|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Calling the Arch****** of York and his erastian shrine Minster to a Christmas hell
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Similarly, if the criminal is equipped with firearms, there is likely to be a need to use deadly force to regain control of the situation.
Sure, and I acknowledged that the police use violence in extremis. But if the police are challenging an armed gang, their aim is to bring them to trial to face a court of law. Shooting one of them would be seen as a failure, even if there was no alternative - there would certainly be an inquiry afterwards to determine what happened. Conversely, when the British Army shoot Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan, there is no suggestion that what they really want to do is bring the Taliban to trial instead.
Hmm - not sure; given the number of Taliban prisoners, and that more and more wars these days end up with the losers in a criminal court, I think that the distinction in intention is actually quite limited. That the means involved is quite different is therefore just a matter of what works in the circumstances; armed soldiers stopping drunk drivers and unarmed bobbies trying to tackle armed insurgents are inappropriate...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I have only just read the opening the OP and have never read such an offensive pile of bullshit on here before. Even in Hell.
Before you pontificate you stupid c**t, get to Afghanistan and face sone rounds.
I'm glad you fgelt called to leave (if you did) You had the intuition and saving grace to realise you weren't worthy to be there. I call YOU to Hell.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I understand enough to know a twat when I see one, Trisagion ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I resemble that remark.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ho ho ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Perhaps I ought to respond in kind ... so do I.
Meanwhile, I want to see Brother Oscar respond to Sebby's call and face the music ...
Or is that gruesome of me?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
What on earth is 'near pacifist' for goodness sake?
What it says. I was trying to be honest.
I am a paid up member of the Anglican Pacifist Fellowship and have been in its governing body and its executive in the past but I think defense violence as a response to some extreme situations may be necessary.
The late Gerald Priestland, broadcaster, Quaker and pacifist, did a series on TV about the history of war and in the credits he thanks the armed forces for enabling him to live in a country where he could voice his dissenting views.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Gerald Priestland was a delightful man, compassionate and with a brain. He was a superb example of a Quaker in the 1970s and early 1980s - the best example.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Ender's Shadow wrote:
quote:
As I said before both Pol Pot and Idi Amin's deeply evil regimes were only stopped by force. What should have been done instead?
Possibly nothing would have been done, had the Vietnamese and the Tanzanians not regarded themselves as having an interest in ousting their neighbours' governments.
Nyerere ousted Amin in response to Uganda invading and occupying part of Tanzania. As for Vietnam, their invasion of Cambodia was preceded by a few years' worth of incursions into Vietnam from Cambodian forces.
Of course, as is usual with these things, I'm sure both the Ugandans and the Cambodians would claim to have had good reason for attacking those countries to begin with, the other guy was the real aggressor, etc etc. My point is that neither Nyerere nor the Vietnamese Communists likely shared the humanitarian concerns that some may cite as justification for the invasions.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Ender's Shadow wrote:
quote:
As I said before both Pol Pot and Idi Amin's deeply evil regimes were only stopped by force. What should have been done instead?
Possibly nothing would have been done, had the Vietnamese and the Tanzanians not regarded themselves as having an interest in ousting their neighbours' governments.
Nyerere ousted Amin in response to Uganda invading and occupying part of Tanzania. As for Vietnam, their invasion of Cambodia was preceded by a few years' worth of incursions into Vietnam from Cambodian forces.
Of course, as is usual with these things, I'm sure both the Ugandans and the Cambodians would claim to have had good reason for attacking those countries to begin with, the other guy was the real aggressor, etc etc. My point is that neither Nyerere nor the Vietnamese Communists likely shared the humanitarian concerns that some may cite as justification for the invasions.
