MISSION STATEMENT ... To celebrate where it's deserved! ... To take the Michael out of institutions and individuals where it's deserved! ...
Recently I had occasion to prepare my gravestone epitaph:
GENE...
Educator, Novelist,
Humanitarian and Humorist
- TO KNOW HIM WAS TO LOVE HIM -
Rest in Peace
....... But while I am still walking the earth do not hesitate to contact me at:
bobbyslingshot8@gmail.com
Tuesday 20 June 2023
GRAND UNION CANAL NEAR UXBRIDGE BACK IN THE DAY...
As usual, when shown the door, Gene posts more irrelevant plagiarised shite.
Worth reposting the post that gave him his usual comeuppance...
"The facts stare you in the face yet you continue to argue that black is white."
I am not arguing that black is white. I am simply stating a fact. It is true that AT THE MOMENT Anglican clergy cannot bless same sex marriages in church. It is also true that by the end of this year this ruling will be rescinded.
When I wrote this:
"Anglican priests have been allowed to enter same sex civil partnerships since 2005. Given that priests are now allowed to conduct the blessing of a same sex marriage, it can only be a matter of time before priests are allowed to contract a same sex marriage. And quite right too,to coin a phrase."
I should have qualified the second sentence as follows:
"Given that priests will soon, probably by the end of 2023, allowed to conduct the blessing of a same sex marriage in church, it can only be a matter of time before priests are allowed to contract a same sex marriage."
It is quite clear what you are doing - given that you are so rarely right about anything, it is only natural that you should make a meal of this occasion - even if your being right is purely temporary. Now that IS psychosis - like the narcissism that makes you write crap like this:
"It is irrational to claim, for FOUR YEARS, that you have written a novel which is scheduled for publication - when in fact the "novel" in question is only three thousand words long and would only ever be published at the author's expense YES, IT IS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLICATION."
So tell us when? and by whom?
Yet another terrible FAIL from Gene "Two-Faced Fuckwit" Vincent, the Russell Brand of Intellectual Discourse....
Please stop all this bluff and bluster. You wrote that C of E priests can NOW bless gay marriages. They cannot. End of story.
As for the future on this issue in the C of E - you seem to have forgotten that I have twice predicted that, not only blessings of gay marriages (sic) would take place in C of E churches, but even gay marriages (sic) would be ministered.
Why so? I hear everyone ask. It's because, although the C of E laity are totally opposed to this, many, many C of E clergy are sodomites and are champing at the bit to initiate sacramental sodomy.
You wrote that C of E priests can NOW bless gay marriages. They cannot."
Yes, I made a mistake - which I have now twice acknowledged - it was the kind of mistake anyone can make, especially when arguing with a psychotic like you.
"End of story."
No: BEGINNING of story, as I pointed out.
"As for the future on this issue in the C of E - you seem to have forgotten that I have twice predicted that, not only blessings of gay marriages (sic) would take place in C of E churches, but even gay marriages (sic) would be ministered"
And quite right too, to coin a phrase. And stop preening as if you had predicted this against all the odds and in the teeth of opposition, instead of boring on about it on a blog that no-one reads.
"Why so? I hear everyone ask. It's because, although the C of E laity are totally opposed to this, many, many C of E clergy are sodomites and are champing at the bit to initiate sacramental sodomy."
Even for you, Gene, that is an outstandingly nasty allegation to make. I hope you don't live to regret it.
In any case, where is your evidence that C of E laity are totally opposed to it?
No. thought not.
If the C of E laity are totally opposed to this, how come all three houses of the General Synod voted in favour? The lay vote was 103 to 92 - 51% in favour. This is almost identical to the overall opinion of bishops, clergy and laity which, with a majority of 256 to 181 in favour of blessings for same sex marrriages, showed 53% support for the idea.
As usual, before Gene even runs out of arguments, he falls back on invented bollocks.
Yet another epic fail for Gene "Two-faced Fuckwit" Vincent, the Prince Andrew of Sexual Politics.
"If the C of E laity are totally opposed to this, how come all three houses of the General Synod voted in favour?"
I am not talking about General Synod laity. I am talking about Joe Bloggs and his missus in your average C of E parish. You may not realise it but I associate with many church-going C of E folk. I know how they feel about these issues.
