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

[Aemilius Paulus]

The pictures are not offending, neither the photograph nor the girls descrated anything AFAIK (nothing was destroyed or vandalized during the shots). Get over it. And erotism is not porn, just like the goth/fetishism is not S&M.
Furthermore, as said a few times, you shouldn't be allowed to sue someone for blasphemy in western europe.

I tend to agree with that. I too visited the photographer's website and he is definitely not some porn director. His other photographs show a sense of taste and style. Now, the full frontal nudity was rather distasteful in a church, but I have not seen any genital exposure, so why go berserk over a pair of mammary glands? In Early High Mediaeval, I recollect reading about a style of women's clothing similar to the Minoan, were women would have cutaways exposing breasts. That was completely normal back then, and not at all vulgar.

The most offending part of his photoshoot was the motive, and most people tend to jump at the conclusion he was just making some porn, which he was not. He was making art, and I see no reason a church cannot be receptive to that. When Michelangelo and Boticelli painted their nudes, in church, often with pagan undertones in the case of the latter, some, even many, thought of it as an ultimate sacrilege. Let us not be a Girolamo Savonarola with his Bonfire of the Vanities. Those days should be over. As well as the "blasphemy" charge, which sounds preposterous and outdated.

Still, just how illegal is it to do things in a church without permission? What laws, if any, govern this?

[Meneldil]

I am offended, so are others, so they are offensive. I would say that you could make a very solid arguement that a simulated sex-act on an alter was desecration. At the very least it is deeply offensive, you wouldn't pretend to have sex on someone's dining room table, on their best table cloth, either.

Yes, you have every right to be offended. Anyone has the right to be offended by anything he wants. That's doesn't make the offend valuable. I'm offended by stupidity, but I won't be trying to sue every stupid people I meet.

{Bashing/making fun of} {religion/the Church} in a place which bears a strong religious meaning is a millenia old behavior. It's not any more offending than drunk idiots having a beer while sitting on a tomb.

During the middle-age, graveyards and church courts were often used by prostitutes, merchants, comedians. Most duels took place in cimetaries until the 17th. I'm not even talking about the romantic wave and its hundred of graveyard-based love scenes.

Each time, some people were obviously offended, while most of the population didn't really give a damn.

I personally find some of the pictures tasteless (I also find some of them really nice). It's obviously not porn, but the author went a bit too far IMO.
However, you can argue however you want, but simulating a sex-act for a picture is not desecration, at least outside of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan. If the priest is going to sue that guy on the basis of 'unauthorized pictures', then we might as well start suing the millions of people who take pictures of graveyards and churches, because nutjobs while obviously find a way to find any damn given picture offensive.

Charging the guy because he entered a private property without being allowed there is fine in my book. Unneeded, but understandable.
Charging him for blasphemy and desecration is a bit too much 18th centuri-ish for my taste.

[Jolt]

Haha, people want his head on a pike over some pictures about some church. Imagining I create a cult with my house as its defining place to pray and some random guy decides to take nude pictures in front of my home, should he get 6 months in jail? What if he photoshopped the background of that one church and still made a photomontage? Would he still be entitled to prison?

One thing is taking photographs of a site (Unless the place expressly prohibits the taking of images.), another thing is actually dessecrating (e.g. physically destroying, damaging) a site.
Pah-leeze it is the most ridiculous concept I ever saw anyone being trialed over, since the Inquisition. But then again I live under a secular state so what do I know. A lot more people show a lot less respect with society and the world they live in, and nothing happens to them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

During the middle-age, graveyards and church courts were often used by prostitutes, merchants, comedians. Most duels took place in cimetaries until the 17th. I'm not even talking about the romantic wave and its hundred of graveyard-based love scenes.

Each time, some people were obviously offended, while most of the population didn't really give a damn.

All of these things deconsecrate the ground people are burried in. This is what desecration is, an act which makes that which is holy, unholy. Simulating a sex act on an alter arguably does just that.

As I said, it is not a question of offense, but of desecration.

[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

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ugh, I know all about them, I am very unhappy about one of their churches that set up a few years ago in my town. Then again, I'm not exactly enamoured with the Kirk of late either.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ugh, I know all about them, I am very unhappy about one of their churches that set up a few years ago in my town. Then again, I'm not exactly enamoured with the Kirk of late either.

Oh, please start a topic on it (the Kirk).

Actually, tell me what's wrong with the Episcopalians as well.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh, please start a topic on it (the Kirk).

Actually, tell me what's wrong with the Episcopalians as well.

Woah, I wasn't meaning to make a generalised attack, just talking about one church. As for a topic on the Kirk, what bit of it are you talking about?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Woah, I wasn't meaning to make a generalised attack, just talking about one church. As for a topic on the Kirk, what bit of it are you talking about?

