repeated, there will be hardly any mention of the event in the media — a contrast with the numerous protests a fraction of the size that tend to receive full and fulsome coverage.

There has never been any abusive or violent behaviour from the participants — though there are occasionally obscene and provocative gestures from opponents — and numerous MPs and religious and ethnic leaders will attend. The march is also intensely reflective of the authentic Canada, unlike most other demonstrations: Conservative and Liberal, able-bodied and handicapped, black and white, Muslim, Christian and Jewish, from every region and background.

Canterbury is not gay enough

Posted on by
1

Canterbury is not sending out enough “gay signals” apparently:

Historic city ‘not gay enough’ say equality campaigners

Its ancient cathedral is the oldest church in Britain still in use and millions of tourists visit each year.

But Canterbury, it seems, is not all-inclusive in what it offers.

The historic cathedral city is simply not gay enough, according to an official complaint.

The city – scene of the murder Archbishop Thomas Becket in 1170 and famed for its association for Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales – is the subject of an investigation by the local government watchdog after gay activists lodged an official complaint.

They say the city council has failed to ‘send out signals’ that it welcomes the gay community.

Canterbury, the complaint says, ‘is still a cultural wilderness for LGBTs’ (lesbian, gay bisexual or transgender).

Among complaints, made by the group Pride in Canterbury, is that the city does not have a gay bar or community centre.

The organisation has also complained about the ‘stereotypical’ depiction of a gay character in a play staged at the city’s Marlowe theatre.

Last night the council seemed bewildered by the investigation, insisting it had done its best to help the gay community by offering money, help and use of its facilities – including £4,000 in grants to Pride in Canterbury.

But Andrew Bretell, of Pride in Canterbury, said more was needed and that the council was missing out on the ‘pink pound’.

He said he complained to the council last year and when that failed went to the ombudsman.

‘They’re more interested in ticking their equality boxes and engaging in back and forth ‘who said what’ games than they are in dealing with the real issues.

‘We do not believe the council want a thriving LGBT community in our city.’

This should put to rest the canard that the homosexual agenda is to gain equal access or have equal rights and opportunities. It is really about campaigning for equal cultural pervasiveness; an endeavour as ridiculous as insisting there aren’t enough bearded men in Canterbury.

Speaking of bearded men, although Rowan Williams is doing his best at increasing the gaiety of the Anglican church, it looks as if he needs to re-double his efforts; after all Anglicanism’s colonial centre is still in Canterbury.

What Canterbury needs is one of these:

Add an Image

Anglicans synthesising muddle from the Bible

Posted on by
3

Canadian Bishop Sue Moxley had this to say about bible study at ACC-14:

We began this morning with Morning Prayer as we were to have a closing Eucharist at 4pm. The Bible Study focus was Mark 16: 1-8. One question was “If you were Mark, would you have ended with verse 8, or would you have ended the Gospel differently?” That was a nonstarter as some members refused to even think about tampering with the Gospel. The last question was “What will you be taking home to share in your churches about the Gospel of Mark or how Anglicans read the Scripture?” That discussion included the realization that Anglicans with different views of Scripture can read and share ideas together as long as no one thinks they have the only truth of the reading.

This approach to reading the bible is symptomatic of the muddle we find ourselves. It treats the bible as a thesis whose meaning is in question. Then, in using what appears to be a Hegelian dialectic of discussing thesis and antithesis, we come to a synthesis – an Anglican middle ground.

The problem is, the bible does not present a truth which changes depending on who perceives it or the culture in which it is read: it is a statement by a person – God – who had something particular in mind when he caused it to be written. When Bishop Sue says “as long as no one thinks they have the only truth of the reading” she is making at least two mistakes:

The first is that a reader of scripture can have a “truth of the reading”. It is the writer that has the truth of the reading and it is the reader’s job to understand that truth.

The second is the implication that if a reader firmly claims to have understood the truth that the writer was conveying, he is necessarily wrong. He could be mistaken, of course, but the purpose of discussing a reading is not to come to a middle ground of dissenting views, but to determine what meaning the writer intended.

Rowan Williams and most of the Western Anglican church is determined to find reconciliation through this kind of synthesising to a middle ground. It isn’t going to work.

