Backing the traditional definition of marriage (From Lancashire Telegraph)

I went to a gay marriage (well, civil partnership) this weekend. Though everyone called it a wedding.

It was mainly traditional at a hotel licensed to hold weddings - ceremony, speeches, wedding breakfast, disco and buffet in the evening.

The main break with tradition was that one of the happy couple was Asian, so there was a bit of Bhangra music at the disco along with the usual tracks.

The 150 or so guests enjoyed themselves and the happy couple had a great day to publicly declare their love and launch the beginning of their lives together. What a shame that for people like Rev Logan this expression of love and happiness is a cause for condemnation not celebration.

I don't think you have to look to far back in history to see the lack of compassion , tolerance, respect, in the misinterpretation of this vile book known as the Bible.

Excluded again wrote:
I went to a gay marriage (well, civil partnership) this weekend. Though everyone called it a wedding.

It was mainly traditional at a hotel licensed to hold weddings - ceremony, speeches, wedding breakfast, disco and buffet in the evening.

The main break with tradition was that one of the happy couple was Asian, so there was a bit of Bhangra music at the disco along with the usual tracks.

The 150 or so guests enjoyed themselves and the happy couple had a great day to publicly declare their love and launch the beginning of their lives together. What a shame that for people like Rev Logan this expression of love and happiness is a cause for condemnation not celebration.

Hi Excluded again,
Am I really so terrible to request the freedom to be a husband and a father?
.
If gay marriage becomes a reality, husband and wife become unacceptable titles, and instead of dad, I'll be called something like "progenitor A".
.
Am I evil to agree with thousands of years of our history which recognises that marriage involves a man and a woman and that it actually takes place for, among other things, the procreation of children.
.
Could the fault not possibly lie with the illiberal campaigners who insist that everybody believes and practices their gospel?
.
And what about campaigners who already have everything they could possibly want and need through civil partnerships, but now demand something that will not change their status one iota?
.
Are they not perhaps being just a little awkward themselves?

mavrick wrote:
I don't think you have to look to far back in history to see the lack of compassion , tolerance, respect, in the misinterpretation of this vile book known as the Bible.

Hi Mavrick,
Sorry you and the Bible don't hit it off.
I've been preaching from it this morning on the very topics of compassion, tolerance and respect.
I found a fund of support for all three subjects in God's word.
Perhaps, you might consider re-visiting this book.
Try a Gospel and meet Jesus, tolerant friend of sinners, who shows compassion to many in great distress, while respecting people enough to allow them to disagree with him and have different beliefs.
.
Would I find similar compassion, tolerance and respect among campaigners for gay marriage?
.
Would I find compassion for those who don't share their belief?
.
Would I find them respecting Christian beliefs, and showing tolerance to those who, for thousands of years, have defined 'marriage' as a rite between man and woman?

Doesn't marriage pre-date religion? What right does religion have to take ownership of marriage and define it?

As stated many times, people can have values without religion.

You might like to live your life according to one book. I'd rather join the library.

Revkev wrote:

Excluded again wrote:
I went to a gay marriage (well, civil partnership) this weekend. Though everyone called it a wedding.

It was mainly traditional at a hotel licensed to hold weddings - ceremony, speeches, wedding breakfast, disco and buffet in the evening.

The main break with tradition was that one of the happy couple was Asian, so there was a bit of Bhangra music at the disco along with the usual tracks.

The 150 or so guests enjoyed themselves and the happy couple had a great day to publicly declare their love and launch the beginning of their lives together. What a shame that for people like Rev Logan this expression of love and happiness is a cause for condemnation not celebration.

Hi Excluded again,
Am I really so terrible to request the freedom to be a husband and a father?
.
If gay marriage becomes a reality, husband and wife become unacceptable titles, and instead of dad, I'll be called something like "progenitor A".
.
Am I evil to agree with thousands of years of our history which recognises that marriage involves a man and a woman and that it actually takes place for, among other things, the procreation of children.
.
Could the fault not possibly lie with the illiberal campaigners who insist that everybody believes and practices their gospel?
.
And what about campaigners who already have everything they could possibly want and need through civil partnerships, but now demand something that will not change their status one iota?
.
Are they not perhaps being just a little awkward themselves?

You can have the freedom to be a husband and a father with all my blessings, Rev Kev. Me too - because I am both.

I can remain a husband and father quite happily without denying others the right to be husband and husband or wife and wife. My freedom depends on me being allowed to do what I want with my life, so long as a I do not harm others in doing so.