But that's not my point; I'm trying to entice a pacifist to engage with the realities of the world as it is, that if states weren't armed, then evil would be unrestrained. In neither of those cases does there appear to be an alternative. That the states that did the invasions had a wider agenda - though Tanzania seems to have resisted the temptation to take advantage of their status as liberators to take de facto control of the country - isn't relevant to the debate...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
It is worth noting that Uganda's problems didn't end with Amin. There was a brief scrap for power, another stolen election, and then a murderous rule by Milton Obote, in which I believe the numbers massacred rivalled the numbers achieved by Amin.
The massacres eventually stopped when Museveni took power, again by force of arms.
A pacifist might point to the current corruption of democracy perpetrated by Museveni in modern-day Uganda, but it is hard to think that it would have been better to allow the murderous dictators to have their way.
Hence, for once, I would say that ES's point stands.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
ES wrote:
quote:
But that's not my point; I'm trying to entice a pacifist to engage with the realities of the world as it is, that if states weren't armed, then evil would be unrestrained. In neither of those cases does there appear to be an alternative. That the states that did the invasions had a wider agenda - though Tanzania seems to have resisted the temptation to take advantage of their status as liberators to take de facto control of the country - isn't relevant to the debate...
I'd agree with you, if "by evil would be unrestrained", you mean that countries would no longer be able to defend themselves against outside aggression. Because that's the reason that Tanzania and Vietnam launched their attacks, to defend themselves.
But you could have all the standing armies in the world, and still nothing would be done about the evil regimes, unless neighbouring or rival countries thought they had an interest in ousting them.
mdijon wrote:
quote:
It is worth noting that Uganda's problems didn't end with Amin. There was a brief scrap for power, another stolen election, and then a murderous rule by Milton Obote, in which I believe the numbers massacred rivalled the numbers achieved by Amin.
My impression has always been that Obote was basically the guy that Nyerere wanted in charge of Uganda, even though Obote's previous rule in the late 60s/early 70s had been pretty awful. And I'm not aware that Nyerere did much to stop Obote from further atrocities in his(Obote's second term). But I'm open to correction on this.
[ 28. December 2012, 19:17: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think that's true. First time round Obote mismanaged the economy, embezzled aid, squandered millions and killed and tortured those who opposed him. The second time around he massacred hundreds of thousands.
Nyerere was visionary in many ways and hundred times the man I am, but had blind spots. He seemed to treat Museveni with grudging tolerance compared to favoured-son status for Obote, although both were supported in Tanzania.
But I think the essential point remains - that force of arms restored order to Uganda. Museveni fought a successful bush campaign from inside Uganda during the second Obote government, and did not depend on the Tanzanian army on that occasion.
You might say that he had vested interests to promote himself, and latterly he abuses power himself, but the bottom line is that warfare stopped the massacres in Uganda.
And while we're in the region, it was Kagame's RPF, with support from Museveni, that by armed struggle took Rwanda and halted the genocide. The militias doing the killing would have continued as long as they possibly could had they not been stopped by force.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But that's not my point; I'm trying to entice a pacifist to engage with the realities of the world as it is, that if states weren't armed, then evil would be unrestrained. In neither of those cases does there appear to be an alternative. That the states that did the invasions had a wider agenda - though Tanzania seems to have resisted the temptation to take advantage of their status as liberators to take de facto control of the country - isn't relevant to the debate...
What's the functional difference between "engag[ing] with the realities of the world as it is" and conforming yourself to the moral standards of the world? Where does "do not resist an evil person" come into this? I've never understood how evangelicals who claim to consider the Bible to be infalible can be anything other than strict pacifists except in cases where God has directly commanded them otherwise.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Because the infallible bible can be read in a number of different ways? Because for every pacifist reading of Jesus' teachings there is a very non pacifist reading from the Old Testament? Because it isn't clear that Jesus was talking about a policy of non-defence of a kingdom or rolling over in the face of genocide when he taught about personal responses?
Lots of reasons.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brother Oscar
Apprentice
# 17227
|
Posted
This is a delayed reply since I have not had time to post these last days.
As I suspected I rather regret posting this though I do not regret leaving the service. I regret however, having gone at all. I recognise that as some have said here the Church of England is the established church in this land and as such has links with the military. I shall have no difficulty in future either avoiding or in remembering not to be scandalised.