The great thing about Episcopal government is if you don't like a Church you can write to the local Bishop!

Generally, I'm interested about the Kirk.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The great thing about Episcopal government is if you don't like a Church you can write to the local Bishop!

Because Ministers can't read?!

Generally, I'm interested about the Kirk.

Be specific man! Do you mean doctrines, the beliefs of the general membership, the relationship with society... whatever.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because Ministers can't read?!

No, because the Bishop can do something about it. Case in point, Michael Exon is very well liked and I have been told from those who have first hand expereince that when a parish descends into chaos he fixes it with justice and compassion. That's just the local Bishop, hell the man has also reduced me to tears twice.

Be specific man! Do you mean doctrines, the beliefs of the general membership, the relationship with society... whatever.

Well, what's upsetting you?

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, because the Bishop can do something about it. Case in point, Michael Exon is very well liked and I have been told from those who have first hand expereince that when a parish descends into chaos he fixes it with justice and compassion. That's just the local Bishop, hell the man has also reduced me to tears twice.

OK, fair enough. I don't reckon episcopalianism is so bad today, since the flock are now in demand. It's more its political uses throughout history that fuel my knee-jerk reactions.

Well, what's upsetting you?

1. A decision taken allowing a certain minister to retain his position despite his inclinations (guess who)
2. They reintroduced pagan festivals (OK this was a while ago but still)
3. There is a stained-glass window with Jesus on it and now they put crosses everywhere in the church
4. Nobody knows anything about doctrines, I don't really ask them but I can tell, the only people I know who take religion seriously go to congregational churches
5. They are doing ecumenical work with the Catholic Church, which is having bad influences on our own church, but saying this would not doubt make me bigoted
6. Fuelled by their ecumenical frenzies, they united with the episcopalian church in denying to provide a serive to an Orange walk because they want to disassociate themselves with sectarianism... religion should not matter to people apparently
7. my minister only talks about the nice stuff in christianity, how Jesus united people, brings them in, never judges, basically all the nonsense stereotypes... people serve God because they think he will serve them, this is not how it should be, they should be convicted of their sins
8. more stuff I am too tired to remember...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK, fair enough. I don't reckon episcopalianism is so bad today, since the flock are now in demand. It's more its political uses throughout history that fuel my knee-jerk reactions.

Given that the majority of Christians throughout history have been under a Bishop it stands to reason the majority of abuses would happen under bishops.

1. A decision taken allowing a certain minister to retain his position despite his inclinations (guess who)
2. They reintroduced pagan festivals (OK this was a while ago but still)
3. There is a stained-glass window with Jesus on it and now they put crosses everywhere in the church
4. Nobody knows anything about doctrines, I don't really ask them but I can tell, the only people I know who take religion seriously go to congregational churches
5. They are doing ecumenical work with the Catholic Church, which is having bad influences on our own church, but saying this would not doubt make me bigoted
6. Fuelled by their ecumenical frenzies, they united with the episcopalian church in denying to provide a serive to an Orange walk because they want to disassociate themselves with sectarianism... religion should not matter to people apparently
7. my minister only talks about the nice stuff in christianity, how Jesus united people, brings them in, never judges, basically all the nonsense stereotypes... people serve God because they think he will serve them, this is not how it should be, they should be convicted of their sins
8. more stuff I am too tired to remember...

1. I vaguely recall this, I can't remember if he was a practicing homosexual. If he wasn't then he can't fairly be dissmissed.
2. I think most Christian would say it's only a pagan festival if you worship a pagan God. Trying to stop people enjoying themselves is impossible, all you do is make people miserable.
3. Total non-issue. There is a Church in Exeter, it has a cross on the front, tall narrow windows, a little bell and a banner proclaming, "Jesus Christ is Lord". I think it's the most pretensious building in the city, because it is deliberately ugly. It looks just enough like a Church to be recognised and is otherwise a brick blockhouse. Idolatry is in the eye, not the statue.
4. Completely normal for a Church which serves its comunity, the majority of people have neither the time nor skill-set for theology. I'm presuming you can recite the Shorter Catchism, which I presume you had to learn before Baptism. Expecting more than that from most people is unfair.
5. Matter of opinion.
6. Rhy, I hate to tell you this but the Orange Order provided at least tacit support for the Loyalist Militias. This isn't a religious issue, it's a sectarian one.
7. Sounds like the CofE. People should believe God loves them, and that he is Good and Just. Trying to get people to hate themselves just turns them away from God. I am a firm believer that if you make people feel safe and loved they open up and are willing to admit their own shortcomings.