And on the C of E clergy: it's possible I am wrong but I believe that maybe 40% - 50% are gay.
So we are expected to bellive that your anecdotal evidence (which given your record as a proven and habitual liar is probably invented anyway) is PROOF that C of E laity are “totally against” same sex marriage?
You demented clown.
And you expect us to believe that your feeling that 50% of Anglican clergy are homosexual is something we should take seriously?
You demented clown,
And YOU claim that I have “lost it”.
Gene, seek psychiatric help as a matter of urgency.
And, of course, the phrase “sacramental sodomy” (the grubby product of a diseased mind) is wholly inaccurate as well as nasty - a typical Gene Vincent coinage, you may feel.
(A) Marriage, although commonly called a sacrament, is not actually a sacrament in thd Church of England;
(B) Not all male homosexuals express their sexuality through the practice of anal sexual intercourse. And plenty of heterosexuals practice anal intercourse which is entirely legal if consensual.
Wrong, wrong; and wrong. Another epic fail for Gene “Two-faced Fuckwit” Vincent, the Megan Markle of Sexual Ethics.
Oh, and if “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths” is scheduled for publication, please tell us by whom and when?
"There are only two sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist, but the Communion honours confirmation, ordination, marriage, reconciliation of the penitent, and unction of the sick as important religious rites.8 Jun 2023"
Anglican Communion | History, Beliefs & Structure | Britannica
Source: article on the Anglican Communion, The Encyclopaedia Britannica - a source which trumps some random high Anglican Church website.
ANOTHER epic fail for Gene "Two faced Fuckwit" Vincent, the Nadine Dorries of Church History.
Oh, and if “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths” is scheduled for publication, please tell us by whom and when?
There are seven sacraments two of which are called sacraments of the Gospel in parts of the Anglican Communion. And perhaps you should consult the best possible source on this: the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The best possible source for Catholics, maybe. But the fact remains that there are only two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, in the Church of England. And as you crowed and sneered last week, the church of England cannot be Apostolic as the apostolic succession was broken at the Reformation by Henry VIII.
As so often, proven wrong by your own words.
Once more, Gene "Two Faced Fuckwit" Vincent takes careful aim and shoots himself in the foot.
Encyclopaedia Brittanica is theologically better informed than the clergy of All Saints Cheltenham - a church run and attended by bigots who do not accept the ordination of women - an absolute disgrace. No wonder you think they know what they are talking about.
You are wrong, Gene - what was all that about bluff and bluster?
Oh, and if “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths” is scheduled for publication, please tell us by whom and when?
"a church run and attended by bigots who do not accept the ordination of women - an absolute disgrace."
So they are not entitled to their views? Anyone who does not accept women's ordination is ergo a bigot? . I wonder you don't go the whole hog and repeat George Carey's denunciation of such people are heretics.
Dishonest as usual, Vincent. From the the website you have dredged up:
123. What sacraments were ordained by Christ?
The TWO SACRAMENTS ordained by Christ that are “generally necessary to salvation” (1662 Catechism) are Baptism and Holy Communion (also called the Lord’s Supper or the Holy Eucharist). These are sometimes called “sacraments of the Gospel.” (Articles of Religion, 25; see also Matthew 28:19–20; Luke 22:14–20; John 6:52–58; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26; 2 Corinthians 1:21–22)
124. Are there other sacraments?
Other rites and institutions COMMONLY CALLED sacraments include confirmation (2 Timothy 1:6–7; Hebrews 6:1–2), ordination (Numbers 8:9–14; 27:18–23; 1 Timothy 4:14), marriage (Genesis 2:18–24; Matthew 19:4–6; John 2:1–11), absolution (John 20:21–23; Acts 2:37– 41), and the anointing of the sick (James 5:14). THESE ARE SOMETIMES CALLED “sacraments of the Church.”
125. How do these differ from the sacraments of the Gospel?
THEY WERE NOT ORDAINED BY CHRIST as necessary to salvation, but arose from the practices of the apostles and the Early Church, or were blessed by God in Scripture. God clearly uses them as means of grace. (Articles of Religion, 25)
It is quite clear from this that the Church of England recognises only two Sacraments, the other five being called sacraments in recognition of their importance.
Even the websites you quote to bolster your ignorant mistakes disprove you - pyschosis indeed.