My freedom does not rely on denying others freedom. Why must yours?

ToffeeGuy wrote:
Doesn't marriage pre-date religion? What right does religion have to take ownership of marriage and define it?

As stated many times, people can have values without religion.

You might like to live your life according to one book. I'd rather join the library.

Hi Toffeguy,
Depends where you start in answering your question about marriage pre-dating religion.
.
Start from an evolutionary perspective, as does anthropology/sociolo
gy, and beliefs developed bit by bit and marriage was eventually brought under the wing of the tribal priest/elder.
.
Start with the Bible and Genesis and marriage begins at the beginning (chapters 1 & 2).
.
We weren't there. It's a matter of faith both for the followers of anthropology and the Bible.

Excluded again wrote:

Revkev wrote:

Excluded again wrote:
I went to a gay marriage (well, civil partnership) this weekend. Though everyone called it a wedding.

It was mainly traditional at a hotel licensed to hold weddings - ceremony, speeches, wedding breakfast, disco and buffet in the evening.

The main break with tradition was that one of the happy couple was Asian, so there was a bit of Bhangra music at the disco along with the usual tracks.

The 150 or so guests enjoyed themselves and the happy couple had a great day to publicly declare their love and launch the beginning of their lives together. What a shame that for people like Rev Logan this expression of love and happiness is a cause for condemnation not celebration.

Hi Excluded again,
Am I really so terrible to request the freedom to be a husband and a father?
.
If gay marriage becomes a reality, husband and wife become unacceptable titles, and instead of dad, I'll be called something like "progenitor A".
.
Am I evil to agree with thousands of years of our history which recognises that marriage involves a man and a woman and that it actually takes place for, among other things, the procreation of children.
.
Could the fault not possibly lie with the illiberal campaigners who insist that everybody believes and practices their gospel?
.
And what about campaigners who already have everything they could possibly want and need through civil partnerships, but now demand something that will not change their status one iota?
.
Are they not perhaps being just a little awkward themselves?

You can have the freedom to be a husband and a father with all my blessings, Rev Kev. Me too - because I am both.

I can remain a husband and father quite happily without denying others the right to be husband and husband or wife and wife. My freedom depends on me being allowed to do what I want with my life, so long as a I do not harm others in doing so.

My freedom does not rely on denying others freedom. Why must yours?

Excluded again,
You say that your freedom "depends on me being allowed to do what I want with my life".
.
It is the same with me. Now, consider this...
.
Campaigners for gay marriage are taking away my freedom to believe and practice as a Christian in my church.
.
If gay marriage is accepted, the law will eventually force churches to carry out gay marriages. There is no way that the churches will be able to hold out.
.
The churches will not in conscience be able to officiate at gay ceremonies, so they will continually be penalised and may eventually make it impossible to practice our faith in public.
.
So, the short answer to your question is: I'm fighting for my freedom to be a Christian and for the freedom to continue worshipping in public.

The proposal is quite clear - churches (or mosques or synagogues) will not have to perform gay marriages. They will be civil ceremonies.

It is not inevitable that such a change will force churches to carry out gay marriages. legal divorce came in over 150 years ago. And yet the law still does not force churches to marry divorcees - the Catholic Church resolutely refuses to do so still.

If there is a law proposed to force you to marry gay people in your church, Rev Kev, then I will support you. But there isn't any such proposal.

Given the publicity, the number of signatories is not surprising. If there was political inteference in the definition of the watt, then we would expect at least as much resentment because there would be the opportunity to charge us much more for fuel. The wording of such a petition would be interesting.

"We the undersigned note that the definition of rate of working as one joule of energy transferred per second - the watt - is to be changed. One new-watt will be the rate of working when one joule is transferred per hundred seconds. Hence 100 new-watts are the equivalent of one old-watt and from next Tuesday fuel charges will rise in line with the new definition. Can we have time to pay?"

Revkev wrote:

ToffeeGuy wrote:
Doesn't marriage pre-date religion? What right does religion have to take ownership of marriage and define it?

As stated many times, people can have values without religion.

You might like to live your life according to one book. I'd rather join the library.

Hi Toffeguy,
Depends where you start in answering your question about marriage pre-dating religion.
.
Start from an evolutionary perspective, as does anthropology/sociolo

gy, and beliefs developed bit by bit and marriage was eventually brought under the wing of the tribal priest/elder.
.
Start with the Bible and Genesis and marriage begins at the beginning (chapters 1 & 2).
.
We weren't there. It's a matter of faith both for the followers of anthropology and the Bible.

