|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The BBC - Now Springer!
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
.. quite correct ... and I think the point that many of us have been trying to make Hatless is that * it *damages US by coarsening our sensibilities and encouraging us to take the things of God too lightly. That is what desacralising means. No one is immune no matter how personally continent one might be. These are social constructs not private transactions.
The classic instance of this of course is the *BBC* itself....
You could easily substitute 'The Ship of Fools' for 'it' and 'the BBC' in the quote above. To what degree does Fregory believe himself to be besmirched by the way in which this website 'encourages us to take the things of God too lightly' (the Fregorian definition of desacralization)? He spends a lot more time amidst the irreverence of this board than he does with the blasphemies of the Beeb.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
If you don't mind me saying Callan that is more than a bit naive. All sorts of vehicles (psychic and otherwise) can be presented ... what matters is the actual effect of the show, (and perhaps the intention of the writers).
On language alone, over 8000 expletives are used, with f*** used 3,168 times and c*** used 297 times. Ofcom confirms that these expressions are found widely to be "grossly offensive" and should be used "with care". I submit that in Springer ON THE TELLY they are not used "with care."
As to blasphemy not causing you to think less of God, that is hardly the point Dyrig ... as I said, language and the referents of language are social constructs not private transactions. It's the overall impact I am looking at here. It is at this level that such widespread and growing dissemination and vernacular useage of intellectually vacuous and coarsening garbage is taking its inexorable toll.
Spending some time in E***'* linguistic cesspit Amos is a risk I have to take. I cannot guarantee to keep myself pure.
[ 04. January 2005, 16:14: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I think the point that many of us have been trying to make Hatless is that it damages US by coarsening our sensibilities and encouraging us to take the things of God too lightly. That is what desacralising means.
Well I'm probably a lost cause then. Week after week I tear the body of Christ in half, crumbs all over the place. I have pictures in my house of him covered in blood and nasty puncture wounds. I read stories, sometimes read them in church, which tell of people disagreeing with him, trying to trap him, shouting rudely at him. I invoke him, in prayer, in connection with my own sordid little life. My mind wanders during worship (especially the sermons).
I can safely say I persistently fail to take God and the things of God with sufficient gravity.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Do you get off on an image of a delectable angel raping our Lady? Sorry, but that's what we are talking about here.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Do you get off on an image of a delectable angel raping our Lady? Sorry, but that's what we are talking about here.
Is it? Or is it about Jerry Springer getting off on "an image of a delectable angel raping our Lady?"
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
By 'our Lady' do you mean the woman who spoke about God dethroning the mighty? Or do you mean some Queen of Heaven type? We don't believe in her in Baptist churches.
The language and imagery of Christianity, especially as it relates to God incarnate, is so full of contrasts and reversals that any attempt at due reverence is undermined before we get past scripture.
What is in your mind as a result of this rape of Mary thing? Do they act it out on stage? It is seriously put forwards as a theory about how Jesus was conceived? Is it a crude and colourful way of referring to the Annunciation?
On the Vicar of Dibley over Christmas they performed a carol which spoke about Mary being 'fully dilated: she will not need an episiotomy.' Is that blasphemous? Should it have been prevented?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
A few more thoughts - another thing which troubles me with the notion of 'blasphemy' is the way it is played as a trump card which can't be reasoned with. If I say I have an absolutely visceral loathing of say Radio 4's 'Moneybox' (and I do) that's one thing but why should my subjective opinion suddenly become privileged because I cry 'Blasphemy! This programme is dedicated to the worship of Mammon! It's full of usury and middle class greed! God hates your inflated house prices and unit trusts and will utterly lay waste unto them!' Why should bringing my religious beliefs into it suddenly give me a veto over public service broadcasting which others who equally loathe the programme don't get?
But for those who'd like to put the opera in some context, here is the news story on its commissioning
BBC snaps up Springer opera
It's part of a drive to introduce a new generation of viewers to opera which also includes the commissioning of another six comedy operas by the writers. It's to be broadcast well after the watershed with strong warnings. It's being shown because it's such an unusual thing as an opera, not to pursue any sort of anti-religious agenda. None of the other new operas is anything to do with religion as far as I can see.
It has been around for over two years and you can see a long list of reviews here. Even those bastions of the lefty liberal establishment the Mail on Sunday and the Sunday Telegraph liked it. It has also won 14 awards to date including Critics Circle and Olivier awards. Which makes it quite obvious to me why they've decided to go ahead with it but to put it on a minority channel late at night with due warnings so those who don't like it can reach for the off switch.