As for Enders's Shadow's point about the definition of Erastianism and it's relevance to the CofE's relationship with the military - I know what Erastianism means and I was deliberate in using it. It seems to me that the common usage of the term is not so far from the historical reality. A major motive of the Tudor monarchs in taking on the job of reforming and governing the church, was to use the wealth and power of the church in order to guarantee their supremacy in the state. An established church with a role in supporting the state's military activity is a consequence of this. The madness that was the Great War was preached like a crusade from pulpits and many chaplains were merely military propagandists rather than agents of pastoral support. Many veterans never forgave the church. Of course chaplaincy has changed and I know chaplains who provide excellent spiritual support to the soldiers in their care. However, as Ender's Shadow points out it is still the doctrine of the CofE that the state is authorised to use violence and it seems that it is the church's job to unquestionably support and bless the state's use of violence. If only Robert Runcie or Rowan Williams understood this they wouldn't have been so foolish as to question the Magistrate's willingness to go to war and tactics.
Not surprisingly then Ender's Shadow and others have pointed out that the apparently state goes to war with God's authority and that the state has a divine right to threaten military force. I simply cannot agree. Despite the much argued over Romans c13, it seems to me that the Scriptures regard violence and warfare as a consequence of the fall, of our inability to maintain and create peace. The New Testament seems to regard violence as part of a world coming to an end. Christians - representing the world that is coming into being - fight not with swords of steel but with the sword of truth. Augustine is not far from this, understanding a just war as a regrettable necessity in the face of a greater evil. Augustine certainly understood the often corrupt nature of state violence.
However, one of the reasons that I am a pacifist is that I find it difficult to be anything but skeptical about the legitimacy of when we choose to go to war and how we prepare for war. Ender's Shadow pointed out that if it is legitimate to go to war then it is legitimate to work in an arms factory. The latest weapons used by the UK and our ally the US, drones, are employed not in combat as such but in extra-judicial killing, sometimes operating illegitimately in countries with whom we are not at war. Further, whilst arms made in Britain are sold to legitimate entities they are also sold, with negligible checks, belligerent or oppressive states, or are sold by middle-men to even less desirable buyers. We continue to sell arms to Israel despite her attacks on Gaza being far in excess of defense. Israel uses military might to punish and suppress a whole population and maintain an illegal blockade. The irony of the Archbishop's defense of arms manufacturing at a time of economic crisis is that Museveni has used British aid money to buy fighter jets - albeit from Russia. Museveni claims Uganda must defend against foreign enemies and insurgents but he seems to be just as busy harassing, torturing and killing dissenters and human rights activists. Despite +York's memory of Idi Amin and recent protest against Mugabe, Ugandan commentators note that he is silent about Museveni's exploits.
However, the state divinely authorised to go to war to defend peace and the innocent, seems to be rather choosey about when it goes to war. We of course intervened in Libya to protect the oil, sorry the people, but we fail to protect the people in Syria. Is it because we have learned to be cautious after the state in which we have left Iraq and Afghanistan? What were those two wars about? It is difficult to be convinced that they were to end human rights abuses when we don't seem too moved by human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Belarus, Russia or China. But then they service our trade and political interests. The case that they were to combat terrorism and weapons of mass destruction famously failed. Were they not about aiding the military and political dominance of our ally the United States?
I don't doubt that the honest private really does believe that they are serving their country and humanity. And I also don't doubt that the majority serving in Afghanistan have acted professionally and as decent human beings; and have in limited ways bought some peace and liberty to the country. However, I believe quiet strongly that the political motives for war, its propaganda, and its long term consequences are corrupt and often disastrous. That is why I would have reacted differently if the reader was a private or military chaplain. And why I have no interest in debaring soliders from communion (@Gamaliel), though I would have been keen to see Blair and Bush be made to do public penance, just as Ambrose made the Emperor Theodosius do public penance for what we would regard as war crimes. Regarding private soldiers I would go with Hart and John the Baptist. Responses to the OP such as Dinghy Sailor's are therefore hysterical and miss the point.