Many anthropologists suggest that marriage comes from "a deep evolutionary history of institutionalized pair-bonding that stems back at least to early modern humans."

So yes, yet another example of religion taking over traditions which already existed.

Therefore religious faiths do not own marriage, it existed before they did and have no right to dictate what is and what isn't marriage.

Revkev wrote:

Excluded again wrote: I went to a gay marriage (well, civil partnership) this weekend. Though everyone called it a wedding. It was mainly traditional at a hotel licensed to hold weddings - ceremony, speeches, wedding breakfast, disco and buffet in the evening. The main break with tradition was that one of the happy couple was Asian, so there was a bit of Bhangra music at the disco along with the usual tracks. The 150 or so guests enjoyed themselves and the happy couple had a great day to publicly declare their love and launch the beginning of their lives together. What a shame that for people like Rev Logan this expression of love and happiness is a cause for condemnation not celebration.

Hi Excluded again, Am I really so terrible to request the freedom to be a husband and a father? . If gay marriage becomes a reality, husband and wife become unacceptable titles, and instead of dad, I'll be called something like "progenitor A". . Am I evil to agree with thousands of years of our history which recognises that marriage involves a man and a woman and that it actually takes place for, among other things, the procreation of children. . Could the fault not possibly lie with the illiberal campaigners who insist that everybody believes and practices their gospel? . And what about campaigners who already have everything they could possibly want and need through civil partnerships, but now demand something that will not change their status one iota? . Are they not perhaps being just a little awkward themselves?

Kevin,


.


We don't have any right to fight and struggle for whatever it is we believe or think we believe or write or read or say or assume about marriage any more than anything else we randomly choose to think and believe read, write, or say.


.


We have no right to the title of progenator 'A' any more than we have a right to call our selves THE Father OR the DAD.


.


If I gave the confused some thing to fight and struggle over in the darkness of religious terms and conditions, they would still be fighting and struggling in the darkness.


.


There is one moment.
There is one breath
There is one consciousness.


.


When I look at the way men think and behave and where they are leading us all to on this planet, all I see confusion.


.


We may have fallen for this doctrine of darkness, fear and confusion once but the cat is well and truly out of the bag -ALL the priests in this world are deeply troubled, struggling about between bible reading sessions and confused. Church over!!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO FIGHT.

lET jESUS DO HIS OWN FIGHTING FOR WHAT IS WRONG with this and that. He will inevitably do a much better job of it.

RevKev, i think the comparison between evoutionary theory and genesis as matters of faith is seriously flawed.
there is a hugely detailed stack of peer-reviewed evidence for evolution, which is constantly being added to by successive pieces of research. at some point, we have to agree that something moves from being faith to being agreed fact. this does not mean that it is rigid. if we do find some contrary and reliable source of evidence then we will have a new theory and our collective understanding will have improved. until that point, i think we can talk in about evolutionary theory in terms of fact.
genesis and the bible as a whole is a single source of evidence (although i accept there have been many contributors), which at its very best is based on translated word of mouth. this is not reliable enough to be considered anything other than faith.
they are two very different standards of reliability indeed.

the issue of gay marriage is one on which the church (and other relgions) have once again shown themselves up. Liberal campaigners do not have a gospel. your claim is that marriage is an instituation which somehow belongs to the church (etc) and that it is unfair for others to insist that it is open to all. well i think your original premise is flawed - marriage is not the exclusive property of organised religion at all. and who appears more tolerant in this case? those who are happy to see any loving couple express that in any way they like; or those which want to keep their exclusive club only for those which fit their image of conformity?
i'm sure you are a nice enough person, but why do you care so much about how others wish to live thier lives, assuming they do not harm others?

Simply put, the refusal of rights to one sector of people based upon their sexual orientation is deliberate discrimination. It is wrong, pure and simple. I’m old enough to remember hotel signs saying “no coloureds”. Refusal of marriage rights (or hotel accommodation) based upon sexual orientation is equally discrimination.

