OVERHEARD IN HARRIS & HOOLE...
(An occasional feature)
14th December 2023
Myself , Mary Winterbourne and Tony of the Big Saloon got together this morning in Harris & Hoole. The following conversation could be overheard:
Mary Winterbourne: Well Gene, the big day is nigh. Monday 18th December. You must feel such a sense of achievement.
Gene: Yes Mary, Granny Barkes Fell in Woolworth's has been part of my life for a long time. Of course I'm nervous. One never knows how a new literary form may be received. I've got to say that from seeing the advance copies the printing looks spectacular.
Mary Winterbourne: Let's all raise our cappuccinos. Here's to Gene. Here's to Uxbridge. Here's to Granny Barkes.
Tony of the Big Saloon: And Gene, here's to your trouncing yesterday of that canting old phony Detterling. Hoist by his own petard! He arrogantly brought in the subject of the 39 Articles as the ultimate authority and was himself destroyed by it.
Gene: He is of course not admitting defeat. No change there. Anyone else would be dignified enough to say, 'Fair Dinkum', I got it wrong.
Still he gave me the best laugh I have had for ages. He wrote: "the To Proclaim Afresh report and the latest actions of the Church of England with regard to same-sex relationships - changes supported joyfully by Justin Welby." JOYFULLY SUPPORTED BY JUSTIN WELBY!!!
HA! HA! HA! (Loud laughter by all)
Mary Winterbourne: Justin Welby may have his faults but he is certainly no supporter of the sodomite brigade. He was arm-twisted all the way by the Arsenokoitai.
Tony of the Big Saloon: Let's all meet again here on Monday the 18th December to celebrate the publication of Granny Barkes Fell in Woolworth's
More self-serving bollocks, lies, fantasy and denial bordering on the deranged from the Grand Master of Self-Serving Bollocks, Gene "Gutless Vermin" Vincent.
ReplyDelete[1] "Well Gene, the big day is nigh. Monday 18th December. You must feel such a sense of achievement."
Not so: "Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths" will not be published on Monday 18th December, either in 2003 or 2023 or in any number of parallel universes. It does not exist, because Gene "Gutless Vermin" Vincent could not, with a following wind and someone to steady his hand, write "fuck" on the toilet wall in The Good Yarn, much less a novel, for Christ's sake.
[2] "And Gene, here's to your trouncing yesterday of that canting old phony Detterling."
Not so. Gene "Gutless Vermin" Vincent claimed that
[a] The Anglican Church believes in and teaches the doctrine of Original Sin and
[b] The Anglican Church condemns Pelagianism?
Using the research report "To Proclaim Afresh", commissioned,
endorsed and signed off by Archbishop p Welby, Detterling proved from this primary source that neither of the above statements is true. Confronted by this disproof of his claims, and invited to provide evidenced rebuttal, Gene simply ignored the invitation and resorted to louder and more emphatic iterations of his disproven claims - a contemptible performance for one who claims expertise in theology and a wide experience of epistemology in practice. The evidence from the report adduced by Detterling which Gene found to be irrefutable included the facts that
- the Articles are a historic document and should be interpreted ONLY within their historical context.
- the Articles must not tie down the persons using them to acceptance of every one of the Articles of 1571.
- by the time of the Lambeth Conference of 1968, when the role of the 39 Articles was re-assessed, there was increasingly diverse practice around the Anglican Communion:
some provinces retained the Articles in their
constitutions,
others revised them,
others replaced them,
others abandoned them altogether.
Indeed, some had never adopted them in the first place.
Likewise, Gene "Gutless Vermin" Vincent claimed that
[c] The Anglican Church believes and teaches that homosexual acts are incompatible with the scriptures.
Again, Detterling disproved this assertion and also demonstrated that, while portions of the Anglican Church remain opposed to same sex marriage and recognition by services of blessing there on, a majority of Anglican bishops, clergy and people accept that sexually active same sex couples are eligible to have their civil marriages blessed.
For Gene then to maintain that the Anglican Church teaches that homosexual sexual acts are contrary to Scripture in the face of these facts is denial bordering on derangement.
Invited by Detterling to demonstrate how a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages can at the same time teach that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture, Gene "Gutless Vermin" Vincent found himself unable to do so, and, as he so often does, resort to lies and abuse.
Gene "Gutless Vermin" Vincent lied: he said that Justin Welby's claim to be "extremely joyful" at the offering of unconditional blessings to couples in same-sex civil marriages had been extorted from him by homosexual clergy "eager to force sacramental sodomy" on the church. As well as being a complete lie [for which Gene "Gutless Vermin" Vincent did not - and can not - offer a shred of evidence], this statement was a typically nasty sneer from a man lacking scruple, principles and a scintilla of genuine piety.
