You are here . on the pale blue dot


Please note that 'Anonymous' comments without a pseudonym are not published.

Comments for publication should be 'on topic' and not involve third parties please.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites the comments will be removed as spam.

Saturday, 29 July 2017

BBC celebrates 'love'


Still from the BBC factual drama 'Against the Law'


A vicar in Hull has claimed that words such as 'pride' and 'gay' have been being "hijacked" by people who would seek to normalise LGBT activity as part of mainstream life.  An addition to his list could be 'love' following the BBC's Gay Britannia LGBTQ TV campaign for the advancement of homosexuality in Great Britain.

At the beginning Episode 1 (Series 1) of the BBC's 'Prejudice And Pride: The People’s History Of LGBTQ Britain', a male presenter referred to "loving" someone for a single night!

Presenters Susan Calman and Stephen K Amos 
So 'love' is used to describe a night of sex with someone of the same sex. The female presenter went on to object that lesbians had not been included in the anti-homosexuality laws so they fell outside the definition of what sex could be. Lesbians were "virtually invisible" she complained. All that has now changed.

'Equality' is another word used by liberal progressives to justify their cause resulting in considerable confusion especially when equality is substituted for theology. 

The BBC had previously screened a harrowing factual drama "Against the law". In 1954 there was considerable shock and outrage when Lord Montagu of Beaulieu was imprisoned after being found guilty of homosexual activity with two airmen. They escaped prosecution after receiving immunity in return for their incriminating testimony, naming more than 20 other sexual partners, against whom no action was taken.

Also convicted was Daily Mail journalist Peter Wildeblood.  Described as "one of the bravest men who ever lived", he was the only openly gay man to give evidence to Lord Wolfenden’s committee which in 1957 recommended the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Britain.

Sadly this act of bravery was trivialised in the programme by an ageing queen who with obvious delight and amusement outed Lord Wolfenden's son with whom he claimed to have been "having an affair" at the time. No honour among queens!

In his evidence [advance to 1.11.20 on iPlayer] Wildeblood dismissed two of three categories of homosexuals he claimed there to be; 'pansies' who regarded themselves as women and pederasts for whom he had considerable contempt. He said that homosexuals in the strict sense are "adult men who are attracted to adult men. Men who desire to lead their lives with discretion and decency, neither corrupting others nor publicly flaunting their condition." [My emphasis - Ed.] They were "by far" the largest group of homosexuals.

By publicly flaunting their LGBT+ preferences, the gay pride movement is undoing the achievements of Peter Wildeblood in gaining respect for homosexual people "who desire only to lead their lives with discretion and decency". 

The BBC's Gay Britannia celebration is undermining those hard-won achievements in what appears to be a concerted campaign by Church and State to queer Britain and force the acceptance of same sex marriage, a red line for many.

31 comments:

  1. It really is quite simple AB and I wish you would get it and indeed many of your contributors - faith and religion evolves. Saint Irenaeus of the 2nd century who put it like this : “Christ comes to us in newness". That's always been my approach too and if it was good enough for Saint Irenaeus may it be good enough for you and for me: "Christ comes to us in newness". I recite that daily and it has made for a very happy life thus far. I commend it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What would Jesus say?31 July 2017 at 08:34

    Christ did not come to us in perversity or deviancy.
    Your "faith and religion" are a distortion. The road to heaven and true happiness is straight and narrow.
    You have built on sand.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scapegoat, I seriously doubt St Irenaeus meant that in the way you suggest. Even if he did, his teaching is not on par with scripture.

    Contextualising the gospel is no easy thing. The difference with culturally re-presenting eternal truth is not the same as trying to change eternal truth itself. We teach a faith delivered to us by Christ's Apostles, 'once for all'. In Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem gave an edict to the new Gentile believers, exempting them from having to convert to Judaism first before becoming Christians and that they should not eat food offered to idols and to refrain from sexual immorality.

    No-one surely can seriously think they envisaged that gay relationships did not fit into the above prohibition knowing the cultural and historical mileau they lived in. Unless one thinks they were wrong? The trouble with this theory of evolution is that it can lead anywhere according to the direction of travel of secular society.

    To me this is not an issue such as women in leadership, which is sanctioned by scripture in my opinion (I know many here disagree with that), it is a re-engineering the whole doctrine of family life as understood for nearly two millennia by the Christian church.