Gay people are just as capable of believing in god as anybody else. To give them disparate treatment is discrimination.
The attempted asseration that giving all people the same rights removes the right to practice religion is a complete nonsense. Nobody is seeking to deny anybody’s religious freedom. All that is being sought is equal rights.
There are significant differences between civil partnership and civil marriage, so the argument that “they already have civil partnerships” is invalid. All should have equal rights. To deny this is discrimination.
(Civil partnerships do not require ceremony, partnerships do not require consummation, adultery is not grounds for divorce in civil partnerships) Therefore the Rev’s statement that “couples already had the full protection of the law and perhaps didn’t even need marriage” is wrong. Factually, legally and morally wrong. Equally, the rev uses derogatory language saying “they already have what they want”; when all “they” really want is to be treated equally. And how arrogant of the Rev to assume that he knows what “they” want.
However we never had an admission from the Rev on atheists and charity that he was wrong, I won’t wait for his admission that he is wrong on this point also.
The Rev resorts to hyperbolic rhetoric by attempting to imply that equal rights for all reduces his role as husband and father. Perhaps this is a sign of insecurity – but in any case it is complete nonsense.
The rev also seeks to hijack marriage as being a religious exclusivity; again this is a fallacy. Marriage pre-dates religion and pre-dates humanity. Even atheists can get married.
Also, the rampant hypocrisy of the rev preaching on compassion, tolerance and respect whilst clearly demonstrating the opposite is what we have come to expect.
The short answer is that the rev is campaigning for his right to wage discrimination and to practice intolerance. Long me he continue to do. He will continue to show the wrongs of religion to all.
I had the pleasure of attending a same sex civil partnership a while back as a guest. One of the partners was a former vicar. No there’s an irony.

Simply put, the refusal of rights to one sector of people based upon their sexual orientation is deliberate discrimination. It is wrong, pure and simple. I’m old enough to remember hotel signs saying “no coloureds”. Refusal of marriage rights (or hotel accommodation) based upon sexual orientation is equally discrimination.

Gay people are just as capable of believing in god as anybody else. To give them disparate treatment is discrimination.
The attempted asseration that giving all people the same rights removes the right to practice religion is a complete nonsense. Nobody is seeking to deny anybody’s religious freedom. All that is being sought is equal rights.
There are significant differences between civil partnership and civil marriage, so the argument that “they already have civil partnerships” is invalid. All should have equal rights. To deny this is discrimination.
(Civil partnerships do not require ceremony, partnerships do not require consummation, adultery is not grounds for divorce in civil partnerships) Therefore the Rev’s statement that “couples already had the full protection of the law and perhaps didn’t even need marriage” is wrong. Factually, legally and morally wrong. Equally, the rev uses derogatory language saying “they already have what they want”; when all “they” really want is to be treated equally. And how arrogant of the Rev to assume that he knows what “they” want.
However we never had an admission from the Rev on atheists and charity that he was wrong, I won’t wait for his admission that he is wrong on this point also.
The Rev resorts to hyperbolic rhetoric by attempting to imply that equal rights for all reduces his role as husband and father. Perhaps this is a sign of insecurity – but in any case it is complete nonsense.
The rev also seeks to hijack marriage as being a religious exclusivity; again this is a fallacy. Marriage pre-dates religion and pre-dates humanity. Even atheists can get married.
Also, the rampant hypocrisy of the rev preaching on compassion, tolerance and respect whilst clearly demonstrating the opposite is what we have come to expect.
The short answer is that the rev is campaigning for his right to wage discrimination and to practice intolerance. Long me he continue to do. He will continue to show the wrongs of religion to all.
I had the pleasure of attending a same sex civil partnership a while back as a guest. One of the partners was a former vicar. Now there’s an irony.

The purpose of ANY form of evolution, is to fulfill the beauty and the love and the wisdom of the Original Desire.


.


The Original Desire of gods, of evolution, and of your Self is the only thing that has even the ability, to be fulfilled.


.


People make the almost original error of thinking something else, or someone else, they have cooked up has to be fulfilled.


.


Simply put, it is YOUR very own Self, that is meant to be perfectly fulfilling and there is nothing more perfectly fulfilling than any appreciation of this moment, this breath, and this consciousness you are enjoying.



.


It's not the world around you that is supposed to be appreciated but the very fundamental existence of your self.

Religion and Politics speak to us all about values yet This moment we have, you have, I have, is the strongest value in the entire universe either made or unmade. Without that moment there would be nothing, yet most have placed no emotional value nor any intellectual regard for it whatsoever before death.

YOU HAVE A MOMENT. It was there before the beginning and it will be there after the ending.


.


It would be nice if the consciousness of that was appreciated.

Consciousness is not just until death. It's not like other contracts. People can, and often do, walk away from religious, civil and commercial contracts.


.


Which reminds me, to increase the cost of my retainer to 20k.

People are here to get something out of this Moment. Forget the world.

All you will ever get from backing the traditions of this world is confusion, war and carnage.