So: spurious nonsense about the publication of a non-existent book, and three preposterous lies thoroughly refuted from primary sources, laced with a dash of typical nastiness : your average fraudulent Gene "Gutless Vermin" performance in fact.
Gary Bandall
Sebastian D'Orsai
Mary Winterbourne [the real one]
"...and the latest actions of the Church of England with regard to same-sex relationships - changes supported joyfully by Justin Welby." JOYFULLY SUPPORTED BY JUSTIN WELBY!!!"
ReplyDeleteIt's the way you tell 'em Detterling. Poor Justin Welby's pain is palpable any time he has to talk about the Church of England with regard to same-sex relationships.
Do you never read over the bollocks you trot out Detterling?
Sebastian D'Orsai
Gene: The article below makes the Archbishop of Canterbury's position absolutely clear, and at the same tome completely refutes your nonsensical allegations.
DeleteFROM THE GUARDIAN, JANUARY 20th, 2023,
by Harriet Sherwood
HEADLINE: Justin Welby ‘joyful’ at C of E switch but will not bless same-sex civil marriages
Archbishop of Canterbury’s position differs from that of archbishop of York, who says he will offer personal blessings
"The archbishop of Canterbury will not personally bless same-sex civil marriages despite the Church of England’s historic change of position.
Justin Welby said he was “extremely joyful” at proposals to allow clergy to offer God’s blessing to same sex couples who have legally married, but said he would impose a “self-denying ordinance” for the sake of unity in the global Anglican church that he heads.
But, in a divide at the top of the Church of England, Stephen Cottrell, the archbishop of York, said he would personally offer blessings to same-sex couples and strongly suggested he did not believe gay sex was sinful.
The two archbishops were giving details of the recommendation by bishops to end years of painful and bitter debate within the church with a compromise that maintains its formal teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman, but permits clergy to bless same-sex civil marriages.
Acknowledging disagreements among the bishops on the issues, they said in a letter to the church: “The differences among you are also present among us … We are partnered, single, celibate, married, divorced, widowed, bereaved; heterosexual, gay, bisexual and same-sex attracted. We have diverse convictions about sexuality and marriage.”
The bishops also apologised to LGBTQ+ people for the pain that the church has caused them. “For the times we have rejected or excluded you, and those you love, we are deeply sorry. The occasions on which you have received a hostile and homophobic response in our churches are shameful, and for this we repent.”
Welby told a press conference at Lambeth Palace that he had pastoral responsibility for the global Anglican church, which was deeply divided on LGBTQ+ issues. Because of that, he said: “I will be extremely joyfully celebratory of these new [prayers of blessing but] will not personally use them in order not to compromise that pastoral care.”
However, Cottrell said: “I completely support and understand Archbishop Justin’s position, but his position is different to mine.”
Asked whether he considered gay sex was a sin, he said: “I believe the great gift of sexual physical intimacy [is] to be cherished, [and] belongs in stable, loving, committed relationships. And therefore I will celebrate the fact that people are living that way and expressing their intimacy that way.”
Welby said there was an overwhelming majority among bishops “for the direction in which we’re going” but added: “I am sure the last word has not been said.”
The bishops’ recommendations, which will be put to the church’’s ruling body, the general synod, next month, “puts the C of E in a new place – a good place”, said Cottrell."
And I wasn't aware of the C of E withdrawing its stance that homosexual acts are incompatible with the scriptures. I wasn't aware because it didn't happen.
ReplyDeleteSebastian D'Orsai
Gene, do stop talking piss - it makes you out to be a bigger idiot that you actually are.
DeleteWhile portions of the Anglican Church remain opposed to same sex marriage and recognition by services of blessing thereon, a majority of Anglican bishops, clergy and people accept that sexually active same sex couples are eligible to have their civil marriages blessed.
For you then to maintain that the Anglican Church teaches that homosexual sexual acts are contrary to Scripture in the face of these facts is denial bordering on derangement.
This is a second invitation to you to demonstrate how a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages can at the same time teach that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture.
You won't, of course, because you can't.
Detterling I note the reams of of stuff you have printed to try and salvage something from your 39 Articles disaster. I have not read a line of it. I would rather sit through an entire concert by Barclay James Harvest than read any of it.
ReplyDeleteEddy Bradawl
No, Gene, of course you haven't read any of the evidenced, primary-source-based refutations of your ludicrous claims, because your psychosis dislocates your sense of yourself, such that accepting truths - like the truth that you are talking ignorant, blasphemously stupid piss about the Church of England's attitude to the Thirty Nine Articles - is dangerous to your fragile grasp on reality.