On the subject of the language used in it - it's an opera with an absurd and unreal premise - that's a bit different from 'Trainspotting' or 'Reservoir Dogs'. Is the spectacle of an opera chorus repeatedly singing incongruously naughty words for an opera really going to lead to the end of civilisation? If you go to watch Wagner you can have child abuse, incest, murder and cruelty to horses but it's hardly like watching a harrowing social realist Ken Loach movie on deprivation or CCTV footage of a murder is it?
There is plenty shocking sex and violence in the Bible - just imagine if someone made an opera of the book of Genesis! Should that be banned from public broadcasting because it would contain sex, attempted rape, rape, prostitution, incest and murder, not to mention mass adult circumcision? Isn't it a bit odd to be so puritanical about an opera when the first book of the Bible is full of shocking juxtapositions which make the Jerry Springer show look tame? Just imagine Tamar on the Jerry Springer Show 'How I got widowed, married my husband's brother then when he did nothing but jerk off and got struck down by the Lord I dressed up as a whore and seduced my father in law so I could get pregant!' or poor Dinah 'I got raped, but Shechem the rapist said he'd marry me and my father and brothers said OK but told him he and and all the men in his family had to cut their foreskins off first and they said 'OK' and then when my new in-laws-to-be were all rolling about going 'ow, ow, ow!' my brothers snuck up on them and murdered them all - including my husband-to-be!'
Starting to see where the composer may have got the idea? And an interesting question - would we think that was blasphemous if we saw 'Genesis - The Opera' with God mixed up with all those strange and shocking scenes of sex and violence and betrayal?
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undiscovered Country
Shipmate
# 4811
|
Posted
Next week's Radio Times (the BBC's TV listings magazine) describes 'Jerry Springer-the Opera' as 'magnificently foul-mouthed'. As is clear from the above, there are a variety of views on the production, just as there are on swearing generally. However for the BBC to describe a programme with 3168 f***s and 297 c***s as 'magnificently foul-mouthed' is a sign of an organisation that has lost its way in terms of morality and ethics.
--------------------
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Therefore all hope of progress rests with the unreasonable man.
Posts: 1216 | From: Belfast | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Indeed and no amount of justification in terms of civil liberties will get round that one.
I am no prude and I am not against portrayals of sex and violence if the context is constructive. I was never worried by Clockwork Orange for example because Kubrick wasn't luxuriating in the depravity. It was meant to be shockingly realistic because of the point the film was making and the issues it was raising. Gratuitous exploitation however in the name of entertainment is quite another matter.
[ 04. January 2005, 20:38: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Undiscovered Country: Lots of swearing is a sign of failing morality and ethics? Well, shit, I thought maybe things like how we treated the poorest and weakest among us might be more important.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
quote:
Duchess wrote: When TV shows are rated by the FCC....
They're not rated by the FCC. They're rated by the broadcasters and networks themselves. In the United States, no federal agency of any kind rates TV programs, movies, music, or video games.
As for the last post, game, set, match, Louise. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I stand corrected.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
So Fr Gregory was the author of the unsolicited round-robin email I received the other day asking me to complain to the BBC about them showing a programme it appears no-one who dislikes it has seen. The OP quotes it almost word for word. Now it makes sense.
Over the weekend I must admit that I watched travesties of the Christian Faith being presented on the TV. They showed scenes of mockery, foolishness, crassness and imbecility. The music on them was often trite and banal. The intellectual content was close to zero. They showed Christians to be a absurd set of lamebrains and the faith they follow to fit for nothing else but foolish old women and credulous children. The names of the programmes were 'The Heaven and Earth Show', 'My Favourite Hymns' and 'Songs of Praise'.
I find it sickening that a public service broadcast network such as the BBC should be spending my money on programmes that lampoon the Christian Faith so effectively as 'Songs of Praise'. After all, the programme isn't real is it? Surely it and 'My Favourite Hymns' (which is on commercial telly and thus is allowed to be shit) are parodies of Christianity and are merely satires written by the late, great Peter Cook or the seemingly late Alan Bennett?
At least with Jerry Springer - The Opera I shall see a programme which, like the stage production that I enjoyed hugely, has some production values, actors and singers who have some talent and a realisation at the end that it was an entertainment not a manifesto.
Some people should get an imagination. If you can't be bothered to use one then fair enough; but leave the rest of us alone and stop tarring all Christians with your unpleasant puritanical, Taleban-esque brushes.
Cosmo
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
What is this all about, Ley Druid? quote:
Not coincidentally, your position denies personal repsonsibility:"Nothing I do blasphemes God, the problem isn't with me, but with 'the authorities', 'the sensibilities of the people', 'the person complaining'"
Are you accusing me of blasphemy? In what way have I denied personal responsibility, and in what way would this be typical of my position?
The point I have been trying to drive home, and which you have been evading is not that blasphemy is lovely but that it doesn't actually damage God.
Your teflon God is immune to damage so you can do as you wish. Is that it? He won't be any less if you don't love Him either.