"So once again Detterling everyone is wrong and you are correct?"
No, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica is correct about Church of England doctrine, as is confirmed by the website you cited above about What Anglicans Believe from the Anglican Church in North America.
Your feet must be full of holes by now, Gene.
Another epic fail from Gene "Two Faced Fuckwit" Vincent, the Donald Trump of Catechists.
Oh, and if “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths” is scheduled for publication, please tell us by whom and when?
I can read more accurately than you can, evidently.
There are TWO Sacraments of the Gospel held to be necessary for salvation.
There are five other rites held to be important but not necessary for salvation, but which are COMMONLY CALLED SACRAMENTS - the obvious meaning of this being that whilst being commonly called sacraments they are not actually sacraments.
That is obvious - and only reason you refuse to accept it is because if you did you would have to acknowledge that ONCE AGAIN you have been comprehensively defeated.
ANOTHER EPIC FAIL for Gene “Two-faced Fuckwit” Vincent, the Gavin Williamson of Catechism.
And if “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths “ is scheduled for publication, do tell us when and by whom?
You CAN’T, because it ISN’T and it NEVER WILL BE, because “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths” consists of only two thousand words of unpublishable piffle, and no publisher in his right senses would underwrite its publication.
ANOTHER epic fail for Gene “Not a word published in seven years, so in another three years I will be as good as James Joyce” Vincent, the Naomi Campbell of belles letters.
As usual, when shown the door, Gene posts more irrelevant plagiarised shite.
ReplyDeleteWorth reposting the post that gave him his usual comeuppance...
"The facts stare you in the face yet you continue to argue that black is white."
I am not arguing that black is white. I am simply stating a fact. It is true that AT THE MOMENT Anglican clergy cannot bless same sex marriages in church. It is also true that by the end of this year this ruling will be rescinded.
When I wrote this:
"Anglican priests have been allowed to enter same sex civil partnerships since 2005. Given that priests are now allowed to conduct the blessing of a same sex marriage, it can only be a matter of time before priests are allowed to contract a same sex marriage. And quite right too,to coin a phrase."
I should have qualified the second sentence as follows:
"Given that priests will soon, probably by the end of 2023, allowed to conduct the blessing of a same sex marriage in church, it can only be a matter of time before priests are allowed to contract a same sex marriage."
It is quite clear what you are doing - given that you are so rarely right about anything, it is only natural that you should make a meal of this occasion - even if your being right is purely temporary. Now that IS psychosis - like the narcissism that makes you write crap like this:
"It is irrational to claim, for FOUR YEARS, that you have written a novel which is scheduled for publication - when in fact the "novel" in question is only three thousand words long and would only ever be published at the author's expense
YES, IT IS SCHEDULED FOR PUBLICATION."
So tell us when? and by whom?
Yet another terrible FAIL from Gene "Two-Faced Fuckwit" Vincent, the Russell Brand of Intellectual Discourse....
Please stop all this bluff and bluster. You wrote that C of E priests can NOW bless gay marriages. They cannot. End of story.
ReplyDeleteAs for the future on this issue in the C of E - you seem to have forgotten that I have twice predicted that, not only blessings of gay marriages (sic) would take place in C of E churches, but even gay marriages (sic) would be ministered.
Why so? I hear everyone ask. It's because, although the C of E laity are totally opposed to this, many, many C of E clergy are sodomites and are champing at the bit to initiate sacramental sodomy.
"Please stop all this bluff and bluster."
ReplyDeleteThe only bluster on this blog comes from you.
You wrote that C of E priests can NOW bless gay marriages. They cannot."
Yes, I made a mistake - which I have now twice acknowledged - it was the kind of mistake anyone can make, especially when arguing with a psychotic like you.
"End of story."
No: BEGINNING of story, as I pointed out.
"As for the future on this issue in the C of E - you seem to have forgotten that I have twice predicted that, not only blessings of gay marriages (sic) would take place in C of E churches, but even gay marriages (sic) would be ministered"
And quite right too, to coin a phrase. And stop preening as if you had predicted this against all the odds and in the teeth of opposition, instead of boring on about it on a blog that no-one reads.
"Why so? I hear everyone ask. It's because, although the C of E laity are totally opposed to this, many, many C of E clergy are sodomites and are champing at the bit to initiate sacramental sodomy."