DeleteLikewise, having it demonstrated to you that your crudely reductionist and emotionally ignorant views on homosexuality and Angiican attitudes to it are not only callous and stupid but also outdated by events might loosen your uncertain grip on your sanity.
And worst of all, having to accept your total and humiliating failure as a writer in seven years of "professional full time writing", as represented by the continued non-appearance of "Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths" would almost certainly lead to a severe psychotic episode.
For that reason, I think it is very sensible of you not to risk realising what a complete and devastating humiliation on all three of these matters Detterling has dealt out to you in the past few weeks. If you realised just what a fool you have made of yourself, I fear for the consequences.
Far better to adjust your blinkers, stuff in your ear plugs, bury your head in a box of Aldi's Vino della Lavabo Chianti, and continue to fester in your midden of mindless ignorance, poisonous bigotry and self-admiring delusion.
As T S Eliot put it, "the human mind cannot bear very much reality". In your case, for "very much" read "hardly any".
You are more to be pitied than scorned, but all the same we two will go on despising you for while yet.
Gary Bandall
Mary Winterbourne.
"...demonstrate how a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages can at the same time teach that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture."
ReplyDeleteOh! for God's sake! Homosexual intercourse is of course forbidden by scripture. No group of sodomites can alter that. If a Church attempts to teach anything else it is not the Church Jesus Christ founded.
Will the Catholic Church start teaching such evil? OF COURSE NOT.
And by the way: I have never encountered anyone in life who can so bare-facedly claim black is white.
Gary Bandall
Gene you are, as usual, fudging the issue, which is not whether homosexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture - not that it is.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are being asked is - and completely failing to answer, because you can't without admitting you are talking bollocks, is this question.
How can a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages at the same time be said to be teaching that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture?
The answer is, of course, that it can't do both. And, as it has decided to bless same-sex marriages unconditionally, then it must have changed its teaching on homosexual intercourse. What other reason could there be?
And waffle about arguing that black is white is totally irrelevant: I am, as so often, framing a question which you refuse to answer, because to do so honestly would completely undermine your position.
"How can a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages at the same time be said to be teaching that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture?"
ReplyDeleteIndeed! And the Church of England will need to answer this.
And homosexual intercourse (more properly known as buggery or sodomy) is most certainly forbidden by scripture.
Detterling you have learned nothing from these dialogues. You have not learned that:
The Church of England in the 39 Article affirms Original Sin.
The Church of England in the 39 Article condemns Pelagianism.
The Church of England condemns sodomy - regardless of a bolus of sodomites salivating to change this.
The Church of England has not yet issued a statement that its teaching is now that homosexual acts are compatible with the scriptures.
Gary Bandall
No, Gene, you are making a complete tit of yourself, again.
ReplyDelete" "How can a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages at the same time be said to be teaching that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture?" Indeed! And the Church of England will need to answer this."
No, Gene, YOU are being asked: and you are refusing to answer, because you can't do that without completely undermining your own position.
And as for this:
"The Church of England in the 39 Article affirms Original Sin.
The Church of England in the 39 Article condemns Pelagianism."
Neither of these articles is part of Church doctrine - read the Archbishop's report to find out why. You won't of course, because you are incapable of admitting that you are in the wrong.
"The Church of England condemns sodomy - regardless of a bolus of sodomites salivating to change this."
No it doesn't - see above.
"The Church of England has not yet issued a statement that its teaching is now that homosexual acts are compatible with the scriptures."
It doesn't need to - its recent and current actions confirm that this is no longer the case.
For as long as you keep peddling these lies, Detterling will keep calling them out.
Sebastian D'Orsai
Gary Bandall has written in respect of you Detterling: "I have never encountered anyone in life who can so bare-facedly claim black is white."
ReplyDeleteYou have only got to read the above and see confirmation of this.
Eddy Bradawl
No Gene: you have, by your own admission, completely ignored the copiously-evidenced and authentically-sourced disproof of your contentions that
Delete"The Church of England in the 39 Article affirms Original Sin.
The Church of England in the 39 Article condemns Pelagianism."
If you have not read the posts in which Detterling thoroughly disproves these lies of yours, then how can you know that they are wrong?
Likewise, Detterling has completely disproved these further misconceptions on your part:
"The Church of England condemns sodomy."
No it doesn't, for the simple reason that a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages cannot possibly, at the same time, be said to be teaching that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture.