    Respectfully yours

    WHAMAB

    ReplyDelete
  5. Appreciate you writing respectfully.

    It's a well rehearsed argument but basically two people in a faithful loving relationship cannot be counted as sexual immorality.

    In that sense "Christ comes to us in newness" would ask us to consider whether that love might be of Christ. I conclude it does you conclude otherwise.

    Having accepted for myself that the love I experience is of Christ has brought me greater happiness than to consider myself immoral. It has brought me closer to God and made me a more loving person towards others.

    If that's a life built on sand then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Two sisters or two brothers. As long as their relationship is faithful and loving then any sex between cannot be considered immoral? The newness of Christ can evolve then to absolving yet alone absorbing what was once considered incest. This is the position of Bp. Cameron as found in his diocesan magazine, Teulu Asaph-summer 2016

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think what 'Scapegoat' is getting at 'thrupence' is, so long as its 'same sex, sex' whether one is a married hetrosexual or not.

      Homosexual relationships as extra marital sex is ok, and has never,strangely enough, in UK law, contributed to adultery. This method of sexual 'newness' (previously regarded sexual pleasure) can now be considered, 'en Christo'. If thats liberal equality then I'll eat my bereta.

      Leslie (Abercynon) Marsh

      Delete
  7. Nonsense thrupebce - utter hyperbole and a canyon's leap from what I was expressing. Surprised you did not bring in sex with animals ! Don't belittle sincerely held and lived out beliefs with your simple extremism. It's not necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My brothers and sisters, I think we need to remember this: there is more sin in the boardroom, than you will ever find in the bedroom; yet Christians seem to be obsessed with the sins of the bedroom, whilst ignoring the sins of the boardroom. Every day, multinational companies rape this planet of its resources. They make countless hundreds of people homeless, creating refugee crises around the world. They pollute waterways and take over arable farm land in order to make money for their shareholders. No-one in that system spares a thought for the generations yet to come. As God's people, we should be outraged and very vocal over it. Yet we content ourselves to be outraged with what two men or two women do in their private lives. I am sure God must weep.

    Tiglath Pileser

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. It is not Christians who are obsessed with the sins of the bedroom. The issue is forced on them by a powerful LGBTP lobby who cry 'bigot' at every opponent, and a gay-friendly BBC and press.
      The issue is raised in profile by the 'Pride' marches and pro-gay campaigning. There are not equivalent movements supporting theft. There is no marching by those proud to be adulterers. There are no BBC campaigns supporting fraud or animal cruelty.

      Delete
    3. Evangelical Ed is correct, and similarly the CiW leaders are the ones forcing the issue.
      Governing body after "consultation" voted against gay blessings and marriage in Church,yet this was ignored by the bench who have introduced a liturgy for after a gay marriage, which looks and sounds like a blessing. No guidance for any clergy who can not in conscience perform this service. Can they be tried by law for refusing? No one seems to know or care?
      Every member of the bench is in favour of gay marriage which does not represent the people in our pews.
      The C of E looks like it will split over these issues. I think in the CiW many will just leave.

      Delete
    4. I am afraid, Evangelical Ed and Danny Jones, that you are wrong. Time and time again, this blog returns to the issue of homosexuality, as if it is the only sin we need concern ourselves with. Scapegoat has had some shocking things said to him over various blogs, and all on account of his sexuality. And dare I say it, many of the comments are bigoted; and the bigots think that Jesus is on their side. What we learn from the Gospels is that Jesus always took his stand with those who were denigrated by the bigots.
      What we need to remember is this: sin is sin. There is no sliding table of sin with homosexuality at the top of it, and white lies at the bottom. Sin is sin. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but I am thankful that on the Day of Judgement, I will only have to answer for my sins, rather than worry about the sins of somebody else.
      Simple Soul states below: "Our duty as Christians is to love, and this is God's law." Yet from the comments that appear on these pages, the only people who are undeserving of our duty to love are gays and lesbians. Are they not made in the image of God? The reason the goats in Matthew 25 are condemned is because they fail to see the image of God in their fellow human beings, and as a result, do not respond by offering them the dignity that a child of God deserves.
      The Church and its adherents are very good at forcing God into our little boxes. We try to make him as small minded as we are. What I have come to realize over the years is that God is generously big-hearted - his mercy endures forever. He is the God I meet in Jesus Christ, who refused to condemn the sinner and reached out in love to those official religion had no time for because they were deemed to be sinners.