If blasphemy isn't lovely then why complain when people protest against it.
I am amused by the attempts to justify what is said rather than the freedom to say it.
I do enjoy the freedom to speak or write racial, religious or homphobic slurs or say scurrilous comments about things that other people hold dear but that does not make it right to do so and I will have to face the consequences if I do it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Ley Druid, Our Lord told us to rejoice and be glad when persecution comes because of him and his name, at the end of the Beatitudes (that's in a book called the "Gospel" according to Matthew, chapter 5). St Paul decides that the best attitude to the blasphemous hawking of the gospel is to be sanguine about it - at least it is being heard. Likewise, neither of them appear to have laid any foundation upon which a civil state can use religious opinion (for that it what it is) as a cause for prosecution of the destruction of property.
Yes they are pretty poor authorities on civil government. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Of course Saint Paul just had people "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme" (1 Tim 1:20) which is the same thing he said to do for the incestuous man (1 Cor 5:5). Hardly laissez-faire.
The only way I can see that the Beatitudes call for rejoicing and gladness in the face of blasphemy is if one self-identifies with God ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
"Blessed are you when people insult you".
Since we're having so much fun proof-texting I wonder if you'd care to give your interpretation of quote:
he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him
especially in the context of
quote:
Mary was raped by an angel
being used for a good laugh at the expense of
quote:
The angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you'
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cosmo:
So Fr Gregory was the author of the unsolicited round-robin email I received the other day asking me to complain to the BBC about them showing a programme it appears no-one who dislikes it has seen. The OP quotes it almost word for word. Now it makes sense.
I dislike it. I didn't get a round-robin e-mail. I saw it and I have complained, for all the good it will do me.
quote:
Over the weekend I must admit that I watched travesties of the Christian Faith being presented on the TV. They showed scenes of mockery, foolishness, crassness and imbecility. The music on them was often trite and banal. The intellectual content was close to zero. They showed Christians to be a absurd set of lamebrains and the faith they follow to fit for nothing else but foolish old women and credulous children. The names of the programmes were 'The Heaven and Earth Show', 'My Favourite Hymns' and 'Songs of Praise'.
I find it sickening that a public service broadcast network such as the BBC should be spending my money on programmes that lampoon the Christian Faith so effectively as 'Songs of Praise'. After all, the programme isn't real is it? Surely it and 'My Favourite Hymns' (which is on commercial telly and thus is allowed to be shit) are parodies of Christianity and are merely satires written by the late, great Peter Cook or the seemingly late Alan Bennett?
I've complained about them too.
quote:
At least with Jerry Springer - The Opera I shall see a programme which, like the stage production that I enjoyed hugely, has some production values, actors and singers who have some talent and a realisation at the end that it was an entertainment not a manifesto.
Some people should get an imagination. If you can't be bothered to use one then fair enough; but leave the rest of us alone and stop tarring all Christians with your unpleasant puritanical, Taleban-esque brushes.
Cosmo
Whereas you can go around encouraging the mockery of sacred things in a manner that would at least do credit to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
OK, forget all the stuff about whether we should ban things we don't want to hear, and ignore the context of the Mary raped comments. I think Mary was raped by an angel.
Gabriel at no point asks for Mary's assent. She later gives it, but only after he has simply announced that she will be made pregnant by the Holy Spirit. The Annunciation is of a non-consensual pregnancy. Mary is offered no choice. This is rape.
Admittedly Mary later says that 'be it unto me' line, but this is an unarmed peasant girl face to face with an archangel, {and she probably doesn't realise that he doesn't exist (or that she is largely a fiction in the mind of the chap we usually call Luke)}. Saying 'yes' to a man with a knife wouldn't count as consent. Nor does saying 'be it unto me' to a winged feller with blazing eyes.
So the impregnation of Mary is rape. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I hope you will convict.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
When I get to the Radio Times site I get the following
Jerry Springer the opera
quote:
Multi award-winning hit musical in which trailer trash meets high culture, filmed live at the Cambridge Theatre, London. Jerry Springer, America's favourite talk show host, suffers the worst day of his career when faced with transsexuals, nappy wearers and a troupe of tap-dancing Ku Klux Klansmen.
So would you care to quote in context for us exactly what you read, UC?
I can think of things I'd describe as 'magnificently foul mouthed', like Viz, or Lenny Bruce or Richard Pryor- but I don't sit there counting the expletives and ignoring the comedy like an eunuch at an orgy. Did you sit through Father Ted counting how many times someone said 'Feck'? If you read a James Kelman or a D H Lawrence novel do you ignore the writing and count how many 'fucks' and 'cunts' and 'arses' are in it amidst much tut-tutting? I'm sorry but I've never tried to gauge the merit of anything by sitting there with a clicker counting how many Fs and Cs I can hear - what could be more Pecksniffianly nonsensical than that?