As for this hair-splitting attempted face-saver:
"The Church of England has not yet issued a statement that its teaching is now that homosexual acts are compatible with the scriptures."
It doesn't need to - its recent and current actions confirm that this is no longer the case.
To go pretending that you have "won" in the face of Detterling's complete refutations of your mistakes and lies attests to the growing floridity of your psychosis.
Mary Winterbourne
"The Church of England in the 39 Article affirms Original Sin.
ReplyDeleteThe Church of England in the 39 Article condemns Pelagianism."
Yes, these statements are correct. One has simply to read the 39 Articles to ascertain this. Detterling is a liar.
"The Church of England has not yet issued a statement that its teaching is now that homosexual acts are compatible with the scriptures."
This is so. And if I asked Justin Welby would he say 'joyfully', "Yes, we now have changed out teaching. Homosexual acts are now compatible with the scriptures." Of course he wouldn't. The C of E has not sunk this far - as yet.
Mary Winterbourne
"The Church of England in the 39 Article affirms Original Sin.
ReplyDeleteThe Church of England in the 39 Article condemns Pelagianism."
Yes, these statements are correct. One has simply to read the 39 Articles to ascertain this. Detterling is a liar."
NO: as the report commissioned and signed off by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2022 states clearly that the 39 Articles are not a body of doctrine to which all believes have to assent, which have been rewritten, modified and some cases discarded altogether. Indeed many members of the Anglican Communion never adopted them in the first place.
One only needs to read the Archbishop's report "To Proclaim Afresh" to see that Gene is simply ignoring facts that do not suit him. Neither Original Sin nor denial of the Pelagian heresy form part of Anglican doctrine and in any case are not scriptural.
"The Church of England has not yet issued a statement that its teaching is now that homosexual acts are compatible with the scriptures."
"This is so. And if I asked Justin Welby would he say 'joyfully', "Yes, we now have changed out teaching. Homosexual acts are now compatible with the scriptures."
Oh Christ, here we go again. Are we supposed to take seriously the asking of hypothetical questions and the provision of preposterous answers as a serious argument?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous, Gene.
"Of course he wouldn't. The C of E has not sunk this far - as yet."
Stephen Cottrell, Archbishop of York, had this to say about homosexual sexual relations:
"Asked whether he considered gay sex was a sin, he said: “I believe the great gift of sexual physical intimacy [is] to be cherished, [and] belongs in stable, loving, committed relationships. And therefore I will celebrate the fact that people are living that way and expressing their intimacy that way.”
Justin Welby concurred with this statement.
Telling the same lies over and over again more and more loudly does not make them truer in the face of rock solid evidence to the contrary.
Another fail for Gene Vincent, the Russell Brand of theology.
Eric Bradawl.
Asked whether he considered gay sex was a sin, he said: “I believe the great gift of sexual physical intimacy [is] to be cherished, [and] belongs in stable, loving, committed relationships. And therefore I will celebrate the fact that people are living that way and expressing their intimacy that way.”
DeleteJustin Welby concurred with this statement.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Cottrell is now speaking on behalf of who? A tiny minority of sodomites.
No wonder the C of E is f**ked.
Mary Winterbourne.
No, he is speaking on behalf of Christians who, like St Paul, believe that we are all one in Christ Jesus.
DeleteAnd your coarse and insulting language is a clear indication of the state of your mind - toxically dirty and irredeemably nasty.
Kiss! Kiss!
Julian “Judy” Garland
"Justin Welby concurred with this statement."
ReplyDeleteHa! Ha! Ha! Yes, of course he concurred!
I wonder why Justin is refusing to himself bless gay couples?
Mary Winterbourne
It is s good thing that, as Pope Benedict XVI expressed it, the ANGLICAN CHURCH HAS NO LEGITIMACY. When you have so-called bishops saying that the depraved act of sodomy is not sinful then something is radically wrong. I wonder why you never hear a Catholic bishop coming out with such evil heresy?
ReplyDeleteEddie Bradawl
Ps
Cottrell is an R. Sewell
Is Benedict XV the Pope who, as an archbishop, covered up for priests in his archdiocese who enjoyed raping little girls and buggering small boys? No need to take any note of this disgusting hypocrite.
DeleteNice try at changing the subject
Hasn’t worked.
Answers to Detterling’s questions? Or his refutation of your lies?
Kiss! Kiss!
Julian “Judy” Garland
And if the C of E has no legitimacy. Why are you shitting yourself about what it does and thinks? I think much Catholic doctrine is superstitious piffle, but I can’t be bothered to get interested in arguing about it. Love and let live. A lesson you seem never to have learned, you being a bigot and all.