All you need is two views on any one tradition and all you have is marriage mayhem and a state of utter confusion in the church o0f england. It's current position as a force is pitiful.

I was married over 40yrs ago in a Catholic church ( as you know I am a non-believer, so is my wife ) we did this so that my wife’s mother didn’t suffer a nervous breakdown. The prayers, the ceremony the documents were all really irrelevant. What really mattered was my commitment to my wife and 42 years later here we are with a close loving family and the recent addition of a great-grandson. None of this required any intervention from gods, ghosts, goblins or any other irrational beings. It didn’t even require a marriage certificate or a name “marriage”. Like my mother in law “god bless her” people are getting their knickers/underpants in a twist over trivialities about names,when its people’s actions and commitments that should really matter. A large proportion of people who follow the traditional marriage path forget their so called “vows in the prescence of god”and even civil declarations are soon forgotten. But I do not put my situation up as any kind of example, for you Revkev would say I am in a godless marriage, and yes I am, its my business, and your marriage is your business. You could be married to a man for all I know and it wouldn’t matter. You say you have a petition of 400,000 but there are 60 million people in the UK, you do the maths, less than 1% this isn’t even within the normal margin of error. If people want to be married and live happily with each other, as a Christian I would have thought you would rejoice at another bit of love and caring in the world. Hey Revkev just let other people be happy when it really is none of your business ( or are you playing god! A bit naughty don’t you think?).

Excluded again wrote:
The proposal is quite clear - churches (or mosques or synagogues) will not have to perform gay marriages. They will be civil ceremonies.

It is not inevitable that such a change will force churches to carry out gay marriages. legal divorce came in over 150 years ago. And yet the law still does not force churches to marry divorcees - the Catholic Church resolutely refuses to do so still.

If there is a law proposed to force you to marry gay people in your church, Rev Kev, then I will support you. But there isn't any such proposal.

Well said, Excluded. Absolute hyperbole from Rev Kev. Scaremongering with his exaggerations.

From Revkev - "We weren't there. It's a matter of faith both for the followers of anthropology and the Bible."

Although anthropology includes the study of humans from many aspects, the approach is academic and does not require one to be a 'follower' in the sense of being an adherent or a disciple. Whatever can be established by faith can be destabilised by evidence and reason.

'We weren't there.' The absence of humans does not lead us to rely upon the instrument of faith, because evidence can be found and reason applied in our past or our future. Thousands of years ago, stars went supernova and were observed in this state only after the light had reached us, yet it is not a matter of faith that supernovae happened. From what we know about the lives of stars like our sun, in a billion years or so Earth's water will have boiled away, the orbits of Mercury and Venus will be included in the body of our sun and Earth may join them there. Repent!

Sean, am I scaremongering?

I shouldn't have said so Graham. I have no problem with your scientific ontology. I simply question Rev Kev's bold links between gay rights activists and his freedom to believe as a Christian. After all, Cameron's proposals are for equal rights under the law. Besides, I won't be here in a billion years.

The Reverend Kevin reports David Cameron's remarks in support of Biblical values, yet speaking from authority does not make claims true. Indeed, speaking from ignorance does not make one's claims false.

from the Reverend Kevin - "If marriage was a building, the massive grassroots revolution now underway would ensure it soon won the highest possible listed preservation grading."

Yet marriage is not a building. This is false analogy. It can be claimed that marriage and a building are analogous in some ways; they are both effected by humans and both will not last for ever, but these considerations do not lead to the conclusion that they are analogous in every way, or in the particular way that the Reverend Kevin offers.

from sean_brfc - 'I won't be here in a billion years.'

Wot, no life eternal for you? Ken Shuffles' advice is to hold one's breath, some of us think...

"Do not post anything that is false, ..."

God can do what is logically impossible. He can show that Aristotle was right to claim that heavy bodies fall faster than light bodies.

For let us consider this, that heavier bodies fall faster than light bodies.

A heavy stone will fall faster than a light stone.

We take a heavy stone and fasten to it a light stone, then drop them from a height.

Aristotle claims that the light stone will retard the heavy.

Yet the heavy and light are together heavier than the heavy alone, so must fall faster.

Y'all go to bed now, and pray before getting in.

Graham Hartley wrote:
"Do not post anything that is false, ..."

God can do what is logically impossible. He can show that Aristotle was right to claim that heavy bodies fall faster than light bodies.

God (or physics) do not do what is logically impossible. Aristotle's original logic was at fault.