      Tiglath Pileser

      Delete
    5. Your comment is rather disingenuous, Tiglath.

      This blog is no more obsessed by LGBT issues than the Thinking Anglicans (TA) website, which many of its regular contributors admit themselves in their own comments appears obsessed with the same issues, but from the opposite perspective. Try writing you second sentence as a comment on TA and see whether it is even published; and if it is, what reactions you receive.

      One of the differences between the two sites is that contributors to TA DO set the tone of the Anglican debate often as members of the CofE General Synod. However contributors to this blog do NOT. This blog can only react to the agenda set by the CiW itself via the Bench of Bishops and the Governing Body.

      You are correct to write, that "We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". However what you write next cannot be the case for a Christian (see 1 Corinthians 8 v 9-13).

      Nonetheless this does not in any way detract from your comments concerning the tone of certain comments on this blog. Matthew 5 v 44 might make a good 'Christian reality check' for all of us when the debate becomes over-heated.

      At the end of the day, until such time as the Anglican Communion generally recalls Isiah 55 v 8-9 - "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord" - it will continue as a collection of disputatious sinners rather than a communion of saints seeking God's truth, however uncomfortable that Truth may prove to be for any and all of us. But as I was told a long time ago, 'no one ever said being a Christian was going to be easy'.

      Delete
    6. Au contraire, Alan, I am being anything but disingenuous. When we point a finger of condemnation at someone else, there are three fingers attached to it that are pointing back at us. Jesus pulls us up short in three places in this regard. "Let those who are without sin cast the first stone." (John 8: 7), "Judge not, and you will not be judged; the judgement you give is the judgement you shall receive, and the measure you dole out will be the measure you get back" (Matthew 7: 1-2) "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye." (Luke 6: 41) Since we have all fallen short of the glory of God, there is not a single human being on this planet that has the right to condemn somebody else.
      I, nor anybody else that I know, eats food offered to idols, so I do not see the relevance of your citation of 1 Corinthians 8. The Corinthians did eat food that had been offered in the pagan temples there, and hence it had become a bone of contention; with the weaker brethren falling away from the Christian faith, but this passage is irrelevant to the subject in hand.
      The simple fact is this: we stand before God on the Day of Judgement to answer for ourselves, and not for anybody else. If I have caused a weaker brother or sister to fall away from Christ, then I will have to answer for that - that was caused by my action - but I am not responsible for everybody else's sins. Whilst we spend our lives being concerned with what others do or do not do, we are distracting ourselves from making sure that we are right with God.

      Tiglath Pileser

      Delete
    7. Of course we all sin, but hopefully we repent, receive forgiveness and try not to sin again ( and fail). We don't claim that our gossip to use one example, is Godly and inspired because we only gossip in a loving way.
      The CiW are forcing us to make decisions by constantly rewriting tradition and Scripture. Many clergy have to make a conscious decision whether to perform prayers after a gay wedding or face criminal prosecution. This blog and it's contributors are responding to the bench and it's agenda.
      And let's be honest this issue is important and it will split individual churches and beyond

      Delete
    8. Tiglath,

      You wrote, " If I have caused a weaker brother or sister to fall away from Christ, then I will have to answer for that - that was caused by my action". It seems to me that you have thus understood the point I was making regarding Corinthians 1. Incidentally this new comment from you stands in contrast to your earlier comment, "I am thankful that on the Day of Judgement, I will only have to answer for my sins, rather than worry about the sins of somebody else".

      I do not disagree with you, or other commentators here, regarding the unacceptable tone of certain comments. I have already stated that clearly above.

      However as I also pointed out above, your admonishment really ought to be addressed to both those who make unacceptable comments regarding LGBT people, AND those who impose their own monologue notably on the CiW. The fact that you have not addressed the substantive of my previous comment regarding 'the other side of the debate' appears to indicate partiality. I can assure you as a regular reader of TA, in order to better understand the point of view of others, there have been very many a stone thrown verbally in the direction of Traditionalist Anglicans. Two Wrongs do not make a Right, but singling out only one group for criticism does not either. Perhaps you had best follow your own advice and your own fingers ...