Anglican Israel bashing

Posted on by
1

One of the resolutions from ACC-14 in Jamaica displays the usual one-sided condemnation of Israel:

The Anglican Consultative Council…

laments the fact that current Israeli policies in relation to the West Bank, in contravention of UN Security Council resolutions, have created severe hardship for many Palestinians and have been experienced as a physical form of apartheid.

calls on Israel to:

end its occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

freeze immediately all settlement building with the intention to abandon its settlement policy in preparation for a Palestinian state

remove the separation barrier (wall) where it violates Palestinian land beyond the Green Line

end home demolitions, and

close checkpoints in the Palestinian territories

The hypocrisy is made all the more remarkable by the tortuous series of unnatural mental acts that the Anglican hierarchy goes through in order to see both sides of the case for performing unnatural homosexual physical acts, yet has no hesitation in being fiercely and vituperatively prejudiced when it comes to Israel.

Melanie Phillips has this to say:

Yet again, the Anglican establishment has singled out Israel for scapegoating, defamation and demonisation. A Resolution on the Middle East passed three days ago by the Anglican Consultative Committee parrots, as usual, Arab and Muslim propaganda against Israel – now the default position of Anglicanism as it genuflects to the force that is intent upon destroying it. Not all Anglicans by any means support this resolution which has been passed in their name: Anglican Friends of Israel has protested:

The Anglican Church of Canada: the argument for Triad Marriages

Posted on by
2

One of the arguments that the Anglican Church of Canada uses for same-sex marriage is that a homosexual relationship can demonstrate the love that is found in the Trinity:

In the divine economy God is understood as Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit living in an eternal and divine relationship of love. Humankind is created in the image and likeness of God to live in relationship. The relationship is to love God, and to love others as God loves humanity. Marriage is to be an image of Trinitarian relationship and in the way God, in Christ Jesus, loves the Church.

A newer trend is “triad marriages”: 3 people marrying:

If you can think of a committed loving relationship that includes more than one person, then you’ve got a decent grasp of the concept. It’s not a casual escapade; the work needed to be in an honest, growing, healthy relationship rises exponentially when you increase to more than a standard couple. Thus, poly people are often very seriously committed to personal honesty, relationship integrity, and trust.

If the ACoC really takes its argument on the Trinity and same-sex marriage seriously, how much more so should it for triad marriages: after all, they have even more potential to demonstrate the love between the Trinity.

Coming next to an Anglican Church close to you: the marriage of those in committed long-term triad relationships.

24

Posted on by
Reply

10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (Season Opener)
Terrorists known cryptically as TEC-ACoC take hostages in Jamaica.

12:00 a.m. -1:00 a.m.
Hostages are identified: Truth; Gospel; Honesty; Integrity (the original one).

1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Terrorists assail hostages with a newly developed mind-numbing bio-weapon: the Indaba. Civilians all over the Island are wailing and clutching at their heads.

2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Counter-terrorists are dispatched from far flung reaches of Christendom with a single purpose: rescue the hostages.

3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Terrorists and Counter-terrorists do battle; Indabas are wielded to dreadful effect. The carnage is terrible.

4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Counter-terrorists wheel in the big gun: the Fourth Moratorium.

5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
The Fourth Moratorium suffers defeat through trickery and sleight of hand. One of the counter-terrorists, although he speaks 5 languages, didn’t know what “litigation” means and no-one bothered to explain it.

6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
Counter-terrorists wheel in the other big gun: Section 4 of “The Covenant”.

7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.
Battle rages around Section 4; the Indabas go at it hammer and tongs decimating all in their path.

8:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
Section 4 falls.

9:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Terrorists counter attack with Resolution A.

10:00 p.m. – 1:00 a.m. (Mid-Season Cliffhanger)
Resolution A suffers apparent defeat but is actually smuggled out of the room and secreted in Resolution C which has disguised itself as Resolution B.

1:00 a.m. – 2:00 a.m.
Resolution C calls for the hostages to remain in terrorist custody until they die from too much conversation.

2:00 a.m. – 3:00 a.m.
Arch-terrorist Rowan the Enforcer deploys the ultimate weapon: he speaks.

3:00 a.m. – 4:00 a.m.
It is all too much after the Indaba attack: terrorists and counter-terrorists alike writhe on the floor in agony. Some bite off their own tongues. Rowan the enforcer smiles benignly

4:00 a.m. – 5:00 a.m.
A temporary truce is called while all descend on the local population to pillage their food supplies.

5:00 a.m. – 6:00 a.m.
Back at it. Stunned journalists try to make sense of the carnage.

6:00 a.m. – 7:00 a.m.
Truth; Gospel; Honesty; Integrity are battered and still hostage.

7:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m.
The terrorists have won: the hostages will be subject to extreme interrogation techniques to break down their resistance – dialogue, group discernment and if all else fails, the Listening Process, said to be capable of boring the balls off a buffalo in 30 seconds.