What many of you who objected to my - yes over-the-top - OP about the Nine Lessons and Carols have failed to understand is that my objection was not to the Brigadier himself or nor was I commenting on whether a solider can be a Christian or participate in the worship of the church. My comment was about what having a fairly senior officer reading Luke's nativity seems to do to the narrative. That no one planning this service - and no one responding to the OP - seems to have thought about this, suggests critical illiteracy. Luke deliberately contrasts the birth of the Messiah who will bring peace (through compassion, just-dealing and opening up a way to God beyond violence) with the reign of the Emperor (who brings peace and security though the sword and institutes the worship of imperial rule).
What does it do to have a military officer read this narrative? Does it undermine the contrast and domesticate Jesus' utopian non-violence, making us forget to question the nature of war and how it is perpetrated? Does it mean to suggest that the state power once pagan is now Christian and that the state wields the sword in the name of the Lord of life? Does it suggest that the kind of violence that the state engages in is unambiguously one with the teaching that Jesus came to give? So much for criticisms of Constantinianism. You see my objection wasn't to the Brigadier's participating in a celebration of Christ's birth as such but was an extreme ambivalence to what kind of ideology was being portrayed, especially in the context of +York's pro-war pronouncements.
The question of whether +York (who read the last lesson and gave the blessing at the service) invited the Brigadier or not is at one level irrelevant when you are publicly encountering a corner of the institution.
In my response I've tried to leave aside the general argument regarding pacificism and just war because 1) I think the situation is still highly ambivalent given the Lukan narrative and Britain's military record and 2) it is a thread in itself. I have also left aside therefore the question of the effectiveness of non-violent responses to aggression.
Posts: 23 | From: Loidis | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brother Oscar
Apprentice
# 17227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
btw Brother Oscar: i) welcome to the Ship ii) by choosing this icon do you realise what you have let yourself in for?
i) Thanks for the welcome! I hope not cause to much more trouble than this early foray into hell.
ii) I shall prepare myself for what is to come.
Posts: 23 | From: Loidis | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
1,369 words.
And unsurprisingly it isn't clear what you're annoyed about. You're not actually all that annoyed that the Brigadier was part of the service per se but think he shouldn't have read this particular reading?
Actually you're more annoyed about Sentamu's stance on Museveni and the Brigadier doing taking part in this service, reading this particular passage, represented an insensitivity given Sentamu's stance on Museveni?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can understand your reactions to Sentamu's stance, Brother Oscar, but not why you felt the need to boycott the service - unless there was a sermon or some explicit reference to supporting the arms trade and so on. I'm getting some heat on Facebook at the moment for expressing my views on US gun control ... so I can certainly sympathise with your point of view.
I'm still not sure how it applies to the Nine Lessons and Carols thing, though, but hey ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
mdijon wrote:
quote:
Nyerere was visionary in many ways and hundred times the man I am, but had blind spots. He seemed to treat Museveni with grudging tolerance compared to favoured-son status for Obote, although both were supported in Tanzania.
I wouldn't really blame Nyerere for tolerating Obote. Tanzania, by the standards of subsaharan Africa at the time, was an oasis of stablity and good government, and it's understandable that Nyerere would prefer a Ugandan leader who wasn't going to fuck around with that. He possibly did not have the luxury of fretting about what Obote would be like internally.
This article goes into a bit of detail about the history. It seems to be a debated point whether Nyerere was supporting Obote against the provisional government that had been established post-invasion.
[ 28. December 2012, 22:24: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brother Oscar
Apprentice
# 17227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
1,369 words.
And unsurprisingly it isn't clear what you're annoyed about... Actually you're more annoyed about Sentamu's stance on Museveni...
