OVERHEARD IN HARRIS & HOOLE...
(An occasional feature)
Myself, Tony of the Big Saloon, Mary Winterbourne and Ducky Duckworth got together this morning in Harris & Hoole. Ducky, the only one of us left in teaching, was able join us on Zoom. Exam season nearly over, so he has a lot of free time. Herewith what we discussed:
GENE: Well folks we see how Detterling's deterioration is continuing apace. I take no pleasure from this, no schadenfreude. It's sad. But listen to this. Detterling has written:
"If homosexuality is God given, how can expressing that sexuality consensually be sinful?"
It is quite astonishing, even allowing for his impaired intellectual condition, that he could come out with a statement like this.
He has of course forgotten about original sin. I reminded him. He then tried to say that the Catholic Church had abandoned original sin when it dropped Limbo. Not so. Limbo was never a doctrine taught by the Church. Just a suggestion by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Quite rightly dropped of course. He then tried to say that the Anglican Church did not have the doctrine of original sin. I showed him otherwise from Article Nine of the Thirty Nine Articles. His response was risible: he said that Article Twenty of the Thirty Nine Articles cancelled out Article Nine! So all these generations have gone by and no one noticed this until Detterling!
DUCKY DUCKWORTH: What a tosser!
GENE: But there is worse to come Ducky. A few weeks back he informed us that we do not know what Jesus would have thought about sodomy. The most depraved act imaginable and, Jesus, who so strongly condemned fornication, would not condemn sodomy! And sodomy is of course in itself fornication.
DUCKY DUCKWORTH: That's it. I shall come up to Tyneside and repeatedly kick his ass all the way out to Wallsend.
MARY WINTERBOURNE: I am pretty neutral about Detterling, but I would have much more time for him if he was not such a lickspittle to Welby, Cottrell & Co.
"If homosexuality is God given, how can expressing that sexuality consensually be sinful?"
ReplyDeleteThis is not a statement, Gene.
It is a question.
You can tell this by the odd curly punctuation mark at the end of the sentence instead of a full stop.
And it is a question that I have asked you repeatedly.
It is also a question you have failed to answer, because you can't.
If all of us are made in the image of God, it follows that this applies alike to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals and asexuals.
It follows then that all sexualities are God-given.
In which case how can the expression of a God given sexuality - provided that that expression is [a] legal and [b] consensual, be sinful?
Answer me that, Gene, without waffle about sodomy, fornication, or imaginary pronouncements by Jesus Christ that can be twisted to align with your perverse bigotry, or these laughably bogus conversations with your imaginary friends.
The only way in which you could declare that question invalid is to prove from scripture, that not all people are made in in the image of God.
And to do this, you would need to provide the proof text from Scripture that not all people not made in the image of God.
And then you would need to provide a further proof text that the exceptions to this doctrine are homosexuals and bisexuals.
You can do neither.
So I ask again, and I will go on asking until you admit that you cannot provide answer.
How can the expression of a God given sexuality - provided that that expression is [a] legal and [b] consensual, be sinful?
There is more to come, but this will do to be going on with.
""If homosexuality is God given, how can expressing that sexuality consensually be sinful?"
DeleteThis is not a statement, Gene.
It is a question."
No. You are presenting this as a statement in the form of a question.
You are falling into the heresy of Pelagianism.
And if you want your contention about homosexual acts refuted just consult your church the C of E and ask what the teaching on this subject is. You will find it is the same teaching at that taught by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church:
From The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an
exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great
variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. It psychological genesis remains
largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts
of grave depravity (Cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10),
tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” (Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana, 8). They are contrary to the natural law. They
close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual
complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not
negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They
must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination
in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and,
if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may
encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them
their inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and
sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts
Deleteof grave depravity (Cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10),
tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”
GOT THAT?
Source: Reuters on the abolition of Limbo
ReplyDelete"Pope Benedict, himself a top theologian who before his election in 2005 expressed doubts about limbo, authorized the publication of the document, called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised”.
The verdict that limbo could now rest in peace had been expected for years. The document was seen as most likely the final word since limbo was never part of Church doctrine, even though it was taught to Catholics well into the 20th century.