Do you know how a billing gets into the Radio times? Clue - the producer writes it and their editor checks it. So because of one billing you don't like, the whole organisation has lost it's way, morally and ethically, eh? Just imagine if someone at the BBC made a similarly inane generalisation about your church on the basis of one sermon out of thousands which offended them. Sorry, what was that about judging others as you'd like to be judged?
It makes no difference whether it has 300, 000 fucks, 25, 568 uses of cunt and 68 gratutitous uses of the word 'Belgium' and one of floccipaucinihilipilification, either it's funny and thought provoking or it's not. It's either taking the piss out of a television genre which thoroughly deserves it or it's not. You'd have to see it to judge how the swearing works. As for 'luxuriating in depravity' 'gratuitous exploitation' etc etc. that's almost exactly the sort of over-the-top claim people made about 'Clockwork Orange' without having seen it - I'm sorry to say it, but that post practically satirises itself as an excellent example of 'I haven't seen it and don't intend to but I'm going to be outraged anyway'
I have no idea whether I will like it myself, not having seen it, but as it has had a long and succesful run in my home town without causing the least fuss, and it has garnered a large clutch of awards, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt until I see it - especially if this sort of legalistic 'it has this many fucks in it, you know' and 'somebody mentioned an angel raping the Virgin Mary in the some context which we do not know' argument is the best to be mustered against it.
It's just as well I'm not a member of ECUSA, as well as making programmes for Auntie or I'd have to get a custom title as 'Ship's Great Satan' ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
OK, forget all the stuff about whether we should ban things we don't want to hear, and ignore the context of the Mary raped comments. I think Mary was raped by an angel.
Gabriel at no point asks for Mary's assent. She later gives it, but only after he has simply announced that she will be made pregnant by the Holy Spirit. The Annunciation is of a non-consensual pregnancy. Mary is offered no choice. This is rape.
Admittedly Mary later says that 'be it unto me' line, but this is an unarmed peasant girl face to face with an archangel, {and she probably doesn't realise that he doesn't exist (or that she is largely a fiction in the mind of the chap we usually call Luke)}. Saying 'yes' to a man with a knife wouldn't count as consent. Nor does saying 'be it unto me' to a winged feller with blazing eyes.
So the impregnation of Mary is rape. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I hope you will convict.
On the contrary, I suspect this will pass as serious debate on the ship of fools.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Those who have enjoyed Louise's magisterial posts on this thread, and in particular her tour de force about the seamier side of Genesis, might enjoy the Lego version of the story of Dinah and Shechem, at the brick testament . Look at the mouths!
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Louise, that was excellent. Even without the stark contrast of some of the other contributors of this thread, that was still some brilliant posting.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I'm pretty sure that the basis of the prohibition on kiddie porn is the injury done to defenseless and weak children. Your analogy implies a defenseless and weak God, something that you already admitted does not exist.
Not at all, God is not hurt by this, those who blaspheme him are. It's like a perfect mirror, the more they blaspheme, the more they doom themselves. The human perpetrator is his own victim in blasphemy, it's spiritual self-mutilation. This exactly mirrors that one does not praise the Lord for the Lord's sake (He clearly gains nothing from praise), but for one's own sake. Now, allowing blasphemy to be visible in the public is like allowing child porn to become visible in the public: chances are that this will increase the number of victims. The difference is that in the case of child porn, more crimes might be committed against others (the children), in the case of blasphemy more crimes might be committed by people against themselves.
But, as I've mentioned, this system is only logical if you believe in God and in the possibility of perdition. If you do not believe in God, or if you do not believe that blasphemy could result in (ultimate) harm to themselves, then this logic collapses.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I think that this issue has done what no other issue has done in the 3 years 9 months I have been here. It has revealed for me:-
(1) How utterly divided groups / traditions of Christians are on the Ship, (reflecting the wider situation of course).
(2) These divisions are systemic, deep rooted and comprehensive.
(3) They are not susceptible of human resolution.
I am afraid I no longer know what "in Christ" means ecumenically in practical terms.
I shall remain here not with any hope of convergence across the divides but in the (often) vain hope that there might develop some mutual understanding.
Only (3) gives me cause for some hope. Maybe. With God all things are possible.
[ 04. January 2005, 23:40: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Odd. The divergency here has given me more of a sense of the Church Universal. Because despite the fact we disagree so deeply and unchangeably about these things, here we all are still disagreeing together. And many of us have been doing it for quite a while.
Isn't that in itself a sign that something is at work?
[picked a better word]
[ 04. January 2005, 23:58: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JohnBoot
BOOTED
# 3566
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by JohnBoot:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There are serious scholars who have put forward the possibility that Mary was got pregnant because she was raped by a Roman soldier.