Yes, and hand in hand with that I am annoyed at Sentamu's uncritical support of the British military establishment and lack of Episcopal imagination in advocating peaceful alternatives to war and the manufacture of weapons.
quote:
reading this particular passage, represented an insensitivity given Sentamu's stance on Museveni? [/QB]
Maybe, but my point was about how inviting a senior military representative to read appears to legitimatise the British military establishment in relation to the Good News of the incarnation. And how in the context of the Archbishop's pro-military pronouncements it appears to domesticise the New Testament. That was what annoyed me.
Now, I may again be accused of over-reaction but I take ideology very seriously and in relation to Gamaliel's point re sermon I believe that ideology is expressed just as powerfully though what we do and witness as verbally. As Angloid has already pointed out the hierarchy and choice of readers is made to reflect the church's relation to society.
I left because I deduced what this choice meant for this particular church's relation to society and because I realised, as Ender's Shadow and others have pointed out, I was in the wrong church. So it was less of a boycott, and I left as discretely as the congregants occasionally popping off to the toilet, and more of a absenting myself from somewhere I didn't belong.
Posts: 23 | From: Loidis | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
You write all that, and then have the nerve to accuse me of hysteria?!
Look mate, the CofE isn't your private fiefdom. If you want a think tank on imaginative methods of conflict resolution, start one. God bless you - I mean it - but don't whine at the bishops if they don't share your number 1 priority, because they've got a nation to serve.
Also, try living in the diocese for longer before you spout agitprop about "+York's pro-war pronouncements". He isn't just there to soak up your feelgood rants, you know.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
my point was about how inviting a senior military representative to read appears to legitimatise the British military establishment in relation to the Good News of the incarnation.
I'm a pacifist myself, or rather I try to be, but seeing as there is something wrong, one way or another, with every single person on the planet, if this legitimization works the way you say it does, I don't see how you're going to find anyone worthy of reading the nativity narrative in church.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
...My comment was about what having a fairly senior officer reading Luke's nativity seems to do to the narrative. That no one planning this service - and no one responding to the OP - seems to have thought about this, suggests critical illiteracy. Luke deliberately contrasts the birth of the Messiah who will bring peace (through compassion, just-dealing and opening up a way to God beyond violence) with the reign of the Emperor (who brings peace and security though the sword and institutes the worship of imperial rule).
You may think this is 'critical illiteracy'. My view of the value of literacy criticism is perfectly presented by this XKCD strip. I've never heard that suggestion before, and I'm very dubious that the early commentators picked it up; rather to me it is a classic piece of eisgesis, reading into the text what you want to see, by pacifists desperate to justify the unjustifiable.
Many others have complained about the inconsistent behaviour of those who did intervene in Cambodia or Uganda, but not elsewhere. This is, of course, irrelevant to the debate: the only issue is whether the behaviour is legitimate. But it makes a great means to muddy the waters about the legitimacy of force in SOME circumstances.
[ 29. December 2012, 07:48: Message edited by: Ender's Shadow ]
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
...My comment was about what having a fairly senior officer reading Luke's nativity seems to do to the narrative. That no one planning this service - and no one responding to the OP - seems to have thought about this, suggests critical illiteracy.
On the part of whom? There are some smart people at York and, FYI, on the Ship too, even on the Hell board. Decent critical analysis is not beyond them (even if it's not my strong suit).
When you issue sweeping generalisations take care it isn't your own dirt, and watch where you sweep it too.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Brother Oscar,
Be a good chap will you and change your avatar.
Thanks ever so.
Tortuf
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I agree Brother Oscar that it isn't just what is said publicly in sermons and so forth that represents where a church is coming from ...
But I'm with RuthW. If you withdraw yourself on that issue then you may as well withdraw yourself on any other issue ... you were stood next to someone who'd had a wet dream the night before, you were two pews away from an adulterer, the bloke three rows back once nicked £15 from his mother's purse ...
I'm not objecting to your principles. I admire them. But you are in danger of taking them to a sanctimonious and Pharisaical level - it seems to me.