“The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in revelation,” it said.
“There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptize them).”
The Church teaches that baptism removes original sin which stains all souls since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.
“NO NEGATION OF BAPTISM”
The document stressed that its conclusions should not be interpreted as questioning original sin or “used to negate the necessity of baptism or delay the conferral of the sacrament”."
To say this:
“There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptize them).”
is to own that the baptism of infants to remove their original sin is not necessary, but that God will save them in some other way - a way totally unspeciffied.
It is also to own that the doctrine of original sin is superstitious nonsense - which it is, but that the Vatican dare not say so because to do so would be to relax its hold on the superstitious peasants who are its mainstay in many parts of the world.
Like most Catholics, Joseph Ratzinger was adept at having his theological and eating it.
The doctrine of original sin is not scriptural.
ReplyDeleteIt was propounded in the 5th Century AD by Augustine of Hippo.
XXI — OF THE AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.
There is no scriptural authority for the doctrine of Original.
And so far from cancelling Article 9, it clarifies it - you may believe in original sin if you choose, but there is no scriptural authority for saying that you must.
Go Gene, tell me otherwise, using only the wording of Articles 9 and 21.
You can't.
Original sin exists. Taught by the C of E and the Catholic Church.
DeleteGOT THAT?
I am not arguing about whether original sin exists or not - I am satisfied that the whole concept is primitive, childish, superstitious nonsense.
DeleteRather I am asking you to demonstrate that I am wrong when I say that Article 21 of the 39 Articles qualifies Article 9 on Original Sin.
Go on then, let's see you.
"A few weeks back he informed us that we do not know what Jesus would have thought about sodomy."
ReplyDeleteChapter and verse, please, for Christ's condemnation of anal sexual intercourse? No, thought not.
"The most depraved act imaginable..."
Chapter and verse, please, for Christ;s definition of sodomy as the "most depraved act imaginable"? No, thought not.
"And sodomy is of course in itself fornication."
Chapter and verse, please, for Christ;s equivilaiton of sodomy and fornication? No, thought not.
THREE MORE EPIC FAILS FOR GENE "TWO FACED AND ILLITERATE FUCKWIT" VINCENT, THE DUKE OF YORK OF SEXUAL ETHICS.
Take pen and paper, Gene, and write out a hundred times:
"My repeating a lie a hundred times turns it into a truth".
"I am pretty neutral about Detterling, but I would have much more time for him if he was not such a lickspittle to Welby, Cottrell & Co"
ReplyDeleteBollocks.
I despise both of them - they are the kind of bigoted flannellers who lose the church of England members every time they open their vast, slack, drivelling mouths.
They are the Gene Vincents of Protestantism.
"And so far from cancelling Article 9, it clarifies it - you may believe in original sin if you choose, but there is no scriptural authority for saying that you must."
DeleteOh so it clarifies it! Ha! Ha! Ha! You take the biscuit Detterling.
And by the way, the Catholic Church does not say there is scriptural authority for the Doctrine of Original Sin. That does not make it any less a doctrine.
No bluster, Gene, no forced laughter or waffle about biscuits.
DeleteJust demonstrate, using logic, just what effect Article 21 has on the statement about original sin in Article 9.
Article 21 says that the only beliefs necessary for salvation are those with scriptural authority and that beliefs imposed on believers by church leaders are invalid.
Original sin, as defined in Article 9, has no scriptural authority.
Hence belief in it is not necessary for salvation.
Go on. Disprove that.
You won't, because you can't.
And as for this
"Catholic Church does not say there is scriptural authority for the Doctrine of Original Sin."
Irrelevant: I never claimed that it did.
"That does not make it any less a doctrine."
But it does mean that belief in original sin, being un-necessary for salvation, need not be compulsory for Catholics.
Which is just as well, because it is primitive, superstitious nonsense.
And you have the crust to claim that I am intellectually impaired.
DeleteYou have the intelligence of a failed bookmaker, the debating skills of Russell Brand and the logical acumen of Horatio Bottomley, and your response to simple questions and logical demonstrations of what crap you talk is simply to copy and paste random chunks of the Catholic catechism and shout "GOT THAT"?
Any moment now you will claim victory.