      The essential difference between how the CofE & the CiW are addressing the same issues is that the former has acknowledged the divergent issues, seeks to apply a policy of constructive debate and 'good disagreement', and to move forward together in the mission of the Church. The CiW, as has been demonstrated over and again on this blog and most recently in the quote from the Archdeacon of Llandaff in the more recent post by AB, simply rides rough-shod over opposing views, with a "take it or leave it, preferably the latter if you do not agree" attitude. As Danny Jones writes above, "This blog and it's contributors are responding to the bench and it's agenda".

      Delete
    9. Alan, firstly, thank you for the courteous tone of your email. There is no disjointedness in my thinking, however. On the Day of Judgement I am answerable for my own sins, and no-one else's peccadilloes. Nevertheless, my sins might include causing a brother or sister to fall away from Christ. I am still answerable for that; but I will never be responsible, or held accountable by God for the misdemeanours of others. They are answerable for their own misdemeanours.
      The suggestion that I favour one side of the argument over the other couldn't be further from the truth. In all honesty, the issue of human sexuality bores me rigid. I have a life to live rather be concerned about what people get up to in their bedrooms. With regard to the other blog you mentioned, I have never read it, and have no intention to either. Just because someone blogs something, doesn't make it authoritative.
      If you are upset with the Bench of Bishops write to them, stating clearly your objections. Get other people to sign your letter. Stand for Governing Body, and get a few of your friends who are like-minded to stand too. Hold the Bishops to account; but if anyone thinks that whinging on a website is going to change the world, then they are mistaken.
      Finally, with regard to my fingers, they are firmly bunched together. I hold the position I have held all along - none of us is in a position to judge others - and that includes me. I am a sinner, fully in need of God's saving grace; which is why I do not concern myself with other people's sins. I have got enough of my own to deal with.

      Tiglath Pileser

      Delete
  9. Are we talking about 'sexual activities' or 'love'? Clearly there is confusion here.

    To live a life which is free of unnatural sexual activities is liberating . For this reason,I abhor the efforts of the BBC and of misguided priests seeking to teach me, and to create a climate of, normalisation of LBGT way of life. The fact that gay life-style is not against the law of the land cannot, and does not,make this a good and correct path for Christians.
    By the manner of the exhibitionist behaviour of those persons who support gay pride marches etc., it is made clear that sexual satisfaction is an integral part of such relationships.
    Gay sexual activity is not an expression of love :it is simply self-fulfilling and can only distract the persons from genuine spiritual growth and genuine love.
    Our duty as Christians is to love, and this is God's law.
    Our model for family life is The Holy Family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I read here in this post AB, of what is alleged of the named bishop from the northen hemisphere presiding in what appears to be developing into a Druid type cult of a province, can we expect a new transgender, homosexual, lesbian version of scripture? For example, "If any man is in Christ he is a new creature"?

      Delete
  10. Thank you - that entry made me cry a little. I'd just read this article - Beaten up for being gay http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40643461 - so to come to this blog and read your kind words was something quite beautiful. Many contributions to this site are guilty of hate towards homosexuals and the author of the site is obsessed with this one issue. I keep contributing out of a genuine sense of Godly calling - I would hate readers if this site to think that its stance in any way represents the love of Christ. Often I am deeply hurt and wonded by the things said here but then do was Christ. Not that I am claiming divinity!!!

    Friends you have nothing to fear from those of us who are gay. Like you we are sinners but get to know us and you will soon appreciate that through the wounds many of us have received because of our sexuality has come a compassion and a deep spirituality that might well connect with the God in you.

    Let us bring peace and blessing to our world and let us do so together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scapegoat, I'm sorry if it was my post that made you cry a little. I didn't mean to make anybody cry - honestly. Nevertheless, you are a child of God and you are made in his image, and you deserve the dignity which any child of God should be given. He has loved you, redeemed you and sanctified you, just as much as he has loved, redeemed and sanctified the greatest of the saintly band. Never lose sight of that, no matter how vociferous your critics become. The psalmist came to realize that God knew everything about him (Psalm 139), and God knows everything about you too. The thing that bowls me over time after time, sometimes even reducing me to tears, is that this God who knows everything about me, including my sins, still goes on loving me and still goes on forgiving me. Such amazing Grace - Great Riches At Christ's Expense.