I assume "scholars" means more than one. Do you care to divulge their names?
I'll look them up at work tomorrow.
Any luck?
Posts: 789 | From: Detroit | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I think that this issue has done what no other issue has done in the 3 years 9 months I have been here. It has revealed for me:-
(1) How utterly divided groups / traditions of Christians are on the Ship, (reflecting the wider situation of course).
Interesting. I cottoned on to this fact about five minutes after I walked through the door over six years ago. Did you really think we were all Orthodox underneath and we just hadn't figured it out yet?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JohnBoot:
Any luck?
Yes. The possibility that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier was first put forward by Jane Schaberg in The Illegitimacy of Jesus (1987) and discussed more recently by Robert Miller in Born Divine (2003).
I used the word "serious" to underline the fact that the idea that Mary might have been raped was not one discussed solely by people who don't take Christianity seriously.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...in the case of blasphemy more crimes might be committed by people against themselves.
Even God doesn't restrict our freedom in order to keep us from hurting ourselves. Who gave you, Gregory, or the Church such high authority?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Even God doesn't restrict our freedom in order to keep us from hurting ourselves. Who gave you, Gregory, or the Church such high authority?
Who gave the secular state the right to stop people from seriously mutilating their own bodies or from committing suicide, and to order psychological treatment in such cases? The assumption behind the laws is that these people are not making free decisions in a sane state of mind, but rather that they act under compulsion from mental sickness. Hence their freedom of action is being restricted until they regain a healthy state of mind, i.e., until they stop wanting to harm themselves in this manner. Simply speaking then, we accept that the overwhelming majority has some right to define what is "sane" over and against what the individual may believe.
Of course, with respect to blasphemy the problem is these days that no such overwhelming majority exists anymore. The situation used to be very different - hence my analysis explains the "traditional" attitude. Concerning the world of today, the second part of my post becomes relevant: weighting the cultural benefits against the religious damage. Both are experienced by people and have real impact on them, hence I can see no reason whatsoever why cultural expression should be given an entirely free hand without considering this question.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Read my post Erin.
There was nothing about Orthodoxy either explicit or inferred in that. And don't try and drag into your analysis 1001 other misinterpreted / reconstructed / decontextualised posts of mine over the last 4 years in self justification either.
I was merely talking about my deepening perception of division, (not merely difference or diversity) which is, I contend, generic, systemic and across the board / Boards.
It might help if from time to time if you didn't put words into my mouth ... presumably for your own purposes, who knows?! Thank you.
[ 05. January 2005, 06:55: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
What Cosmo said.
But I'm confused.
At one point Fr Gregory requires us to believe that blasphemy is a bad thing because it "encourag[es] us to take the things of God too lightly", suggesting that the measure of whether something is blasphemous or not is dependent on its effect as experience by real human beings.
When a real human being suggests to Fr Gregory that the things he has enunciated do not encourage me to take the things of God too lightly, such experience of their effect is dismissed as irrelevant and he appeals to some nebulous, undefined society which is brought to its elbows by an opera shown on BBC-2 on a Friday night.
Heigh-ho.
The reason for my confusion is that the things that do encourage me to take the things of God too lightly, despairing at the rapacious and vicious power-games and violations of the human spirit that happen in the name of religion (you can consider these to be comments on your citation of the "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" as well, Ley Druid).
There are the things that cause me to despair and sympathise with those who consider God, if he is anything like his purported representatives, to be a cruel, fickle, cantankerous fool who deserves neither respect nor worship, to take the things associated with Him too lightly because if I didn't laugh, I'd cry.
It is not 8,000 uses of the word fuck or cunt, but rather things like the refusal to return Jewish children to their parents because they had been baptized during their fostering; or when monks and priests of the oldest Christian tradition on the planet harbour a indicted war criminal; when monks and priests of an ancient church burn theological books and seek civil legislation that persecute other Christians; when bishops move priests around parishes to avoid scandal rather than deal head on with their vile acts of abuse; when bishops and priests wring their hands over a fast-spreading disease, but will at the same time insist on a discipline which means that disease spreads even faster; when a sect uses violence and warfare to gain control of a state in the name of "God" and then proceeds to ban Christmas; when ministers of the church are happy to put the boot into any other minister at the drop of a hat; when groups develop theologies that, shock horror, make them the top of the pile in the social order; when churches stand there smugly blaming the rest of the world from having disengaged from Christianity when the churches had a good hand in making that disengagement possible and necessary.
These are "blasphemies", if we insist on defining blasphemy as something that encourages us to take the things of God too lightly.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Dyfrig:
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Dyfrig and Cosmo, what a pair.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
Well, I've set this to record, and I will let you know if I find it just as amusing and satirical, nay, thought-provoking, as I did last time.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wesleyswig
Shipmate
# 5436
|
Posted
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4147801.stm
Read it and weep - seems like the b*stard offspring of the Viewers&Listeners association is now onto the beeb.