There's the old story about the Puritanical chapel in New England where the minister kept upping the ante on the level of commitment/holiness etc required for membership. He ended up with a church consisting of two little old ladies and himself.
If you take the kind of stance you're taking you'll end up not going to any church services at all because everyone there doesn't fit your own exacting standards in some way or other. Meanwhile, there's a whopping big plank dangling from your own eye ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Brother Oscar,
Be a good chap will you and change your avatar.
Thanks ever so.
Tortuf
I understand where this is coming from, I really do. But one can never have too much Cezanne.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
...My comment was about what having a fairly senior officer reading Luke's nativity seems to do to the narrative. That no one planning this service - and no one responding to the OP - seems to have thought about this, suggests critical illiteracy.
On the part of whom? There are some smart people at York and, FYI, on the Ship too, even on the Hell board. Decent critical analysis is not beyond them (even if it's not my strong suit).
When you issue sweeping generalisations take care it isn't your own dirt, and watch where you sweep it too.
Exactly.
And perhaps Brother Oscar you might object to the Roman soldier having some part in the crucifixion narrative and saying at the foot of the cross, 'truly this was the Son of God'?
But then the NT redactors, or even the Holy Spirit, might be cirtically illiterate.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
This should be in Purgatory I reckon.
This is the second time this year John Sentamu had greatly disappointed me - when 10 years ago I'd have been praising him. The first was over his joining in with the Pope's hysteria over homosexuality.
When is Christianity going to be persecuted for righteousness' sake?
Anywhere?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm a pacifist myself, or rather I try to be, but seeing as there is something wrong, one way or another, with every single person on the planet, if this legitimization works the way you say it does, I don't see how you're going to find anyone worthy of reading the nativity narrative in church.
Exactly. I'm not a pacifist in theory, although it does seem to me that the sum total of UK military activity in the last few decades has done more harm than good.
But I would be outraged if someone took the view that a single mother ought not to be reading the gospel, or an owner of a bar or a gambling shop or pornography store. I'm sure there's much wrong with my life that others may wish to avoid legitimizing.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
When is Christianity going to be persecuted for righteousness' sake?
Are you offering?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
But I would be outraged if someone took the view that a single mother ought not to be reading the gospel, or an owner of a bar or a gambling shop or pornography store. I'm sure there's much wrong with my life that others may wish to avoid legitimizing.
But you wouldn't introduce any of them in a formal act of worship, or name them on a programme, as 'Ms X, single mother' or 'Mr Y, pornographer'. Let alone expect them to wear a characteristic uniform. They would be chosen because of who they were (human beings, children of God, Christian believers) not because of some external role or occupation. Whereas in the case of the OP the reader appears to have been chosen because of his status as representative of the Armed Forces.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Pornographers don't have specific titles or uniforms that become part of their personal identity in the same way. It would have been odd to choose a brigadier, but insist he not wear uniform or use his usual title.
I don't know if we know enough to understand the factors that motivated choosing this particular brigadier.
And I don't know how one chooses readers anyway. Are they chosen to represent different demographics and sections of the church? If so then it might well be reasonable to specifically choose a member of the armed forces once in a while.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Exactly.
Well engaged - with the original twaddle that was the OP.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I wonder if the Brigadier in question might have been Brigadier Peter Lyddon (though I'm probably wrong about that as it doesn't strike me as a particularly posh name) but if it was him, he was probably chosen because he was until lately the Chapter Steward of the Minster in which capacity he acted as a kind of civil servant for the Minster.
It's a guess - I have no particular knowledge of this service - that it might have been Brigadier Edward Torrens-Spence, this clearly being a 'posh name' that apparently marks him out as being the scummy sort unacceptably to Brother Oscar. He is Colonel of the Royal Dragoon Guards, a regiment based in north Yorkshire and which draws recruits mainly from that county, and so has strong links to York and York Minster. The regiment is currently engaged in an operational tour of Afghanistan (a theatre where they have lost four men), although the unit may be better known for their time in Iraq, where the video of The Way to Armadillo proved so popular that it cause an MoD server to crash.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But you wouldn't introduce any of them in a formal act of worship, or name them on a programme, as 'Ms X, single mother' or 'Mr Y, pornographer'.