[Rhyfelwyr]

1. I vaguely recall this, I can't remember if he was a practicing homosexual. If he wasn't then he can't fairly be dissmissed.
2. I think most Christian would say it's only a pagan festival if you worship a pagan God. Trying to stop people enjoying themselves is impossible, all you do is make people miserable.
3. Total non-issue. There is a Church in Exeter, it has a cross on the front, tall narrow windows, a little bell and a banner proclaming, "Jesus Christ is Lord". I think it's the most pretensious building in the city, because it is deliberately ugly. It looks just enough like a Church to be recognised and is otherwise a brick blockhouse. Idolatry is in the eye, not the statue.
4. Completely normal for a Church which serves its comunity, the majority of people have neither the time nor skill-set for theology. I'm presuming you can recite the Shorter Catchism, which I presume you had to learn before Baptism. Expecting more than that from most people is unfair.
5. Matter of opinion.
6. Rhy, I hate to tell you this but the Orange Order provided at least tacit support for the Loyalist Militias. This isn't a religious issue, it's a sectarian one.
7. Sounds like the CofE. People should believe God loves them, and that he is Good and Just. Trying to get people to hate themselves just turns them away from God. I am a firm believer that if you make people feel safe and loved they open up and are willing to admit their own shortcomings.

1. He was a practicing homosexual, living with his 'partner'. But of course the church has got to be "relevant to modern society" and should "celebrate diversity".
2. It's not about having a problem with enjoying yourself, I just think that man-made traditions distract people from knowing God, we are even warned against observing days, and months, and years in Galatians 4:10. To an atheist, this just says, "hey look, Christianty is just another organised religion, doing funny ceremonies etc"... rooted in the customs of mankind and not the living God that is all around us, as we speak!
3. It's a serious issue, we are not supposed to make any image of God, since it will always be unbeffiting of his glory. So many people now ridicule religion because they think that to us God is just some old guy with a beard who lives in a cloud, who's fault is this? Granted, things like crosses are less serious, but they still distract people from the glory of God, which they would meditate upon far better without having to focus on worldy images. Of course, there's no need to make a church building ugly, but IMO it is best kept plain and simple.
4. I don't expect everyone to be experts, but I get the feeling they are truly clueless to doctrine. For example, my Gran who goes to another local Church of Scotland church, once said something about the minister giving out tickets to some 'inter-faith' lunch at a mosque, and I said this is disgraceful, and she said why, if Muslims do good works they get into heaven too... Who needs a saviour? It's like the church is just a social club to them, there's no zeal, no conviction.
5. Yeah but mine is right. Seriosuly though, not long ago this would have been unthinkable to anyone in the Kirk, it's not like its just me being annoying. The Kirk has fell to pieces in such a short space of time it's terrifying.
6. OK, to make this clear, I'm not a great fan of the Orange Order, there is a lot of stuff that goes on there which is plain nasty and often betrays the faith it supposedly upholds. But I think it is nice for a change to see some people caring about religion instead of mocking it... but now of course the Kirk has driven them away, talk about hypocrisy. What is really intolerant is when a local Catholic MP refuses to let the march go ahead because the area has a Catholic majority, freedom of speech anyone?
7. Of course I fully agree that God loves them, but that's only telling the fun part of the story. Surely you agree that to be a Christian you have to be born again (I don't like the term because of it's modern connotations, but...) and convicted of your sins. I have not once heard about this at a service. It's the gospel of God serving man we are spoon-fed. The irony is if they really served God for the sake of serving God, He would honour them, but people just don't seem to be in it for that anymore.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

1. He was a practicing homosexual, living with his 'partner'. But of course the church has got to be "relevant to modern society" and should "celebrate diversity".

That could never happen in the CofE, because priests are required to be chaste out of wedlock. Dr Williams has enforced this, though he does allow celebate homosexuals and homosexuals in celebate relationships.

2. It's not about having a problem with enjoying yourself, I just think that man-made traditions distract people from knowing God, we are even warned against observing days, and months, and years in Galatians 4:10. To an atheist, this just says, "hey look, Christianty is just another organised religion, doing funny ceremonies etc"... rooted in the customs of mankind and not the living God that is all around us, as we speak!

You are seriously conflating message and form of worship. I will look up that comment in Galations, I don't have a Bible here. Anyway, celebrating Christ's conception, birth, death and accension are a way of forging a Christian community. On Easter Sunday every Christain celebrates the resurrection, and they are seperated only by distance and timezones. Every Sunday in England alone thousands of Christians commune in a single act of worship celebrated only by space.