So it seems that we wont all get a chance to watch and judge. I think a much fairer thing if we all watched and then we got to complain if it was offensive! (eg some saw Brasseye as offensive and there was a giant apology).
I am shocked an appaled by the fact that the person who is complaining most here hasnt even seen the show though. That shows an ignorance which gives alot of christians a bad name. Why? Becuase how can we be the candel in teh darkness that stands up for what we belive in if we havent experienced it ourselves in some shape or form? Else we are just hypocrytes. We all laughed at Blunket when he claimed ot have watched a TV show, condemned it and then revieled he hadn't seen it.
I am also cheesed off I shall be at a Methodist meeting (CfMYW) the day that it is on and so dont know if I'll be able to catch it - the mind boggles at what context the swearing will be in...will have to get someone to tape it...
Many Regards
John
Posts: 878 | From: Chained to my desk.... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
It doesn't sound like they are planning to axe it, only that they've been asked to. Most of the swearing is sung to operatic music... which makes it funnier.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It might help if from time to time if you didn't put words into my mouth ... presumably for your own purposes, who knows?! Thank you.
Fregory, let me introduce you to the concept of a question mark. This is what we call a punctuation mark -- a symbolic notation indicating a specific use of speech. In this case, a question mark is used to mark the end of a sentence of direct inquiry. E.g., quote:
Did you really think we were all Orthodox underneath and we just hadn't figured it out yet?
This is a sentence of inquiry, requesting specific information. The sentence structure is such that the appropriate response is "yes" or "no".
Now, a rhetorical device such as the one you've accused me of does not, in fact, entail an inquiry. Rather, it's an assumed statement of fact. In that instance, the sentence would end with what we know as a period, which indicates the end of a declarative sentence. E.g., quote:
You really think we're all Orthodox and are too stupid to figure it out yet.
This requires a direct refutation or confirmation.
Now, I have been blissfully unaware that a direct inquiry now construes putting words in one's mouth. I have always believed that a direct inquiry was always a request for clarification about one's actions, beliefs or words. So in the future, Fregory, maybe you need to unbunch your panties and just answer the damn question, k?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
A few thoughts:
1) Just a small point on the Mary and the angel thing, my vague memory of when it is mentioned in the show was it made me think of Zeus and all his women, and how, rather than simply dismissing the tale of virginal conception as rubbish, maybe this is how some people, either now or centuries ago, may have tried to understand it when they first heard the story. I didn't take it as a blasphemy on Our Lady, rather an interesting angle for a non-Christian to take on trying to explain (away) the story.
2) Has anyone else mentioned that stage shows when filmed for TV always come across badly anyway?
3) The swearing is intense, but repetition dulls effect and it does actually just come across amusingly, as you realise how bizarre the language of JS contestants are, there again, it's just like what the majority of kids on my bus in the morning sound like, just more inventive, and it's funny as it shows how ridiculous and inane and pointlessly rude the language is.
4)Seriously though, the second act is pretty offensive, however there are lots of interesting questions it raises. The thing that saddened me the most is the conclusion is essentially the marriage between heaven and hell, a ying and yang theory, which is very 'all roads lead the same way' etc. That, not the blashemy is what will be pervasive and anti-Christian in effect. This message, rather than disrespect, will seep into modern culture and will have more effect as it confirms to non-Christians that they're ok. A bit of rudeness or blasphemy they know is naughty but manageable. It's a shame when there are so many interesting issues raised that could have gone somewhere much else.
Ultimately though, the philosophical and theological questions will be lost on the majority of viewers (just as they are on theatre-goers) and the gradual secularisation of the West will simply continue. We end with the question need it be inflicted on the general public? I think not. But I think there are far better things Christians could be spending there time shouting about in public.
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
So it seems that we wont all get a chance to watch and judge. I think a much fairer thing if we all watched and then we got to complain if it was offensive! (eg some saw Brasseye as offensive and there was a giant apology).
I'll tell you what, you spend your own money watching it instead of expecting it to be paid for out of a compulsory levy and we'll call the argument quits.
quote:
I am shocked an appaled by the fact that the person who is complaining most here hasnt even seen the show though. That shows an ignorance which gives alot of christians a bad name. Why? Becuase how can we be the candel in teh darkness that stands up for what we belive in if we havent experienced it ourselves in some shape or form? Else we are just hypocrytes. We all laughed at Blunket when he claimed ot have watched a TV show, condemned it and then revieled he hadn't seen it.
