arden forester

Reading the Qu'ran doesn't necessarily make a Christian mixed up, but saying so for effect does!

__________________
www.ardenforester.blogspot.com

rjt

Probably said that to get the muslim vote, rather blew it with Iraq though.

Deep Purple

In the interview Blair was clear that he was reading the Qur'an in a devotional sense, rather than in an academic sense or out of interest.

So yes, it does indicate someone who is not totally commited to one faith but is likely to pick and mix according to his whims- a bit like his politics really.

rjt

My concern on this issue is that it could well get worse. We have seen the governements blatent ignorance as regards the strength of christian faith in the recent gay adoption debate.

I honestly beleive with the current Lab/Con/Lib Dem consenus that we could be on course for a confrontation between church and state.

Civil partnerships are now allowed, how long before gay rights groups start lobbying for it to be compuslary for churches to hold gay marriages. There is widespread cocern in Northern Irelland about ecent sexual equality legisaltion, a geust house owner regardless of his beleifs may have to rent out a double room to a gay couple, why should this be the case if he feels that type of behaviour is wrong, whatever happened to the management retains the right to refuse service or doing what many have done an offering two singles as a comprimise.

The church both anglican and catholic have tried time and time to comprimise but the governement seems content on erroding christian values in this country.

NO Christian in my view has any reason to vote for Labour/Con/Lib Dem alliance, I hope that a force that does represent christian values does emerge politically and soon.

arden forester

Labour women MPs tried to force equal opportunity legislation onto the Church of England. Currently it does not apply.

It seems the left/libertine/licentious lobby wants to force Christians who do not accept their viewpoint to knuckle under.

They want - the Church(es) to accept:-

1. Gay "marriage"
2. Gay priests
3. Gay employees

Time will tell what hapens next! :roll:

rjt

If it goes on the destruction of the anglican church which is becoming infiltrated by liberal tendencys not unsympathetic to the views expressed by Labours women MPS, the catholic church will try to resist for longer and there will probably be a considerable ammount of defections to it from the anglican community.

C_steam

is it?

Surely one is a union before God performed by a minister of the church and the other is 'just' a non religeous (secular) joining?

So a 'civil partnership' - for any sex pairing - is not a marriage in the religeous sense of the word. So why can't you attend, accept it is a secular occasion (think of 'birthday party') and just wish the pair well?

Or is it that you accept civil partnerships between straights, but not between gays? If so, what is your logic? The gays are going to live together anyway, so doing it before or after a secular blessing makes no odds at all in the face of God, surely? You'd make sense if you stated you would not attend ANY civil partnership - but you didn't.

The Church should, of course, maintain it's beliefs which are based on what it interprets through scripture as the word of God. But to suggest that a civil partnership is distasteful to the same extent as a church wedding of gays, or that somehow such a joining would somehow be 'blessed' by your presence is, I think, a little bizarre.

Honestly, the best way to deal with homosexuality is to put it on a par with left-handedness. They're different, they're born that way, they manage their lives themselves and don't need interference, special laws or special protection either way.

Deep Purple

rjt- I agree with your views on Christians shunning the mainstream parties, the game is up imho, there is now too much compromise of conscience.

One principle that seems to be overlooked in all this by the new trendy Tories is that of good old fashioned property rights, i.e. that people and organisations should have the right to decide how their premises and resources should be used.

This whole situation has got out of hand and we heading for a totalitarian State.

rjt

Of course I could not attend a gay civil partnership beleiveing as I do that homosexuality is sinful. I did not suggest I would be blessing anything, God blesses people not me.

You say that gay people dont get special protection, I think you need to have a look at some of our politically correct councils.

People should have a safe enviroment to express there views in this country if they want gay marraige, gay adoption etc. However a safe enviroment should be provided for those of us who hold to what we beleive the Bible tells us. This is not happening, as with the recent legislation in Northern Ireland and the gay adoption laws here, the state is attacking the foundations of the church and my fear is that the church will not have the courage to bite back. HARD!!

Mikeuk

The "gay adoption" scandal represented a full frontal attack on ALL religion - not just Catholicism and Christianity.

In his present weakened state Blair was unable to withstand the onslaught.

I feel sorry for Ruth Kelly. Her Irish Catholic background sets her at odds with the modern Socialist ethos. Like Kate Hoey (who came from a Unionist background via extreme Marxism) she now appears completely out on a limb in Nulabour England.