Despicable.
And if further proof were needed of just how rancid a piece of shit Gene is, here are two "emails" purportedly to sent to Gene by the late literary genius Clive James.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes these forgeries so despicable - apart from their blasphemously appalling literary style and the ludicrous "Ocker" idioms - is that Gene wrote them at a time when Mr James was dying of leukaemia.
Are there no depths to which Gene will not stoop? Read them and weep.
FORGED EMAIL NUMBER ONE:
"Hi there Gene,
Yes it's Clive James here. No worries about plagiarism Gene. I'm delighted you have used that quotation from my North Face of Soho memoir. As it happens many people seem to like the volume May Week was in June best, but I have a soft spot for North Face of Soho. I just love your blog, your writing style reminds me very much of my own. As I said no worries about plagiarism - it all comes under fair use in copyright law. And that's fair dinkum with me.
This friend of yours Detterling seems a weird cove. Love the way you take the Michael out of him. Back in school days he is the sort of fat kid that I would love to whang my donger at in Kogarah primary school back in Sydney. Love the way you have described him as the sort of man who would join in with the clap-hands Gloria in church. And the sort of man who would hang in his living room a Jack Vettriano print. Yes, I think we all get the picture.
I liked very much the title of your new memoir: Heaven About us in our Infancy - the Sacred and profane memoirs from infancy to mid teens of Gene Vincent. Are you by any chance a fan of Brideshead Revisited? (Wonderful novel by the way, and those memories of Charles Ryder are indeed both sacred and profane.)
Anyhow gene, wishing you all the best. She'll be right Blue. Tie me Kangaroo down Sport.
Clive"
FORGED EMAIL NUMBER TWO:
G'Day Gene,
Yes it's Clive here again. I been reading through your blog. Boy can you write? Or Boy can you write?
I note that you will become a full-time writer from 1st January 2017. Good on you cobber! Give it a burl. We need writers like you. As you know I may soon be shuffling off this mortal coil and it gives me a good feeling that someone such as yourself is around to ensure that good and original writing will continue.
I have been absolutely enthralled by Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths. I don't know If you are aware but it is causing quite a buzz in literary circles.
I love the way you handle metaphysical despair. And that ineffable way you have of communicating the effects of ennui. Sometimes I think you are something of an anachronism - that you have been born out of time. I can just see you back in 1920s Paris shooting the breeze at the left bank café tables with the likes of James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway, F Scott Fitzgerald, Ezra Pound, Gertrude Stein et al.
Yesterday arvo I had a conversation about you with Germaine Greer (fine Sheila Germaine no matter what anyone says) and I told her to watch out for your star shooting through the literary firmament very soon.
So, let's sink another tube of Fosters to you Gene.
Tie me kangaroo down Sport. Keep me cockatoo cool.
Clive
For these, Gene Vincent deserves to have his balls kicked to a pulp.
Rather I am asking you to demonstrate that I am wrong when I say that Article 21 of the 39 Articles qualifies Article 9 on Original Sin.
ReplyDeleteDon't be so stupid. Article 9 makes clear that the Anglican Church holds to the Doctrine of Original Sin (While taking a swipe at Pelagianism) Article 21 qualifies it not one whit. No one has ever claimed that other than you. It is about the most stupid thing you have ever come out with.
Ah yes, losing arguers avoidance tactic number 14 - abuse and refusal to demonstrate that I am wrong when I say that Article 21 of the 39 Articles qualifies Article 9 on Original Sin, followed by an unevidenced and hence unsupported assertion, followed by further abuse.
DeleteGene's pathetic debating tactics in excelsis.
"Any moment now you will claim victory."
ReplyDeleteI don't need to claim victory. Any intelligent person reading these exchange knows I have won hand down.
And by the way you obviously mean Article 20 and not 21 of the 39 Articles.
ReplyDeleteNo, Gene, Any intelligent person reading these exchanges will see logical argument on my part being countered with bluster, bluff, lies and waffle.
ReplyDeleteYet another fail for you.
An example of Gene's "logic":
ReplyDelete"[Detterling] informed us that we do not know what Jesus would have thought about sodomy."