      Tiglath Pileser

      Delete
  11. Scapegoat, firstly thank you for the hand of friendship you offer. I genuinely appreciate your tone and see where you are coming from, contributors have used insulting and derogatory language to yourself and gay people. How on earth they think this helps the cause or theological position they claim to espouse is beyond me. I do begin to think that they use the cover of a sincerely held position as a smokescreen to launch their hate for gay people - they know who they are.

    But, and there is a but, we can never go where you want us to go. Our consciences are captive as Martin Luther reputedly said. We also have begun to fear you because our position is considered hateful and bigoted. We fear for our place in the church and worry that if we are identified for holding an orthodox in regard to sexuality we will be made pariahs.

    I'm sorry if it is offensive to compare any 'suffering' we have had to that of homosexuals in the past, it is clearly not at that level, but I do think that it possibly may be harder soon to 'come out' as a traditionalist than to 'come out' as gay. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving away my real name at all here for example.

    Our ecclesial futures are probably not going to be together in all truth. The Anglican Church in these islands will endure a cataclysmic split soon over these issues where orthodox believers will build a 'new' church in Apostolic Succession both in teaching and historical transmission. Hopefully, we will be free of the burden of crumbling buildings when it happens.

    Hate never represented Christ's ministry, but he didn't always come to unite (Matt 10:34). Scapegoat you no doubt a fine person, we could even be friends and recognise the spirituality in one another but the teaching of the Apostles is the teaching of the Apostles and we are never going to agree on that.

    Wishing you well.

    WHAMAB

    ReplyDelete
  12. Coming out in terms of what you fundamentally "are" (and sometimes facing dersision for that) is perhaps of a different order than coming out for what one fundamentally believes; I can see the overlap, but the one is a given, the other an adopted disposition (one might say choice,even). Perhaps I might be helped to see your fundamentalist position as your burden as you are helped in seeing my sexuality as mine and if we begin to 'bear one another's burdens' we shall 'fulfill the law of Christ' and each be changed by the other. That ability to see the image of God in the other is what separates the sheep from the goats. I'm going to try my hardest to see the image of God in AB and those you herald his anti-gay stance and perhaps by doing that I might see Christ-incognito in him. If he (and others) adopted the same position to LGBTI peoples, then we might mutually help one another to flourish. I suspect AB is capable of this - there are enough chinks in his armour to suggest this; not so sure about others (who would compare LGBTI peoples to dogs!) but perhaps even they can be loved into the Kingdom of God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scapegoat, did you read my entry before penning your unnecessary self-justification?
      You appear to confuse Anglican orthodoxy with homophobia so please explain what you mean by AB's "anti-gay stance" giving examples.

      Delete
  13. I think as others have also commented (and not just me) your anti-gay, inflammatory and obsessive coverage of anything relating to homosexuality is perfectly plain to see. Sadly it seems you don't see it for yourself. That, my friend, is profoundly sad. Deeply sad indeed. I don't for one moment feel the need to justify what I have said with examples - there are just too many I would not know where to begin.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Scapegoat, time for you to put a sock in it. Consider the majority of decent confined homosexuals, also the genuine celibate who feel embarrassed and exposed by such hubris rants such as yours and your kind. Give them a break. Give us all a break, for that matter. If this blog discriminates then report it, and 'come out coward'.

    The hubris mindset continues apparent in you, to quote, "I don't for one moment feel the need to justify what I have said". Of course you don't. But here's some news.You're now a lame duck, and its showing with each and every passing day. Go take a long walk buddy, and mind the sand bunker

    ReplyDelete
  15. Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  16. This comment is homophobic in itself "The fact that gay life-style is not against the law of the land cannot, and does not,make this a good and correct path for Christians." Such a 'life-style' has never been against the law, only the particular act that was illegal. Many Christians would also disagree with this viewpoint, as they also disagree with the stance against women as priests and bishops. In this comment "The issue is raised in profile by the 'Pride' marches and pro-gay campaigning. There are not equivalent movements supporting theft. There is no marching by those proud to be adulterers. There are no BBC campaigns supporting fraud or animal cruelty." This is in my view completely unacceptable language and these things cannot be compared together. Totally unchristian.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Which was why I did not feel the need to justify my view that the majority of posts and articles on this site are homophobic. Not hubris on my part or arrogance or hectoring, just a sad fact.

    ReplyDelete