I didn't see the empty tomb but I believe the witnesses, whom I have come to trust. FrGregory hasn't seen the show but believes the witnesses whom he come to trust. That isn't hypocrisy, it's how we got our Scriptures.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
Darn, thought of something else:
by the end of the show I wasn't so much offended by their gross depiction of Jesus as I realised it was SO removed from the Jesus I knew. It was unreal, barely recognisable, only the name was the same. It reminded me of the argument you can give to atheists when they say why they don't believe in God - I don't believe in that God either. I may be temporarily offended by blasphemy, but I find heresy much worse and more dangerous. It is the things most like the truth which are the most subversive. Any Christian or non-Christian watch JS the Opera knows its portrayls of the characters have got nothing to do with real Christianity. However, the underlying moral conclusion the show makes is much more likely to subconsciously affect people (see my 4th point).
--------------------
Hope for everything; expect nothing
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Monday
None but a blockhead
# 2569
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
It doesn't sound like they are planning to axe it, only that they've been asked to. Most of the swearing is sung to operatic music... which makes it funnier.
Shades of the South Park musical, which was broadcast in its full fearsome foulmouthed finery not so long ago on Channel 4 (also a public service broadcaster). Only I don't think anyone complained about that - which was a shame, as there's nothing like a bit of controversy to get the viewing figures up: South Park certainly tries hard on the blasphemy and swearing counts. Wonder what it's doing wrong to be so cruelly ignored?
I can't see the BBC not transmitting Springer. Perhaps Father Gregory and the Whitehousians can chain themselves to the railings outside Broadcasting House.
Down with this sort of thing! Mind how you go now...
R
--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.
Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
[QB...on Channel 4 (also a public service broadcaster).[/QB]
In what sense "public service". It is a commercial station financed from advertising revenues not by the licence fee.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
[QB...on Channel 4 (also a public service broadcaster).
In what sense "public service". It is a commercial station financed from advertising revenues not by the licence fee. [/QB]
Well, according to Ofcom quote:
Channel 4, as a critical second provider of public service broadcasting, to remain as a primarily not-for-profit free-to-air broadcaster
Ofcom definition of "Public Service Broadcasting" quote:
The problem with the term 'public service broadcasting' is that it has at least four different meanings: good television; worthy television; television that would not exist without some form of public intervention; and the institutions that broadcast this type of television.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Yoo-hoo Mother Country: I apologize for the US origination of the Jerry Springer Show! Now you have our rotten taste, in spades. That's a pity.
That television show did bleep most of the profanity and obscenity uttered by its guests, who were chosen specifically for their unedifying personalities and personal issues, so that an audience could feel a little bit superior IMHO. For a while, the ratings were high. I guess the rationale was that everybody needs somebody to look down upon.
I am happy to report that that tv show has been relegated to a cheap channel not on the main networks and not a favorite of the US intelligentsia, but you can be sure that US public tv will show that opera as soon as they can raise the fees with their next begathon. Sophisticated Americans just love British television and British theatre. You will get your money back.
I think both our nations have bought such a popular mindset of theological and moral relativism among mainline Christians (and sophisticates of all religions) that we ought not to be surprised to see blasphemy or obscenity on the stage, the big or small screen, or even in mainline churches as some sort of liturgical innovation or as a simple protest against censorship in any form. People asked for profanity and obscenity when they opted both for a distorted sophistication and a concomitant concept of relative truth, relative morality and art as self-expression for its own sake. Over here, people call that sort of self-expression a Second Amendment Right. The National Education Association and the National Endowment for the Arts get both gov't and private grants for such self-expression in the US. Other examples of that sort of taste have existed for quite a while, e.g., the "Crucifix in Urine" exhibited in NYC a few years ago, or the Virgin Smeared with Elephant Dung. In a way, through funding such projects, we are taxed just as you all are. But if it pleased Americans to originate these art forms, maybe we deserve to be taxed to pay for them, especially if we voted for candidates who advocate such freedoms. The BBC seems to me merely to be life imitating art. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
In sum, America should be blamed rather than the BBC. We set the example, to our shame.
There is only one way to protect against this sort of stuff.
If one doesn't like these things, one needs to vote out or otherwise sanction the representatives (of state, church or political influence) who advocate relativism. If all else fails, hit them in the pocketbook, where it hurts. In the meantime, vote with one's remote.
Leetle Masha, who watched Jerry Springer once or twice and who has not contributed to public tv in a very long time; I have better uses for my charitable contributions. Merry Armenian Christmas to all!
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But, as I've mentioned, this system is only logical if you believe in God and in the possibility of perdition. If you do not believe in God, or if you do not believe that blasphemy could result in (ultimate) harm to themselves, then this logic collapses.
So, logically, anyone who doesn't believe in both those things is free to watch. And anyone who does believe in them is free not to watch. Everybody's happy.