In you post, you have mixed up Aristotle's 'common sense' assertion that heavy objects fall faster than light objects with Gallileo's refutation of that position. A lighter stone attached to a heavier stone cannot both slow the heavier stone down and speed it up. Hence all objects must fall at the same rate under the force of gravity (any variance is due to air resistance).

In this case both logic and experiment match perfectly. As they normally do.

The thoughts and emotions of an unfulfilled person do not move in the same way as the thoughts and emotions of a fulfilled person.


.


One day, these marriages will all be dissolved. (All Christian marriages are terminated on the last day acording to Christianity) Those who marry according to Christianity, will be divorced on the last day according to Christianity. We will all be naught else but fulfilled. Whether we agree or we don't agree, the fulfilling of the unfulfilled married atheist and the unfulfilled single christian, gay or not gay will still happen.

If you think anything will ever be allowed to stop you from fulfilling, then you have not understood my Love.

Why such a fuss?. Civil Partnership appears to me to equate to a Registry Office 'wedding' & the government has bent over backwards to try & ensure 'gay' couples have equal rights in the law- it isn't Parliament's place to interfere with religious beliefs unless they threaten national security. Hitler & Stalin did that and it didn't work out at all well!. Why do we need to change the name of 'Civil Partnership' to 'Marriage' - what point will it serve?. I suspect that it is simply another way for 'legal eagles' to make some money drafting a new law. There are many more important issues in life than wasting time & money on changing a two word state to a one word state which is all it would really amount to.

spendmymoneywisely wrote:
Why such a fuss?. Civil Partnership appears to me to equate to a Registry Office 'wedding' & the government has bent over backwards to try & ensure 'gay' couples have equal rights in the law- it isn't Parliament's place to interfere with religious beliefs unless they threaten national security. Hitler & Stalin did that and it didn't work out at all well!. Why do we need to change the name of 'Civil Partnership' to 'Marriage' - what point will it serve?. I suspect that it is simply another way for 'legal eagles' to make some money drafting a new law. There are many more important issues in life than wasting time & money on changing a two word state to a one word state which is all it would really amount to.

i don't think anyone is particularly interested in changing the name of the civil partnership into marriage. what people are quite legitimately calling for is for marriage to be available to everyone.
whilst i personally might not see why people are so eager to be married, as opposed to recognised through civil partnership, i can absolutely agree with the right to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.
parliament has every right, in this case, to insits that insititutions treat the countries inhabitants fairly where it is sensible to do so.
rather than being too much effort to change things, i think we are duty-bound to protect the reasonable rights of every member of society to be included.
i also don't see the relevance of trawling out the 'hitler/stalin' debate here. it is an argument which is quite often flawed at the best of times.

The Original Desire, of any Evolution, of any God, of any Lord, is for you to feel and be fulfilled.


.


Nobody is here to fulfill something else in accordance with or in the service of some other.


.


Gods and Evolutions and Lords can accomplish all they need to accomplish. To no other, than your own Self be Fulfilled.


.


Are you not intrinsically seeking the beauty of fulfillment every day from the moment you get out of bed? I presume you don't court the prospect of being unfulfilled in all you think and say and emote and do.


.


We will mine and strive to remove thousands and thousands and thousands of tones of dirt for a few grammes of gold, just to fulfill something. I don't know what, but we humans do that. We will do anything in the hope that we will feel just a little bit of that beautiful fulfillment again. It's the way we are, and what we have been designed and engineered for.


.


Everyone has one moment, one consciousness, one original beautiful desire, and one breath coming back just to fulfill them.


.


Marriage does not fulfill everyone whichever words or way it is done.

Any knowledge of anything that will not, or cannot, or is not able to fulfill the Original Desire of every single living person from the highest to the lowest on this planet is an inferior knowledge of things and no one will ever be satisfied by understanding completely or putting all their faith in an inferior knowledge.

Without Jesus on the christian planet, all the christians have is an inferior christian knowledge to study on the planet.

I am being very generous with previous comment.

Ken Shuffles wrote:
I am being very generous with previous comment.

Ken, you are always so generous with comment. There are none to match you.

Excluded again wrote:

Graham Hartley wrote:
"Do not post anything that is false, ..."

God can do what is logically impossible. He can show that Aristotle was right to claim that heavy bodies fall faster than light bodies.

God (or physics) do not do what is logically impossible. Aristotle's original logic was at fault.

In you post, you have mixed up Aristotle's 'common sense' assertion that heavy objects fall faster than light objects with Gallileo's refutation of that position. A lighter stone attached to a heavier stone cannot both slow the heavier stone down and speed it up. Hence all objects must fall at the same rate under the force of gravity (any variance is due to air resistance).

