Search results

Close. I think the term you're straining for there is 'Old Testament'.

Oh gosh, where to start? Well, there's the whole Christian dominionism thing. Throw in a bit of anti-semitism (see The New World Order), some dodgy-dealings with indicted war criminal Charles Taylor and former Zairean President Mobutu (diamonds, it seems, are not just a girl's best friend but...

It's as bad if not worse this side of the Pond.

A couple of points by way of rejoinder: first, you can't keep the Gospel out of politics, whether you're talking about justice for the poor or protecting the unborn (to quote but two examples). Secondly, one can and sometimes should judge a tree by it's fruit: if someone is spouting heretical...

Indeed. If God is still in the business of smiting OT-style, then it would no difficult thing for him to send a tsunami to wipe the Netherlands off the map.

In what way?

In theory, she could. But in practice, no monarch has refused to do so since the reign of Queen Anne, if nothing else for the simple reason that Parliament could simply depose him/her and appoint a new monarch (as effectively happened in 1688/9).

Hmmm....not as simple as that. Beyond a say in the appointment of bishops, the Prime Minister through the Queen has virtually no say in how the CofE is run. The good news is that Harman has backed off and allowed the Lords' amendment to stand. This particular round then seems to have gone to...

:applause:

Correct re hiring.

Article here. The background to this is that the Labour Government, urged on by hyper-feminist Harriet Harman, the Deputy Prime Minister, want to extend laws prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of, inter alia, sexual orientation and gender (including 'transgendered' individuals), to...

Yes, but, unlike Jesus, those individuals - and those directly raise by Him like Jairus' daughter, Lazarus and the son of the widow of Nain - were not permanently resurrected - ultimately they died for a second time (which gives us a curious exception to the statement in Hebrews 9:27). So...

OK, the response I got on the other board from one of the Catholics (he's a Thomist theologian BTW so no slouch!) is that the the issue of the who, why, how and when of the sacrifice is an open question!

Straw man!! Re-presentation of the sacrifice made once for all, NOT re-sacrifice

-ish! I'm a member of Reform if that assists. When the minister calls the Holy Spirit down on the gifts to make them holy so that they may become "for us the Body and Blood of Christ" (Anglican Eucharistic epiclesis); my understanding though is that the Catholic view (in contrast to those of...

Yes , I understand. I think it's fair to say that I understand more of the Catholic position since leaving the Catholic Church in my teens than I ever did whilst I was in it! But the sacrifice of the Mass is still something I struggle to get my head round; I guess I, in common with virtually...

See above: baptism is a means of communicating that saving grace, but it is a work of God, not of man. I wouldn't say necessary (see, eg: the thief on the cross) but I would say normative.

As I understand it, the sacrifice is Jesus', on the Cross, to the Father, for the propitiation of our sins, in which priest and people participate by re-presenting that original, once-for-all sacrifice, through the Mass. Therefore, His sacrifice becomes also our sacrifice.

No 'work' I can do can ever satisfy the demands of His justice; only His grace resulting from the atoning death of Jesus Christ can do that.

Agree with you, Marcia. It all sounds a bit politically correct, "don't upset the Muzzies" sort of thing.