Unless you're advocating a Father-knows-best state where even non-Christians are held to a "Christian" way of life for the sake of the souls they don't even believe they have.
Is that what you're advocating? What a nightmare it would be...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
No YOU haven't got MY point Erin. This is absolutely nothing to do with Orthodoxy whatsover so why did you even use the word whatever the punctuation? I said, and I repeat for brevity! ... "deep disunity rules here." Period.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There is considerable disagreement here. But does disagreement equate with disunity? And, if there is a correlation between disagreement and disunity I'd have thought that would be much more evident on the assorted threads about important doctrines rather than what boils down to not much more than personal taste.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
[QB...on Channel 4 (also a public service broadcaster).
In what sense "public service". It is a commercial station financed from advertising revenues not by the licence fee.
Well, according to Ofcom quote:
Channel 4, as a critical second provider of public service broadcasting, to remain as a primarily not-for-profit free-to-air broadcaster
Ofcom definition of "Public Service Broadcasting" quote:
The problem with the term 'public service broadcasting' is that it has at least four different meanings: good television; worthy television; television that would not exist without some form of public intervention; and the institutions that broadcast this type of television.
[/QB]
Fair enough.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Buggeration.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
No YOU haven't got MY point Erin. This is absolutely nothing to do with Orthodoxy whatsover so why did you even use the word whatever the punctuation? I said, and I repeat for brevity! ... "deep disunity rules here." Period.
I get your point. I just think you are wrong. After all, if you thought we were all really the same deep down, what same did you think we were? If not Orthodox, then WHAT SAME were we?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Let's look at it again shall we Erin?
quote:
(1) How utterly divided groups / traditions of Christians are on the Ship, (reflecting the wider situation of course).
(2) These divisions are systemic, deep rooted and comprehensive.
(3) They are not susceptible of human resolution.
I am afraid I no longer know what "in Christ" means ecumenically in practical terms.
I shall remain here not with any hope of convergence across the divides but in the (often) vain hope that there might develop some mutual understanding.
Please tell me where I used the word "same." Please tell me where I inferred that the opposite of divided (VERB USED) was "same" rather than it's true opposite which is "united" or perhaps "shared." No matter how quick you peddle you are falling back sreadily downhill. Still no trace of "Orthodox" explicit or implied.
[ 05. January 2005, 14:48: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Concerning the world of today, the second part of my post becomes relevant: weighting the cultural benefits against the religious damage. Both are experienced by people and have real impact on them, hence I can see no reason whatsoever why cultural expression should be given an entirely free hand without considering this question.
You have said that you are concerned about the damage that people might cause to themselves, not to you or to God. Where then is the "religious damage"? There is no damage to God or, presumably, to your belief. The only possible damage is to the religion of people who believe differently than you. You are still implying that people should not have freedom to make their own decisions about what is best for them.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Dyfrig
quote:
At one point Fr Gregory requires us to believe that blasphemy is a bad thing because it "encourag[es] us to take the things of God too lightly", suggesting that the measure of whether something is blasphemous or not is dependent on its effect as experience by real human beings.
When a real human being suggests to Fr Gregory that the things he has enunciated do not encourage me to take the things of God too lightly, such experience of their effect is dismissed as irrelevant and he appeals to some nebulous, undefined society which is brought to its elbows by an opera shown on BBC-2 on a Friday night.
Ah Dyfrig! So you're a Thatherite! No such thing as society eh?! Really, the very thought. You will recall I also said that blashemy was not a private transaction (or even a collection of private transactions, elucd.) but a social construct.
Nebulous? I don't think so. The social artefacts of a society are its shared values, its dissenters and the transactions between the two. When, however, a society begins actually to corrupt and subvert its own memes ... it had better know what it is doing and what the consequences of that are.
Dear Alan
Disagreement there certainly is but I know now that it runs deeper than that. Many traditions represented on the Ship have such deeply antithetical and exclusive Christian infrastructures as to make any engagement only possible at the level of encounter and understanding (fat chance I think more negatively some times). Any hope that we might through our debates be drawing closer together (not same or Orthodox Erin) now seems impossibly ambitious. As I said, though, with God all things are possible.
Angry about Media Watch Wesleyswig? Wait until the Muslim Council of Great Britain wades in. That will no doubt be judged to be tolerable ... somehow.
I'll pop in on your question Scot but defer to Ingo. This is not (as I have explained yet again to Dyrig and all of you concerned) about whether or not you were offended, corrupted or influenced in anyway. It's about the social memes, the shared values, the elasticity for dissent flipping over into new social constructs. I believe that we are now experiencing a new social revilution as secularish and religious iconoclasm become much more aggressive. I am just flagging this up in case eventually real and actual (physical) martyrdom will be the bitter fruit of a democracy gone sour and twisted.
[ 05. January 2005, 15:10: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