In this case both logic and experiment match perfectly. As they normally do.

Well, it was late and I enjoy mixing.

I find it puzzling that for some two thousand years (until Galileo refuted his claim) Aristotle was thought to be correct. Wikipedia describes him as a polymath. Rather a shame, then, that he didn't use anything more than 'common sense' when considering falling bodies and so held up the advance of reason for so long. An anagram of 'Aristotle' is 'tries a lot'. He could have tried less, just harder.

'God (or physics) do not do what is logically impossible.'

Indeed; that's why I began with the advice given to all correspondents here. Yet an omnipotent God can do anything, including interfere with His omniscience - because He can change the human perception of logic. Perhaps He did that to Aristotle.

Excluded again wrote:
The proposal is quite clear - churches (or mosques or synagogues) will not have to perform gay marriages. They will be civil ceremonies.

It is not inevitable that such a change will force churches to carry out gay marriages. legal divorce came in over 150 years ago. And yet the law still does not force churches to marry divorcees - the Catholic Church resolutely refuses to do so still.

If there is a law proposed to force you to marry gay people in your church, Rev Kev, then I will support you. But there isn't any such proposal.

Excluded again,
Yes, it is inevitable that churches will be forced to carry out gay marriages.
.
That's the conclusion of all our legal experts. Equal Opportunities Law will mean that we are left with no defence.

"That's the conclusion of all our legal experts"

A wonderful use of church funds. More dodgy legal advice for the fundamentalist, discriminatory, inflammatory, agressive religious brigade to spend their money on.

If I went to church I would be asking how much of my collection money is spent on lawyers.

Lawyers and publicity sort of sums up the entire gravyshambles that glues it together, if it ever was together.


.


What a great public institution of embarrassment the Church of England has become.


.


Not fit for purpose or humans.

Someone, has to take responsibility for fulfilling the unfulfilled......

Joseph Yossarian wrote:
"That's the conclusion of all our legal experts"

A wonderful use of church funds. More dodgy legal advice for the fundamentalist, discriminatory, inflammatory, agressive religious brigade to spend their money on.

If I went to church I would be asking how much of my collection money is spent on lawyers.

Sadly, Joe, more of the collection goes into lawyers' purses than church leaders would like.
.
It should be channelled into helping the poor, the underprivileged, the deprived and the otherwise needy.
.
To continue to help those in need, the church must occasionally fight for survival and sometimes, in a world rightly governed by law, that means getting legal advice.
.
For the Church of England, being the established church by law, legal work goes with the territory.

I am much bigger than any Churches problems so far. I am much bigger than any problem any legal team could possibly manufacture. Much bigger than any legal problem that could possibly be classed as entertainment by law, or even entertained in law, if it comes to it.


.


One Fulfilled person in the community is more powerful than any amount of law.


.


Divinity, versus man made law ? mmmm.....

Did Jesus consult lawyers before he fed the poor and breathed eternal life into the dead ?


.


A Fulfilled person, can do the best of the very best, for the most, with the absolute least amount of least.





The strongest civilisation is the kindest community. The strongest person on earth is the kindest person on earth and the beauty of the original desire is the same beautiful and original fulfilment.

When everything can be changed in one fifth of a second earthtime, what do we need a set of regulations for ?

Meeting one Fulfilled person can change what you thought was your Life.

The world is governed by greed not law kev. We should be helping those diseased from greed.


.


The fulfilled person, has no earthly needs.

Whatever the self fulfilling person requires is addressed.

Man made laws and impediments and other legal obstacles and hurdles dare not arise.

He is fulfilled without needs.

A force beyond the natural is the fulfilled person.

A fulfilled civilisation is not a civilisation with symptoms and wants.

Trying to find out where David Cameron stands on fundamentally important moral issues is rather like holding onto an exceptionally greasy eel.
Peter Hitchens, the brother of the late atheist Christopher, and himself Anglican, has made some perceptive comments over the past few years on the ethics of the 'new' Tories.
In one of his newspaper columns he reports talking to a worker at Conservative Central Office who told him that DC 'actually believes in nothing'.

karolgadge wrote:
Trying to find out where David Cameron stands on fundamentally important moral issues is rather like holding onto an exceptionally greasy eel.
Peter Hitchens, the brother of the late atheist Christopher, and himself Anglican, has made some perceptive comments over the past few years on the ethics of the 'new' Tories.
In one of his newspaper columns he reports talking to a worker at Conservative Central Office who told him that DC 'actually believes in nothing'.