Even for you, Gene, that is an outstandingly nasty allegation to make. I hope you don't live to regret it.
In any case, where is your evidence that C of E laity are totally opposed to it?
No. thought not.
If the C of E laity are totally opposed to this, how come all three houses of the General Synod voted in favour? The lay vote was 103 to 92 - 51% in favour. This is almost identical to the overall opinion of bishops, clergy and laity which, with a majority of 256 to 181 in favour of blessings for same sex marrriages, showed 53% support for the idea.
As usual, before Gene even runs out of arguments, he falls back on invented bollocks.
Yet another epic fail for Gene "Two-faced Fuckwit" Vincent, the Prince Andrew of Sexual Politics.
Ooops: nearly forgot:
ReplyDeleteYou claim that Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths is scheduled for publication.
For publication by whom?
And when?
"If the C of E laity are totally opposed to this, how come all three houses of the General Synod voted in favour?"
ReplyDeleteI am not talking about General Synod laity. I am talking about Joe Bloggs and his missus in your average C of E parish. You may not realise it but I associate with many church-going C of E folk. I know how they feel about these issues.
And on the C of E clergy: it's possible I am wrong but I believe that maybe 40% - 50% are gay.
So we are expected to bellive that your anecdotal evidence (which given your record as a proven and habitual liar is probably invented anyway) is PROOF that C of E laity are “totally against” same sex marriage?
ReplyDeleteYou demented clown.
And you expect us to believe that your feeling that 50% of Anglican clergy are homosexual is something we should take seriously?
You demented clown,
And YOU claim that I have “lost it”.
Gene, seek psychiatric help as a matter of urgency.
And, of course, the phrase “sacramental sodomy” (the grubby product of a diseased mind) is wholly inaccurate as well as nasty - a typical Gene Vincent coinage, you may feel.
ReplyDelete(A) Marriage, although commonly called a sacrament, is not actually a sacrament in thd Church of England;
(B) Not all male homosexuals express their sexuality through the practice of anal sexual intercourse. And plenty of heterosexuals practice anal intercourse which is entirely legal if consensual.
Wrong, wrong; and wrong. Another epic fail for Gene “Two-faced Fuckwit” Vincent, the Megan Markle of Sexual Ethics.
Oh, and if “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths” is scheduled for publication, please tell us by whom and when?
There are seven sacraments in the Anglican Church - two of them are called sacraments of the Gospel.
ReplyDeletehttps://allsaintschelt.net/the-seven-sacraments/
Balls.
ReplyDelete"There are only two sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist, but the Communion honours confirmation, ordination, marriage, reconciliation of the penitent, and unction of the sick as important religious rites.8 Jun 2023"
Anglican Communion | History, Beliefs & Structure | Britannica
Source: article on the Anglican Communion, The Encyclopaedia Britannica - a source which trumps some random high Anglican Church website.
ANOTHER epic fail for Gene "Two faced Fuckwit" Vincent, the Nadine Dorries of Church History.
Oh, and if “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths” is scheduled for publication, please tell us by whom and when?
There are seven sacraments two of which are called sacraments of the Gospel in parts of the Anglican Communion. And perhaps you should consult the best possible source on this: the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
ReplyDeleteThe best possible source for Catholics, maybe. But the fact remains that there are only two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, in the Church of England. And as you crowed and sneered last week, the church of England cannot be Apostolic as the apostolic succession was broken at the Reformation by Henry VIII.
DeleteAs so often, proven wrong by your own words.
Once more, Gene "Two Faced Fuckwit" Vincent takes careful aim and shoots himself in the foot.
"The Encyclopaedia Britannica - a source which trumps some random high Anglican Church website."
ReplyDeleteOh! So The Encyclopaedia Britannica trumps a C of E church as an authority? No wonder the Church of England is f**ked.
Encyclopaedia Brittanica is theologically better informed than the clergy of All Saints Cheltenham - a church run and attended by bigots who do not accept the ordination of women - an absolute disgrace. No wonder you think they know what they are talking about.
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong, Gene - what was all that about bluff and bluster?
Oh, and if “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths” is scheduled for publication, please tell us by whom and when?