3. It's a serious issue, we are not supposed to make any image of God, since it will always be unbeffiting of his glory. So many people now ridicule religion because they think that to us God is just some old guy with a beard who lives in a cloud, who's fault is this? Granted, things like crosses are less serious, but they still distract people from the glory of God, which they would meditate upon far better without having to focus on worldy images. Of course, there's no need to make a church building ugly, but IMO it is best kept plain and simple.

I'll answer the last part of your issue first. A Church should be as beautiful as possible, because the best of human care, love and ingenuity should go into it's construction, the greatest effort and time should go into the building of the monuments to God and the places we go to worship him.

As to the Commandment, the prohibition is against idols and graven images of other Gods, which you should not worship instead of God. Contextually this is made obvious by the Golden calf incident, and by it's placement in the list of commandements.

4. I don't expect everyone to be experts, but I get the feeling they are truly clueless to doctrine. For example, my Gran who goes to another local Church of Scotland church, once said something about the minister giving out tickets to some 'inter-faith' lunch at a mosque, and I said this is disgraceful, and she said why, if Muslims do good works they get into heaven too... Who needs a saviour? It's like the church is just a social club to them, there's no zeal, no conviction.

Zeal and convition lead to hatred and violence. Calvinism is about the hardest theology to explain to the laity. From my perspective, these people are slightly misguided but on the right track (i.e. God loves and forgives), from your perspective they are all praesciti and their opinions are irrelevant. Either way, adherence to doctrine is something to be forgiven, and something which is the responsibility of the priest.

5. Yeah but mine is right. Seriosuly though, not long ago this would have been unthinkable to anyone in the Kirk, it's not like its just me being annoying. The Kirk has fell to pieces in such a short space of time it's terrifying.

Even with it's continued nationalistic leverage the membership of the Church has collapsed. Either the Kirk is coming to its senses or your religion is dying.

6. OK, to make this clear, I'm not a great fan of the Orange Order, there is a lot of stuff that goes on there which is plain nasty and often betrays the faith it supposedly upholds. But I think it is nice for a change to see some people caring about religion instead of mocking it... but now of course the Kirk has driven them away, talk about hypocrisy. What is really intolerant is when a local Catholic MP refuses to let the march go ahead because the area has a Catholic majority, freedom of speech anyone?

Freedom of Speech against anti-racism. The Orangemen may proclame a faith you agree with, but I doubt many of them actually believe it. Luthor said something about this, and I suspect it's the opinion of the local Kirk. Would you rather your Church supported men based on what came out of their mouths, even when they speak with forked tongues? (See, I can do religious hyperbole too).

7. Of course I fully agree that God loves them, but that's only telling the fun part of the story. Surely you agree that to be a Christian you have to be born again (I don't like the term because of it's modern connotations, but...) and convicted of your sins. I have not once heard about this at a service. It's the gospel of God serving man we are spoon-fed. The irony is if they really served God for the sake of serving God, He would honour them, but people just don't seem to be in it for that anymore.

I believe God offers Salvation gratis to all his children, and those who accept the gift enter heaven. Being "convicted" of your sins implies a contractural relationship, which makes Christianity just another mystic cult. In any case, if you have a problem with a minister you should take it up with his superiors.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ah, now we're having one of our good old fashioned quote wars!

That could never happen in the CofE, because priests are required to be chaste out of wedlock. Dr Williams has enforced this, though he does allow celebate homosexuals and homosexuals in celebate relationships.

That is a good policy from him, apart from the very last bit. See, despite my often furious tone I sometimes take on without meaning to, I can still say good things about the Anglican Church.

You are seriously conflating message and form of worship. I will look up that comment in Galations, I don't have a Bible here. Anyway, celebrating Christ's conception, birth, death and accension are a way of forging a Christian community. On Easter Sunday every Christain celebrates the resurrection, and they are seperated only by distance and timezones. Every Sunday in England alone thousands of Christians commune in a single act of worship celebrated only by space.

But what is so special about lots of people worshipping at the same time? It is any more pleasing to God than the same people going about their lives in a Christian manner and praying whenever and however is most appropriate? Does God care for the ceremonies of men? Would He not rather we ditched all rituals and went about doing the Lord's work in the most efficient way possible? Will I continue to get increasingly hyperbolic? Who knows?!

I'll answer the last part of your issue first. A Church should be as beautiful as possible, because the best of human care, love and ingenuity should go into it's construction, the greatest effort and time should go into the building of the monuments to God and the places we go to worship him.

As to the Commandment, the prohibition is against idols and graven images of other Gods, which you should not worship instead of God. Contextually this is made obvious by the Golden calf incident, and by it's placement in the list of commandements.