Thanks, karolgadge, for passing on that interesting snippet.
I'll have a go on Google and see if I can trace it.
.
The Hitchens family make-up must have made for interesting family gatherings. There would never have been a shortage of something to discuss.

Ah, Christopher Hitchens. In 'Hitch 22 A Memoir' he calls his father The Commander and his mother Yvonne. Of Peter he writes with great affection and admiration. This was my book-at-bedtime and I made margin notes, in the way that I do in technical books. How determined I was, only a couple of years ago, to understand everything; as if I was a scholar studying for an examination.

Revkev wrote:

karolgadge wrote:
Trying to find out where David Cameron stands on fundamentally important moral issues is rather like holding onto an exceptionally greasy eel.
Peter Hitchens, the brother of the late atheist Christopher, and himself Anglican, has made some perceptive comments over the past few years on the ethics of the 'new' Tories.
In one of his newspaper columns he reports talking to a worker at Conservative Central Office who told him that DC 'actually believes in nothing'.

Thanks, karolgadge, for passing on that interesting snippet.
I'll have a go on Google and see if I can trace it.
.
The Hitchens family make-up must have made for interesting family gatherings. There would never have been a shortage of something to discuss.

The quote from Peter Hitchens where he writes that David Cameron doesn't believe in anything can be found here:

Peter Hitchens' blog, September 11th 2011. It's contained in a paragraph towards the end of the article titled 'Why I Hope Free Schools Fail'.
Hitchens' analysis of the new Tories and their baleful influence on Britain is worth reading too. It's all contained in his book 'The Cameron Delusion; The Broken Compass'.

Apologies for the typo - the column 'Why I Hope Free Schools Fail' appeared on Sep. 12th, 2011.

.......It's not the compass of man that is broken it's the consciousness of man that needs his attention.......

Consciousness, is the only everlasting science that leads to an eternal understanding.


.


Consciousness is the Sovereign Understanding, and the most worthy and most noble, and the most beneficial of all the sciences of man and of god.

Your mental, emotional, physical states, have all been created by your consciousness. Consciousness is the parent of earth,wind,fire, and the three fields of space and time. We should take care not to love what appears to be the created more than we love what does not appear to be the creator.

Revkev wrote:

Joseph Yossarian wrote: "That's the conclusion of all our legal experts" A wonderful use of church funds. More dodgy legal advice for the fundamentalist, discriminatory, inflammatory, agressive religious brigade to spend their money on. If I went to church I would be asking how much of my collection money is spent on lawyers.

Sadly, Joe, more of the collection goes into lawyers' purses than church leaders would like. . It should be channelled into helping the poor, the underprivileged, the deprived and the otherwise needy. . To continue to help those in need, the church must occasionally fight for survival and sometimes, in a world rightly governed by law, that means getting legal advice. . For the Church of England, being the established church by law, legal work goes with the territory.

Which is an interesting corollary to your previous blog on church giving.

To me, all these pointless legal actions launched by religious groups to protect their right to discriminate only serve to highlight their prejudices.

Joseph Yossarian wrote:

Revkev wrote:

Joseph Yossarian wrote: "That's the conclusion of all our legal experts" A wonderful use of church funds. More dodgy legal advice for the fundamentalist, discriminatory, inflammatory, agressive religious brigade to spend their money on. If I went to church I would be asking how much of my collection money is spent on lawyers.

Sadly, Joe, more of the collection goes into lawyers' purses than church leaders would like. . It should be channelled into helping the poor, the underprivileged, the deprived and the otherwise needy. . To continue to help those in need, the church must occasionally fight for survival and sometimes, in a world rightly governed by law, that means getting legal advice. . For the Church of England, being the established church by law, legal work goes with the territory.

Which is an interesting corollary to your previous blog on church giving.

To me, all these pointless legal actions launched by religious groups to protect their right to discriminate only serve to highlight their prejudices.

Joe,
Does this mean that the gay community is prejudice when it takes Christians to court
or...
is it that there is no prejudice (pre-judging without knowledge) just both groups exercising their freedom to test things with the law of the land?

Joe,
Does this mean that the gay community is prejudice when it takes Christians to court
or...
is it that there is no prejudice (pre-judging without knowledge) just both groups exercising their freedom to test things with the law of the land?
____________________
__-

All gay people want is equal rights.

What your lobby does is seek to discriminate; to preach intolerance; to spread prejudice.

Seeking equal rights is not prejudice.

Seeking to discriminate is prejudice.