Here I was thinking desecrating sacred space was a Medieval Thing!

[Aemilius Paulus]

"Desecration" and "blasphemy" are not concepts most non-religious folk find understandable. As an atheist, I am inclined to say nothing holy on this Earth exists, and if it did, it would be something made by God, and not us men. Men are sinful, anything they make is not holy. Even the Bible affirms that much. It also contradicts itself (how typical of it) by mentioning the Temple of Solomon and the Ark which were unquestionably holy. But generally, this was about it. The Bible also employs "holy" in the metaphorical sense, but not directly when pertaining to other things.

I do not believe that a Church is holy, especially given all that has been done by its priests, by its builders, by the Church, and etc. Meneldil had a point in his previous post. Not to mention, what happened to the so-called "Protestant Principle"?? The treatment of a church as if it is worthy of great veneration and is holy, just as the iconoclasm and the infallibility of the Bible, seems to contradict the Protestant Principle. I know I am over-applying it a bit, or even more than a bit, but your treatment of a church, PVC, strikes me as rather when the Protestants originally wished to root out.

You know theology better than me, with your education, so think about it. You know the Protestants wished to put an end to the manner in which the Catholics would suddenly make and treat things as holy while the only thing that should have been holy and worthy of such treatment is God/Holy Trinity. Protestants saw that as no more than idolatry under a guise.

Now, my argument certainly overstretches common sense, which dictates prudent and conservative behaviour in a church, but still... Perhaps Christians should focus less on earthly things, the code of behaviour in certain institutions, and their treatment but more on the ultimate goal, in the Heavens.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Clearly there is confusion here over what I am talking about. Partly this is my fault, because I used the word "Holy" instead of the word "sacred".

Though the issue of usage is more complicated, nevermind about that though.

Sacred: This means something which is set apart, it is a concept common to all religions with temples, also in othere sheres. Lovers are often said to be sacred because their shared expereince is unique to them and inviolate.

In the Church we consecrate a space (make it sacred) by marking its boundaries and performing certain rites. This identifies it as a place set apart, no longer completely a part of world around it. We do this so that the place in which we worship is not used for other, earthly purposes. The selling of goods and the shedding of blood are forbidden, as is sexual activity, all manner of other things, swearing etc.

Desecration is an act so heinous that it is considered to pollute the sacred space and undo the consecration, at which point it ceases to be a place apart and becomes merely another building. Desecration does not have to do with damaging the building itself, because the building is not sacred, the space it occupies is.

So Jolt makes a non point, simply because he destroyed nothing and left no obvious marks does not mean he did not desecrate the Church. If he has then, theologically, the offence is grevious and the appropriate punishment has not even been mentioned, and will certainly not be used.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I do not believe that a Church is holy, especially given all that has been done by its priests, by its builders, by the Church, and etc. Meneldil had a point in his previous post. Not to mention, what happened to the so-called "Protestant Principle"?? The treatment of a church as if it is worthy of great veneration and is holy, just as the iconoclasm and the infallibility of the Bible, seems to contradict the Protestant Principle. I know I am over-applying it a bit, or even more than a bit, but your treatment of a church, PVC, strikes me as rather when the Protestants originally wished to root out.

PVC is Anglo-Catholic, he is more similar in his theology to the Catholic Church than most other Protestant denominations. The Anglican Church itself says it is a "via media" between Protestantism and Catholicism, and being a High Church Anglican Philipvs learns more towards the latter of the two.

At least that's what I've gathered, he can of course speak for himself, but I get +1 to my post count.

EDIT: Gah, he beat me to it!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC is Anglo-Catholic, he is more similar in his theology to the Catholic Church than most other Protestant denominations. The Anglican Church itself says it is a "via media" between Protestantism and Catholicism, and being a High Church Anglican Philipvs learns more towards the latter of the two.

At least that's what I've gathered, he can of course speak for himself, but I get +1 to my post count.

EDIT: Gah, he beat me to it!

That's about right. Though in my case it's more a "form of worship" thing than anything else, I'm unlikely to "revolt" any time soon, not least because that would mean I'd have something in common with Tony Blair.

[Rhyfelwyr]

in my case it's more a "form of worship" thing than anything else.

Lies! High Church Anglicanism is the puppet organisation for the Church of Rome in Britain. It is more than a form of worship, it is a political movement bent on the destruction of the true Reformed religion through the enforcement of Popish episcopacy and superstition, and Britain will never be free until the Anglican Church is destroyed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Lies! High Church Anglicanism is the puppet organisation for the Church of Rome in Britain. It is more than a form of worship, it is a political movement bent on the destruction of the true Reformed religion through the enforcement of Popish episcopacy and superstition, and Britain will never be free until the Anglican Church is destroyed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Half true. Central to Anglicanism is independence, the rest is right on though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Half true. Central to Anglicanism is independence, the rest is right on though.

I'm not sure if there's any seriouness in the last few posts due to my lack of sleep of late, but am I right in thinking you said something before about the Archbishop of Canterbury (or maybe another bishop?) having a claim to being the rightful head of the established church in Scotland?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not sure if there's any seriouness in the last few posts due to my lack of sleep of late, but am I right in thinking you said something before about the Archbishop of Canterbury (or maybe another bishop?) having a claim to being the rightful head of the established church in Scotland?

Sort of, what were the "Rump Episcopalians" became the Episcopal Church in Scotland, they have no Archbishop, and though they are an independant Church they recognise Canturbury's superiority as Primus inter Pares.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Episcopal_Church