What church that we build could be pleasing to God? I don't think He would care the slightest for whatever paintings or carvings we adorn it with. A lot of churches are so lavishly decorated they are nothing short of decadent. A church is a place to meet and worship, nothing more, never should be, God is no more present in it than anywhere else He would be if we were seeking communion with Him. You could just as easily hold a service in someone's living room, it's not like we are commanded to worship in set church buildings.

While we are of course prohibited from worshipping false Gods, Isaiah is very clear on many occassions that any man-made image is a false depiction of God. Paul also shows these views in the NT in Acts 17:29, where he says "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill." If images designed by ourselves are said to be unrepresentative of God, then they argument that they are only meant to depict Him for our use in worship don't really make sense.

Zeal and convition lead to hatred and violence. Calvinism is about the hardest theology to explain to the laity. From my perspective, these people are slightly misguided but on the right track (i.e. God loves and forgives), from your perspective they are all praesciti and their opinions are irrelevant. Either way, adherence to doctrine is something to be forgiven, and something which is the responsibility of the priest.

I honestly don't see why Calvinism is difficult to understand (acceptance is of course another matter). I don't have any training in theology, I didn't have a religious upbringing, not a clue about phiosophy or the finer things, I'm just the average guy that doesn't have a clue about the world (people on these forums are scarily knowledgable compared to everyone I know in RL)... and yet I can still read the Bible, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, stuff by Jonathan Edwards, John Owen (my favourite), various other Puritan-era theologians, also got some stuff by Luther recently. Money isn't even an issue, you can get all the great works for free online, the Puritan Library is an incredible site. And with all this I can understand what Calvinism entails, as a doctrine and also its implications in spiritual matters. With a bit of effort, so could anyone. Heck, common Covenanters that could hardly spell demonstrated a good doctrinal understanding from what I could see, having read many of their final letters etc before they were executed in the Killing Times. If people really wanted to explore the word, then they could. Who is to blame? Well, the people themselves have got to take some of it, I'm sure they all have Bibles that sit at home unused. The Kirk itself ought to be ashamed as well though for letting itself decline into such a state, such has been the way of things since liberals took over.

Even with it's continued nationalistic leverage the membership of the Church has collapsed. Either the Kirk is coming to its senses or your religion is dying.

I don't think it would be correct to say that the Kirk has had any real advantage from nationalism in keeping its membership. National identity and religion are a very confused business here, nowhere near as clear cut as some people would like to portray it. Generally speaking, the national identity of hardline Proddies has been British and not Scottish for quite a while, due to the complications of history and what not. The "Scottish" identity that is being shoved down everyone's throats of late is false and was invented by nobles a couple of hundred years ago, and religion, and certainly Presbyterianism, isn't part of it. If people would learn some history it might be more important to them. But my religious beliefs are in no way a product of national identity. I was at first a clueless and liberal Christian for the first while, while I was growing in the faith I happened to study a course related to, you guessed it, the Puritans, and I do not deny that that had an influence on the direction my doctrinal beliefs took. But the Puritans were of course an English phenomenon, so you can't say it's national identity.

If trends continue, the Kirk will be non-existent within a few generations. All we will have will be the fundamentalist congregationalist churches and the wee wee frees up in the isles (presbyterians that split off). So yeah, my religion is dying, it's tragic to see but I fear there's not much that can be done, historical forces are in play etc. Who knows, maybe God will bestow a bit of favourable providence on us, who knows...

Freedom of Speech against anti-racism. The Orangemen may proclame a faith you agree with, but I doubt many of them actually believe it. Luthor said something about this, and I suspect it's the opinion of the local Kirk. Would you rather your Church supported men based on what came out of their mouths, even when they speak with forked tongues? (See, I can do religious hyperbole too).

The Orange Order isn't racist, you might get a bit of that in the lower ranks but it's not the official line. As I said I'm not their biggest fan, but they are at least by their own statements, dedicated to Reformation principles. There's no solid reason for their freedom of speech to be denied. Similarly, the Kirk should support an organisation which is officially dedicated to Reformation principles. If some people aren't towing the line, then they should be kicked out, the organisation just needs a good old fashioned purging. I am sure that if the Kirk worked with the Orange Order, it would benefit both organisations. For the Kirk it would reach out to people willing to hear them. For the Orange Order, I am sure the influence of the Kirk would see the people who are genuinely concerned about the state of their religion gain influence over the bigots who are in it for the culture/ethnicity/whatever. But no, instead the Kirk is going all liberal, lashing out at its traditional support bases, and making fruitless attempts to apologise and conform to the rest of society.

And I will always beat you when it comes to religious hyperbole, its in the blood!