Perfectly true, unless you have actually found the Gospel text where Jesus Christ offers a view on male heterosexual anal intercourse?
No, thought not.
"The most depraved act imaginable...."
YOUR unsupported opinion, Gene, and impossible logically to evidence, unless we are to go by the Willoughby-Kennedy Depravity Score Scale. It may be the most depraved act that you can imagine, but I can imagine far worse - writing filthy stories about buggering other men's wives and bragging about fathering children on them, for example.
"[Detterling said that] Jesus, who so strongly condemned fornication would not condemn sodomy!"
Pure invention - I said no such thing. I said, as above, that Jesus offered no view of male heterosexual anal intercourse - you have simply made up a lie about what I said.
And where in the Gospel does Jesus strongly condemn fornication?
"And sodomy is of course in itself fornication."
Nonsense. Anal intercourse - whether heterosexual or homosexual - is not fornication if, as often happens, it takes place between consenting married couples, whether their marriages are heterosexual or homosexual.
So, we now see Gene's debating method laid bare: assertion, lies, misrepresentation and false equivalences.
Pitiful.
You have written Article 21 when you mean Article 20.
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth write 39 Articles if this Article 21 (sic) can cancel out any of them. Fortunate you never attempted to study Logic and Epistemology - as I did.
And of course the Doctrine of Original Sin has its origin in Scripture:
ReplyDeleteAnd although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin. Every human being is born into a human race which has collectively turned away from God, and we therefore deserve God's wrath from birth (Eph 2:3).
Game, set and match methinks.
"You have written Article 21 when you mean Article 20."
ReplyDeleteBalls. Can't you get ANYTHING right?
Source, The Church Society: XXI — OF THE AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."
This clearly says that no doctrine is authentic unless it is sourced in Holy Scripture. This does NOT cancel out any article, it merely says, what is true, that the only authentic doctrines are those drawn from Scripture".
You are pretending that I said something that I didn't because you completely at a loss to construct a logical, evidenced argument.
"And by the way, the Catholic Church does not say there is scriptural authority for the Doctrine of Original Sin." you said earlier today.
"And of course the Doctrine of Original Sin has its origin in Scripture:" you said ten minutes ago.
Gene Vincent at his appalling worst, simply making stuff up as he goes along. And as for this
"And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin. Every human being is born into a human race which has collectively turned away from God, and we therefore deserve God's wrath from birth (Eph 2:3)".
this has nothing to do with the doctrine of Original Sin. The sexual hang ups of St Paul - thought far from being as rancid and unlovely as yours - are no basis for Christian doctrine.
.
"this has nothing to do with the doctrine of Original Sin."
DeleteOh yes it does. No one could read this and not relate it to Original Sin.
Why is it quoted in the 39 Articles?
No Gene, you simply can't get away with say "Oh yes it does".
DeleteDemonstrate the connection, if you can.
Yes, the Catholic Church has never insisted on the Doctrine of Original Sin being based scripturally. But it is implicit that this is so. Just read EPHESIANS 2:3.
ReplyDeleteOn Original Sin this is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
ReplyDeleteOriginal sin - an essential truth of the faith
388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.261 We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin",262 by revealing him who is its Redeemer.
389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
This teaching originates from Revelation and Revelation implicitly relies on Scripture.
Balls. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not the absolute truth about Christian doctrine unless you happen to be a Catholic.
ReplyDeleteAll you need to know about the bumptious arrogance that in you masquerades as christian faith is contained in the phrase "The Church, which has the mind of Christ...." Well you can believe that if you wish, but that is to many thinking Christians the undermining feature of the Catholic Church.
And as for this:
"This teaching originates from Revelation and Revelation implicitly relies on Scripture."
that is simply a way of saying "this is what I think and therefore it is true." No wonder you are a Catholic.
When are you going to answer this question?
How can the expression of a God given sexuality - provided that that expression is [a] legal and [b] consensual - be sinful?
ReplyDeleteHow can the expression of a God given sexuality - provided that that expression is [a] legal and [b] consensual - be sinful
I have answered it pithily and succinctly several times as you very well know. It is sinful because it comes as a consequence of Original Sin. It is no more God-given than any other propensities to evil and malice found in the nature of Man.