Quite, because 'Ms' or 'Mr' is their title, just as 'Brigadier' is the Brigadier's title and 'Dr' is a Doctor's title. Apparently his normal title was used as, no doubt, it was used for others taking part, with no indication of any particular current occupation (at least, none that Brother Oscar seems aware of).
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Let alone expect them to wear a characteristic uniform.
There's no indication that he was expected to wear a characteristic uniform (although nobody seems to query the clergy doing so) - he just dressed smartly to attend church and worship God. Good for him.
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
That is why I would have reacted differently if the reader was a private or military chaplain.
That's not what you said in the OP.
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
I did ask myself whether I'd feel the same were the reader a private solider or a military chaplain. I'm not sure that I would.
There's probably a word for that.
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
the responsibility of the state to care for veterans.
This is one point where perhaps we can agree - the state has a duty to care for veterans. But so, perhaps, does society in general, and I don't think that is helped by those who would say that members of the armed forces are such a scuzzy bunch that they shouldn't be allowed to take part in Cristian worship, or not without hypocritically denying who they are. Personally I would rather be associated with the friend of sinner who came to the support of the despised rather than the self-righteous prigs who thought they had no need of repentance.
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But you wouldn't introduce any of them in a formal act of worship, or name them on a programme, as 'Ms X, single mother' or 'Mr Y, pornographer'.
Quite, because 'Ms' or 'Mr' is their title, just as 'Brigadier' is the Brigadier's title and 'Dr' is a Doctor's title. Apparently his normal title was used as, no doubt, it was used for others taking part, with no indication of any particular current occupation (at least, none that Brother Oscar seems aware of).
We could, of course, avoid giving titles to people (at least in the context of worship)...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I know a lot of people in the military. They are just like the rest of us. They have their good points and their bad points.
Importantly, they are children of God, just like you.
Every one I know in the military sees themselves as protecting their country and their fellow citizens. It is not the military that starts wars. It is politicians. Perhaps you ought to walk out if a politician starts speaking.
Maybe you should walk out if someone who works at a store that sells tobacco starts to speak. Or, perhaps you should walk out if someone who . . .
Oh. Wait a minute. I remember now. Church is not about how perfect the members are. It is about imperfect people coming together to worship the Lord.
How terribly judgmental, mistaken and sanctimonious it is to walk out on someone who is obviously nervous yet trying to do a good thing.
Think long and hard about what you did and why you felt justified in doing it and then bragging about it here.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm a pacifist myself, or rather I try to be, but seeing as there is something wrong, one way or another, with every single person on the planet, if this legitimization works the way you say it does, I don't see how you're going to find anyone worthy of reading the nativity narrative in church.
Exactly. I'm not a pacifist in theory, although it does seem to me that the sum total of UK military activity in the last few decades has done more harm than good.
But I would be outraged if someone took the view that a single mother ought not to be reading the gospel, or an owner of a bar or a gambling shop or pornography store. I'm sure there's much wrong with my life that others may wish to avoid legitimizing.
Agree. Of course, though, it's not the military personnel who make the decisions where or when to engage with which *enemy*. Take your ire out on the politicians, guys.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
What on earth is 'near pacifist' for goodness sake?
Because even as you appear to admit, war and violence might be necessary but only as a last resort in a fallen world. In an ideal world we would all be pacifists. No-one except a crazed maniac (and there are plenty, admittedly) would start a war.
Perhaps 'reluctant non-pacifist' would be a better phrase than 'near-pacifist'. But I respect true pacifists. Maybe we couldn't exist in a world where everyone was a pacifist (though if literally everyone was, of course we could); but then we couldn't exist if everybody was celibate either. That's not to say that celibacy doesn't have value.