I believe God offers Salvation gratis to all his children, and those who accept the gift enter heaven. Being "convicted" of your sins implies a contractural relationship, which makes Christianity just another mystic cult. In any case, if you have a problem with a minister you should take it up with his superiors.

First of all, to make this clear, the Minister at my church is a great guy. He stays for hours after services to perform baptisms for children who's families do not usually attend church, when the other Ministers reject them. Also, he performs funerals for Catholics who committ suicide and are not alowed to be buried according to their own beliefs, for example. I just think that his services are a bit too much about the cheesy feel good stuff, there's more to Christianity that that.

Also, when I say convicted, I do not mean convicted in the legal sense, like when you say someone is a "convicted criminal". I mean you should feel "conviction", as in a strong sense within yourself that you have been living in sin, and you have a real energy to change that. I don't get that feeling with a lot of people.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah, now we're having one of our good old fashioned quote wars!

All women know I carry heavier weaponry. I don't need sword smileys too feel good about myself.

That is a good policy from him, apart from the very last bit. See, despite my often furious tone I sometimes take on without meaning to, I can still say good things about the Anglican Church.

The Archbishop appears to divide theology in to what he might personally speculate on and what he feels it right to teach and enforece. He has become much better at this over the last couple of years. As far as the "celebate relationship" goes, there is nothing in the Bible to make it illegal. In essence, the priest is trusted in the same way as if he had a live-in housekeeper.

Non-sexual relationships between clergy and their parishoners, as well as in religious houses, have a very long history.

But what is so special about lots of people worshipping at the same time? It is any more pleasing to God than the same people going about their lives in a Christian manner and praying whenever and however is most appropriate? Does God care for the ceremonies of men? Would He not rather we ditched all rituals and went about doing the Lord's work in the most efficient way possible? Will I continue to get increasingly hyperbolic? Who knows?!

I'm actually really sorry you have to ask this. Imagine you cannot physically be with your loved ones at Christmas, you can still be with them spiritually by sharing the same service, just in a different place. Not everything has to be about directly serving God, providing comfort to his children is a good thing and I am quite sure he is delighted to see those he loves happy.

Of course, this doesn't detract from serving and worshipping God every day.

What church that we build could be pleasing to God? I don't think He would care the slightest for whatever paintings or carvings we adorn it with. A lot of churches are so lavishly decorated they are nothing short of decadent. A church is a place to meet and worship, nothing more, never should be, God is no more present in it than anywhere else He would be if we were seeking communion with Him. You could just as easily hold a service in someone's living room, it's not like we are commanded to worship in set church buildings.

What two year old produces an artistically pleasing painting? We still pin them up on the wall, don't we? Also, a truely beautiful Church, by which I do not mean excessively ornamented, calms the soul just as a beautiful vista does. This is especially important in our ugly and functional towns and cities. Churches can be places of rest and respite from the world.

Further, the inability to achieve perfection shouldn't result in a general attitude of "I give up, lets just build a barn". That's just giving in to hopelessness.

While we are of course prohibited from worshipping false Gods, Isaiah is very clear on many occassions that any man-made image is a false depiction of God. Paul also shows these views in the NT in Acts 17:29, where he says "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill." If images designed by ourselves are said to be unrepresentative of God, then they argument that they are only meant to depict Him for our use in worship don't really make sense.

They are not for our use in worship, they are meant to stir our hearts and minds to God. In the Cathedral here there is a sculpture of "The Good Shepard". He has his cloak around him, hood up, his crook dug into the ground and he leans into the wind as he struggles foward.

You have said you pray with the Bible on your chest, that could be argued to be worse because you are using it as a physical comforter.

I honestly don't see why Calvinism is difficult to understand (acceptance is of course another matter). I don't have any training in theology, I didn't have a religious upbringing, not a clue about phiosophy or the finer things, I'm just the average guy that doesn't have a clue about the world (people on these forums are scarily knowledgable compared to everyone I know in RL)... and yet I can still read the Bible, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, stuff by Jonathan Edwards, John Owen (my favourite), various other Puritan-era theologians, also got some stuff by Luther recently. Money isn't even an issue, you can get all the great works for free online, the Puritan Library is an incredible site. And with all this I can understand what Calvinism entails, as a doctrine and also its implications in spiritual matters. With a bit of effort, so could anyone. Heck, common Covenanters that could hardly spell demonstrated a good doctrinal understanding from what I could see, having read many of their final letters etc before they were executed in the Killing Times. If people really wanted to explore the word, then they could. Who is to blame? Well, the people themselves have got to take some of it, I'm sure they all have Bibles that sit at home unused. The Kirk itself ought to be ashamed as well though for letting itself decline into such a state, such has been the way of things since liberals took over.