DeleteHe is doing it for two reasons: one, to provide pastoral care for those portions of the church in England who cannot accept the blessing of same marriages, and two, in an attempt to keep on board the GAFCON churches, many of whom see homosexuality as satanic possession. But of his concurrence with Stephen Cottrell’s opinion there is no doubt - why, otherwise would he have welcomed the same sex blessings decision with joy?
ReplyDeleteI notice that you are still refusing to answer Detterling’s questions - no surprise there, he has you stumped. What else is new?
Kiss! Kiss!
Julian “Judy” Garland
"I notice that you are still refusing to answer Detterling’s questions."
ReplyDeleteAll Detterling questions have been answered; all his heresy refuted.
Not difficult as the man is a theological ignoramus. He would have been better to keep his mouth shut but he hasn't and has displayed his ignorance to the world.
By the way your defence of Justin Welby not blessing gay couples is classic. About as convincing as Andrew Neil's hairline.
Eddie Bradawl
No, Gene, that will not wash.
DeleteI am not defending Justin Welby's not blessing gay couples.
I am reporting the reasons he gave himself. If you find them unconvincing then that is your problem. They make more senser that your sewer minded assertion that his arm is being twisted by "sacramental sodomites" - an assertion for which you have produced not a scintilla of evidence.
Nor have you answered any of the points Detterling put to you. You claim that
"The Church of England in the 39 Article affirms Original Sin.
The Church of England in the 39 Article condemns Pelagianism."
NO IT DOES NOT: the report "TO PROCLAIM AFRESH" commissioned and signed off by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2022 states clearly that the 39 Articles are NOT a body of doctrine to which all believers have to assent. least because have been rewritten, modified and some cases discarded altogether.
Indeed many members of the Anglican Communion never adopted them in the first place.
One only needs to read the Archbishop's report to see that Gene is simply ignoring facts that do not suit him. Neither Original Sin nor denial of the Pelagian heresy form part of Anglican doctrine and in any case are not scriptural.
You further claim that
"The Church of England condemns sodomy."
No it doesn't, for the simple reason that a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages cannot possibly, at the same time, be said to be teaching that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture.
And you have failed to answer the question arising from your inaccurate statement:
"How can a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages at the same time be said to be teaching that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture?"
Make no mistake, Gene, you will not wear Detterling down on these points with your nasty sneering, your repeated lies and the pitiable pretence that your sock puppets represent independent posters to this blog, which I have completely blown out of the water by using all their names myself.
Kiss! kiss!
Julian "Judy" Garland.
"How can a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages at the same time be said to be teaching that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture?"
ReplyDeleteAs I said how indeed! The C of E does not have a leg to stand on.
Why can't you accept Detterling that you have been totally defeated? This is an occasion when you should be man enough to say: "Sorry Gene. I got it wrong."
Oops! What am I saying? You are not a man. You are a lily-livered, yellow-bellied bottlejob.
Mary Winterbourne
Well if anyone would know about lily livered bottlejobs, it's you Gene - all you need do is look in the mirror.
DeleteThis - "As I said how indeed!" - is not an answer to the question below.
"How can a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages at the same time be said to be teaching that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture?"
But it is of course the only answer you can give, as to give a correct answer - which is that you are wrong to claim that the Church of England teaches that homosexual sexual acts are against scripture is, simply, wrong.
But you are too far up your own capacious arse to admit that you are wrong, aren't you, Gene?
"Why can't you accept Detterling that you have been totally defeated?"
Because I have not been defeated, simple as that: for one thing you did not read a word of my rebuttal of your claims about the 39 Articles, so you have no idea how wrong you are, so until you have read those rebuttals and are able to argue them logically, your claims to victory are about as convincing as next Monday's publication day for "Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths".
I am SO looking forward to that - by Christmas Day your name will stink the length and breadth of West London.
And you are not going to wear me down by shouting your lies and stupid misconceptions loud and long, so why not piss off and get stuck into your Aldi Vino del Lavabo wine box, you pathetic little man?
Kiss! kiss!
Julian "Judy" Garland
"How can a church which offers unconditional blessings to same sex couples in civil marriages at the same time be said to be teaching that homosexual sexual intercourse is forbidden by scripture?"
ReplyDeleteSo, please ask the Church of England. Behaving with such falseness and hypocrisy is beyond my understanding.
GENE
No, Gene, I am asking YOU. And you can’t answer because the only possible truthful answer would invalidate the false attitudes you have struck in the last month. You twisted little bastard.
ReplyDelete