8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. (Season Finale)
The terrorists begin to write accounts of the battle that make them appear like the good-guys. Everyone goes home wondering what just happened.

Did anyone understand that? It doesn’t matter: what is important is the violence, blood, gore, torture, screaming and the fact that 24 will be returning for another season next year.

Anglican Church of Canada: a predictable report on the theological justification of same-sex marriage

Posted on by
1

The entire nonsense it here for those who would like to subject themselves to it.

Interestingly, the preface contains the following:

Faith Worship and Ministry first sought, and then received, clarification from CoGS that the subject is the marriage of same-sex couples, not all legally qualified persons. The church wants to reserve the right to define for itself who the proper subjects of marriage are, rather than leave this to the state.

And buried inside we find this:

Canadian civil law has provided for the marriage of same-sex couples since 2005. The church, in applying the doctrine of marriage in this context, understands the purposes of marriage delineated in Paragraph 1 of the Preface to relate equally, though not identically, to these new circumstances. Such marriages provide for mutual fellowship, support and comfort. They are also open to the care and upbringing of children. For those who understand themselves to be so called, such a relationship provides an environment in which sexuality may serve personal fulfilment in a community of faithful love.

The second quote appeals to the state for creating the context where the ACoC is being nudged to accept all those who are legally married. By the time the preface was written, someone must have caught on to the trap the ACoC had set for itself: polygamy might be next.

So now the ACoC “wants to reserve the right to define for itself who the proper subjects of marriage are”. The reason for this is fairly simple: there are numerous ACoC homosexual clergy, relatives, friends and hangers-on who need to justify their behaviour and they don’t give a fig for future importunate polygamists whom they are quite prepared to leave out in the cold – heartless bunch.

Imagine there’s no Anglican Church

Posted on by
2

Reverse psychology evangelism from Liverpool:

The bells of Liverpool’s Anglican Cathedral are to ring out to John Lennon’s anti-religious anthem Imagine.

The bells will play the 1971 song, which begins “Imagine there’s no Heaven”, as part of an arts festival on 16 May at 1200, 1230 and 1330 BST.

A cathedral spokesman said: “Allowing Imagine to be pealed on our bells does not mean we agree with the song lyric.”

The song has drawn criticism from some religious figures as Lennon himself has called the anthem “anti-religious”.

Liverpool Cathedral said it had carefully considered the “sensitivities” surrounding the song’s lyrical content.

“But we recognise its power to make us think. As a cathedral we do not shrink from debate. We recognise the existence of other world views,” added the cathedral spokesman.

This, of course, opens a whole new technique for evangelism in the 21st century: you make the atheist’s case for them instead of the case for Christ – to make people think. I wonder why no-none thought of that before. I expect Liverpool Cathedral helped pay for the atheist bus advertisements.

The Anglican Church of Canada’s direction on same-sex marriage

Posted on by
4

Yes, the headline is same-sex marriage.

Just in case anyone has any doubt, the direction was elucidated at the Council of General Synod meeting held May 8-9:

Continuing from yesterday’s evening session, COGS members continued to discern what steps to take from the General Synod 2007’s assignments to the church around the issue of sexuality. Members had been asked to read FWMC’s Rothesay Report, which addressed one of these assignments: developing a theological rationale for same-sex marriage.

Note that we have moved from the stage of whether same-sex blessings are consistent with a Christian understanding of God’s purpose for sex, to coming up with a theological justification – excuse, really – for same sex marriage.

Since “same-sex blessings” has somehow, without warning, spontaneously morphed into “same-sex marriage”, some of the COGS attendees became restless:

Again, COGS members offered varied responses. Many were reluctant to bring forward a proposal about the revision of the marriage canon, and others commented that the church should concentrate on the issue of “blessing same-sex unions” as this was the concept considered earlier.

Fear not, a task force has been appointed to continue the – I can’t bring myself to say “conversation”, I really can’t – fuelling of the rampaging steamroller:

Ms. Marshall suggested that a small group of COGS members consider the next step for the conversations. The Primate, Archbishop Hiltz, further suggested that Bishop Colin Johnson, Lela Zimmer, and the Rev. John Steele form this group. The Primate reminded COGS that it was their responsibility to chart the path for discussions on human sexuality up to General Synod 2010.

Further:

“COGS considered the work that has been done in fulfilment of the resolutions of General Synod 2007 regarding sexuality and reached consensus that this is not the time to ask General Synod to amend the marriage canon to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples.”

The implication is that although “this is not the time”, the direction is set and the time is coming.