Pacifism is not just a 'personal choice,' the choice of not wanting to be violent. It is the systematic and principled opposition agains any military action, done by anyone, for any reason. Being celibate does not constitute a principled opposition to procreation.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
... and the Pharisee lifted his eyes to heaven (as he walked out of the Minster) saying, I thank thee O God that I am not like that sinner over there at the lecturn...
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, yes, I think a few of us have made that observation already, Mudfrog.
I know have.
'And verily the Gamaliel looked across at Brother Oscar and did lift his eyes unto heaven, saying, "I thank Thee oh Lord, that I am not a Pharisee like Brother Oscar."
Whereupon Major Mudfrog walked into the Minster and seeing Brother Gamaliel, Brother Oscar and all the other Pharisees there assembled did lift up his eyes even unto the heavens, saying, "I thank Thee oh Lord, that I am not a Pharisee like Brother Gamaliel and Brother Oscar ..."'
Whereupon yet another Shipmate didst come there into that place to pray and seeing Major Mudfrog, Brother Gamaliel and Brother Oscar giving their gifts upon the altar, lifted their own eyes unto heaven, saying ...'
We all know the rest.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, yes, I think a few of us have made that observation already, Mudfrog.
I know have.
'And verily the Gamaliel looked across at Brother Oscar and did lift his eyes unto heaven, saying, "I thank Thee oh Lord, that I am not a Pharisee like Brother Oscar."
Whereupon Major Mudfrog walked into the Minster and seeing Brother Gamaliel, Brother Oscar and all the other Pharisees there assembled did lift up his eyes even unto the heavens, saying, "I thank Thee oh Lord, that I am not a Pharisee like Brother Gamaliel and Brother Oscar ..."'
Whereupon yet another Shipmate didst come there into that place to pray and seeing Major Mudfrog, Brother Gamaliel and Brother Oscar giving their gifts upon the altar, lifted their own eyes unto heaven, saying ...'
We all know the rest.
I prefer the occasion when a Shipmate didst come there into that place to pray and seeing Major Mudfrog, Brother Gamaliel and Brother Oscar giving their gifts upon the altar, lifted his eyes unto heaven, saying I thank thee Lord that we are all acceptable in thy sight through the merits of your Son our Lord, etc, and that, being recipients of grace - by various and diverse means - we are all brothers in the faith.
Except him... !
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
The biggest pacifists are military men . People who know what warfare can do. So one reading a lesson at churh anywhere should not be a suprise.
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE with God's blessings PaulBC ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...The only alternative is to argue that the state has a legitimate role in the control of evil, and it is perfectly reasonable for a Christian, acting with the authority of the state and therefore of God, to act to control evil....
..."with the authority of the state and therefore of God..." As an American, this logic caught my attention, since disestablishmentarianism is enshrined in our Constitution. Despite the fact that the separation of Church and State is given more lip service than honor in some sectors of my country, it was still shocking to read this.
It made me wonder what ultimate authority my country uses to intervene in the affairs of other countries, absent the unattainable permission of Almighty God.
We don't have one, unless you count our national self-interest as interpreted, cynically or altruistically--depending on who is doing the interpretation--as "helping people."
Notwithstanding all that, I was interested and amused, not only by the initial post, but by the responses to this sweet, earnest newbie.
You take care, Bro. Oscar, you hear? Don't let all these nasty comments tempt you to become filled with vitriol and rage so that you want to smash their faces in and kick 'em in the 'nads and leave them bleeding in an alley in a bad part of town.
When people disagree with us forcefully and compellingly and we have no particular answer, what better way to respond than with the gentle answers of passive aggression?
You stay sweet now.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Jesus H. Christ. You are alive and well tomb?
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Surely the 'alive' question is redundant. Or are you suggesting we get posts from beyond the grave these days?
As opposed to posts from actual graves.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