"a church run and attended by bigots who do not accept the ordination of women - an absolute disgrace."
DeleteSo they are not entitled to their views? Anyone who does not accept women's ordination is ergo a bigot? . I wonder you don't go the whole hog and repeat George Carey's denunciation of such people are heretics.
Show me where I say that these people are not entitled to their views. You can't because I don't.
DeleteThey are perfectly entitled to hold those views, just as I am perfectly entitled to deplore them.
https://anglicancompass.com/what-do-anglicans-believe-about-the-sacraments-baptism-holy-communion-confirmation-ordination-marriage-absolution-anointing-of-the-sick/#:~:text=Sick)%20%2D%20Anglican%20Compass-,What%20Do%20Anglicans%20Believe%20about%20the%20Sacraments%3F%20(Baptism%2C%20Holy,Absolution%2C%20Anointing%20of%20the%20Sick)
ReplyDeleteSo once again Detterling everyone is wrong and you are correct? Surely some psychosis must be at work here.
Dishonest as usual, Vincent. From the the website you have dredged up:
Delete123. What sacraments were ordained by Christ?
The TWO SACRAMENTS ordained by Christ that are “generally necessary to salvation” (1662 Catechism) are Baptism and Holy Communion (also called the Lord’s Supper or the Holy Eucharist). These are sometimes called “sacraments of the Gospel.” (Articles of Religion, 25; see also Matthew 28:19–20; Luke 22:14–20; John 6:52–58; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26; 2 Corinthians 1:21–22)
124. Are there other sacraments?
Other rites and institutions COMMONLY CALLED sacraments include confirmation (2 Timothy 1:6–7; Hebrews 6:1–2), ordination (Numbers 8:9–14; 27:18–23; 1 Timothy 4:14), marriage (Genesis 2:18–24; Matthew 19:4–6; John 2:1–11), absolution (John 20:21–23; Acts 2:37– 41), and the anointing of the sick (James 5:14). THESE ARE SOMETIMES CALLED “sacraments of the Church.”
125. How do these differ from the sacraments of the Gospel?
THEY WERE NOT ORDAINED BY CHRIST as necessary to salvation, but arose from the practices of the apostles and the Early Church, or were blessed by God in Scripture. God clearly uses them as means of grace. (Articles of Religion, 25)
It is quite clear from this that the Church of England recognises only two Sacraments, the other five being called sacraments in recognition of their importance.
Even the websites you quote to bolster your ignorant mistakes disprove you - pyschosis indeed.
"So once again Detterling everyone is wrong and you are correct?"
No, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica is correct about Church of England doctrine, as is confirmed by the website you cited above about What Anglicans Believe from the Anglican Church in North America.
Your feet must be full of holes by now, Gene.
Another epic fail from Gene "Two Faced Fuckwit" Vincent, the Donald Trump of Catechists.
Oh, and if “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths” is scheduled for publication, please tell us by whom and when?
"COMMONLY CALLED sacraments"
DeleteCan't you read?
I was smiling to myself just now as I remembered something I was told that Granny Barkes used to rhyme off:
O! No! don't talk of Protestants
That name I do disown
For they fell like rotten branches
From the Holy Church of Rome
I can read more accurately than you can, evidently.
DeleteThere are TWO Sacraments of the Gospel held to be necessary for salvation.
There are five other rites held to be important but not necessary for salvation, but which are COMMONLY CALLED SACRAMENTS - the obvious meaning of this being that whilst being commonly called sacraments they are not actually sacraments.
That is obvious - and only reason you refuse to accept it is because if you did you would have to acknowledge that ONCE AGAIN you have been comprehensively defeated.
ANOTHER EPIC FAIL for Gene “Two-faced Fuckwit” Vincent, the Gavin Williamson of Catechism.
And if “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths “ is scheduled for publication, do tell us when and by whom?
You CAN’T, because it ISN’T and it NEVER WILL BE, because “Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths” consists of only two thousand words of unpublishable piffle, and no publisher in his right senses would underwrite its publication.
ANOTHER epic fail for Gene “Not a word published in seven years, so in another three years I will be as good as James Joyce” Vincent, the Naomi Campbell of belles letters.
I have always loved what Brendan Behan said about the Church of England:
ReplyDelete"I have no time for a church founded on the balls of Henry VIII."