You are a university student, that means you are not part of the "masses", you exist in a more intellectual environment. To expect the average dock worker, nanny or cleaner to find the time to read all that is unreasonable.

I don't think it would be correct to say that the Kirk has had any real advantage from nationalism in keeping its membership. National identity and religion are a very confused business here, nowhere near as clear cut as some people would like to portray it. Generally speaking, the national identity of hardline Proddies has been British and not Scottish for quite a while, due to the complications of history and what not. The "Scottish" identity that is being shoved down everyone's throats of late is false and was invented by nobles a couple of hundred years ago, and religion, and certainly Presbyterianism, isn't part of it. If people would learn some history it might be more important to them. But my religious beliefs are in no way a product of national identity. I was at first a clueless and liberal Christian for the first while, while I was growing in the faith I happened to study a course related to, you guessed it, the Puritans, and I do not deny that that had an influence on the direction my doctrinal beliefs took. But the Puritans were of course an English phenomenon, so you can't say it's national identity.

well, only 8% of Scots atteck CofS, but 42% claim CofS membership. It's still your "national" Church. In view of that, the collapse is staggering. Other Churches are in decline, but the decline has been slower, and is arguably now moving into an up-swing.

First of all, to make this clear, the Minister at my church is a great guy. He stays for hours after services to perform baptisms for children who's families do not usually attend church, when the other Ministers reject them. Also, he performs funerals for Catholics who committ suicide and are not alowed to be buried according to their own beliefs, for example. I just think that his services are a bit too much about the cheesy feel good stuff, there's more to Christianity that that.

Without hearing him preach, I can't tell how good he is. However, I will say that negative preaching usually just produces angry muttering. Not helpful at all.

Also, when I say convicted, I do not mean convicted in the legal sense, like when you say someone is a "convicted criminal". I mean you should feel "conviction", as in a strong sense within yourself that you have been living in sin, and you have a real energy to change that. I don't get that feeling with a lot of people.

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me because I don't believe in total depravity. Recognition of fault and repentence are good things, but looking back on your life as sin filled and basically worthless just causes heartache, and often burnout.

[Rhyfelwyr]

All women know I carry heavier weaponry. I don't need sword smileys too feel good about myself.

I do not understand what this means...

The Archbishop appears to divide theology in to what he might personally speculate on and what he feels it right to teach and enforece. He has become much better at this over the last couple of years. As far as the "celebate relationship" goes, there is nothing in the Bible to make it illegal. In essence, the priest is trusted in the same way as if he had a live-in housekeeper.

Non-sexual relationships between clergy and their parishoners, as well as in religious houses, have a very long history.

Even if its not a sexual relationship, it's still not OK. As one guy said on another forum, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. If they are going to have that kind of relationship, they would still be better off just being with a woman. Why? Well, just because that's the way God made it and he made it that way for our sakes, heterosexual relationships would work better for them, unless the woman is a **** or something, but if she is a true Christian she would not be. When things are done the way God meant them to be, they work.

I'm actually really sorry you have to ask this. Imagine you cannot physically be with your loved ones at Christmas, you can still be with them spiritually by sharing the same service, just in a different place. Not everything has to be about directly serving God, providing comfort to his children is a good thing and I am quite sure he is delighted to see those he loves happy.

Of course, this doesn't detract from serving and worshipping God every day.

I don't get this bit, maybe it is just personal experience, but when I meditate upon God (yes there is a spiritual side to Reformed folks behind all the strictness), I always see myself as being absolutedly removed from the world (and no I am not on drugs to others reading). Of course, I agree, whoever serves the least serves God in doing so, but this is a seperate issue from organising mass-worshipping ceremonies.

What two year old produces an artistically pleasing painting? We still pin them up on the wall, don't we? Also, a truely beautiful Church, by which I do not mean excessively ornamented, calms the soul just as a beautiful vista does. This is especially important in our ugly and functional towns and cities. Churches can be places of rest and respite from the world.

Further, the inability to achieve perfection shouldn't result in a general attitude of "I give up, lets just build a barn". That's just giving in to hopelessness.

I don't think the analogy here is appropriate. The child is producing worldly art, and giving it to a wordly person, so therefore, they can on some level appreciate it, since the parent is simply at a higher level on the scale as the child. But when you dedicate a wordly building to a perfect God, it is of no significance to Him whatsoever, to Him it is either perfect and fitting, or it is imperfect and as such wholly unworthy; if He takes any pleasure from it, it will have been in the good intentions of those who endeavoured in it, misguided though I think they were. To even claim that you are making a memorial to God, it so insult Him. Now, don't get me wrong, I know I sound really harsh in this respect, and I am sure that people have genuinely meant well in producing art, architecture, etc, to attempt to glorify God. I simply think that for the sake of the church and its edification, we should not go down this route.

As for the importance of a presentable church in helping us to worship God, there may indeed be an element of truth in that for some people. However, I do not think it should be significant, for me, God is always there when the world gets the better of me at times, and gives me far better rest and assurance than any building could. Maybe this is just personal opinion. My Gran says she sees God whenever she sees a flower, when I see a flower all I see is wickedness, and when I see people glorying in worldly things all I see is decadence. Maybe you think I am trolling because this sounds harsh to the point of ridiculousness, I am not totally unaware of how my views might appear to others, and I am not incapable of a bit of self-analysis, I think there is a lot of truth in the Buddhist practice of mindfullness (combine that with my meditating and watch out Buddha!). But honestly, everything I see in this world falls short of the glory of God, and will always, left to its own devices, continue to wither in all the sorry motions that come from such a condition. My consolation is in the infinite perfection of God, and God alone.

They are not for our use in worship, they are meant to stir our hearts and minds to God. In the Cathedral here there is a sculpture of "The Good Shepard". He has his cloak around him, hood up, his crook dug into the ground and he leans into the wind as he struggles foward.

You have said you pray with the Bible on your chest, that could be argued to be worse because you are using it as a physical comforter.

But my point is that they cannot in any way direct our thoughts towards God, since God is perfect, and they are imperfect. Images can't just bridge the gap between ourselves and God, hence Paul's advice. Although I concede, what you say about me is true, I wouldn't say it is a physical comforter but yes I felt by having the Bible I was in some way closer to God, and to think such a thing is nothing short of wickedness, there's no other word for it. But I like to move forward and grow in the faith, and I would not like people to make the same mistakes I did.

You are a university student, that means you are not part of the "masses", you exist in a more intellectual environment. To expect the average dock worker, nanny or cleaner to find the time to read all that is unreasonable.

I don't really take anything to do with the intellectual environement around me, I get a pile of books and I go home, that's what I like about Uni compared to school. I'm not saying people have to be theological experts, but I'm sure they could find the time to make some sort of study of the Bible and perhaps other works. The Kirk could even run weekly Bible studies, but I suspect there would be no or minimal interest. They need to stir up the congregation first!

well, only 8% of Scots atteck CofS, but 42% claim CofS membership. It's still your "national" Church. In view of that, the collapse is staggering. Other Churches are in decline, but the decline has been slower, and is arguably now moving into an up-swing.

Yes. In fact, there is a noticable correlation between the decline in church membership, and certain decisions taken in the church. Ever since we abandoned large chunks of the Westminster Confession of Faith, reintroduced certain festivals, brought back icons, engaged in ecumenical work, and toned down the Calvinist doctrines, the church membership has totally imploded.

Without hearing him preach, I can't tell how good he is. However, I will say that negative preaching usually just produces angry muttering. Not helpful at all.

I just think you have to get a balance between the negative and the positive. The negative should bring us down, break our pride, and humble us before God. The positive should remind us always of his love and forgiveness on a very underserving lot. That is helpful, that is what Christianity is all about. "I was born in sin, and yet was born anew and transformed by God's unconditional love and mercy on the most underserving of creatures", is so much more stirring and true than "I was born a generally decent person, and have been somewhat helped along by the occassional dispensation of some general grace".

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me because I don't believe in total depravity. Recognition of fault and repentence are good things, but looking back on your life as sin filled and basically worthless just causes heartache, and often burnout.

Well, given our past discussions we will probably just have to agree to disagree on this. For what it's worth, the more I think about how I was before, the more impossible to see any good it becomes. I don't have one of those dramatic stories about how I was a murderer or drug addict, in fact I have always been seen as good, well behaved, work hard etc... and yet this is the worst of it. I cannot imagine any sin worse than self-righteousness. To think of how I thought then is terrifying, every achievement consumed with pride, every seemingly generous deed fuelled by self-righteousness, every decision I made I did it with my own interests in heart. And even since I have become a Christian, few I doubt have thrown so much grace back in God's face; I rejected Him as soon as I no longer needed Him, and yet would still have Him patiently waiting when I come back. This is too central to my view of Christianity, my whole life experience, and I doubt I will ever be able to change that. Chuck in free will alongside total depravity and call it a divine mystery... that I could do. But I will never deny total depravity.

[Husar]

I do not understand what this means...

I've got some more and some less holy ideas...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've got some more and some less holy ideas...

Well I thought I just didn't get it last night because I was writing big posts at 3 in the morning, but I must be slow because I still can't make sense of it.