THE PAEDOPHILE INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND...
"I had a flash of inspiration. I would mention the Paedophile Information Exchange, a notorious organisation from back in the Seventies which sought to legalise sex between children and adults. The political Left had supporters of this evil. Also, the C of E had done precisely nothing about this monstrous threat to children."
Lucy Fer
Well done Lucy Fer for raising this very disturbing issue. I had never thought about it. Really, looking back this was a scandal. The Church of England never as much as raised a single protest about this evil organisation. Totally disgraceful.
I shall be writing to Welby about this.
GENE
Christ, Gene, what goes through that drink-addled, shrivelled brain of yours at times like this?
ReplyDelete"....I will pretend to be a female Anglican priest and invent a totally improbable yarn couched in prose of outstandingly laboured feebleness in which I will rehash several arguments that I have already lost to make it look as though I had won. Then I will write congratulatory letters to my fictional Anglican priest identity using two other pseudonyms. I will then, writing in my principal pseudonym of Gene Vincent, write to my fictional Anglican priest identity. In this letter I will claim - on absolutely no evidence whatsoever - that the Church of England said nothing, fifty years ago, about a paedophile organisation that for most of its existence numbered fewer than five hundred members and never more than a thousand. This claim, I will imply, means that the Church of England supported the Paedophile Information Exchange. I will then promise to write to Archbishop Justin Welby about the actions of the Church of England which took place during the period of his life when he was at Cambridge and later working in the oil industry. This means that I will write an "open letter" and publish it on this blog, which means that I can be safe in the knowledge that he will never read it, and that therefore I will never be held responsible for my scurrilous allegations."
Reading that, Gene, does it never occur to you that these are the actions of a someone who is actually a functioning psychotic?
"In this letter I will claim - on absolutely no evidence whatsoever - that the Church of England said nothing, fifty years ago, about a paedophile organisation...
DeleteI have checked this out. There is no evidence whatsoever that the C of E made any protest about the existence of this evil organisation.
GENE
"I will then promise to write to Archbishop Justin Welby about the actions of the Church of England which took place during the period of his life when he was at Cambridge and later working in the oil industry."
DeleteSo what? He is now Archbishop of Canterbury and entitled to , and indeed duty bound to, initiate an investigation as to why the C of E did nothing at the time.
GENE
So you have checked ten years’ worth of back numbers of the Church Times and the Church of England Newspaper, have you? Not mention ten years’ worth of Diocesan newspapers in all 32 UK dioceses? Say 6, 000 publications altogether? Not to mention local tv and radio? DON’T insult my intelligence and STOP telling fatuous lies.
DeleteWhy is he duty bound to investigate a pack of lies invented by a fuckwitted bigot like you about an organisation outlawed forty years ago? Even if you ever did more than pretend that you had written to him, the first thing you will be asked to do is produce the evidence for your claim. And unless you can prove that you have trawled through about 6,000 newspapers and days and weeks of local broadcasts to confirm your allegations then you will rightly be told to stop wasting everyone’s time. When you have shat in your hat, Gene, do not then immediately clap it on your head.
Delete"Faced with an array of scholarly opinions..."
ReplyDeleteScholarly opinions? Ha! Ha! Ha! Those opinions carry as much weight as the scholarly opinion of Gary Glitter on the subject.
GENE
No it isn’t, Gene, you are insulting even your own meagre intelligence.
ReplyDeleteYou claimed that Christ’s silence on the issue of anal sexual intercourse and homosexuality meant that He condemned both.
You claimed that my silence on the PIE, paedophiles and paedophilia meant that I condoned - ie supported - all three.
You cannot use anyone’s silence on an issue to infer condemnation or support for the issue.
And it is ridiculous to use the silence argument to prove condemnation in one case and support in another.
Even you can’t be too thick to understand that - oh, wait…
" "Faced with an array of scholarly opinions..." Scholarly opinions? Ha! Ha! Ha! Those opinions carry as much weight as the scholarly opinion of Gary Glitter on the subject."
ReplyDeleteGary Glitter ?
How about Thomas Jefferson, Soren Kierkegaard, Ernest Renan, William Durant, Robert Frost, James Baldwin, Kahil Gibran, Mahatma Ghandi, Carl Jung, George Bernard Shaw, not to mention Nietsche, Tolstoy and Bertrand Russell.
Let's see you refute them. you ignorant, impertinent, lazy-minded ponce.
Thomas Jefferson: "Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. He reduced Jesus's ministry to his death and resurrection, and sought to impose his own rules."
Soren Kierkegaard, in The Journals: "In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"
Ernest Renan, in his book Saint Paul: "True Christianity, which will last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes of the principal defects of Christian theology."
Will Durant, in his Caesar and Christ: "Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ. . . . Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known. . . . Paul replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue. It was a tragic change."
Robert Frost: "Paul he's in the Bible too. He is the fellow who theologized Christ almost out of Christianity. Look out for him."
James Baldwin: "The real architect of the Christian church was not the disreputable, sun-baked Hebrew (Jesus Christ) who gave it its name but rather the mercilessly fanatical and self-righteous Paul."
Martin Buber: "The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul."
Kahlil Gibran: "This Paul is indeed a strange man. His soul is not the soul of a free man. He speaks not of Jesus nor does he repeat His Words. He would strike with his own hammer upon the anvil in the Name of One whom he does not know."
Mahatma Gandhi: "I draw a great distinction between the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus and the Letters of Paul. Paul's Letters are a graft on Christ's teachings, Paul's own gloss apart from Christ's own experience."
Carl Jung: "Saul's fanatical resistance to Christianity. . . . was never entirely overcome. It is frankly disappointing to see how Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in."
George Bernard Shaw: "There is not one word of Pauline Christianity in the characteristic utterances of Jesus. . . . There has really never been a more monstrous imposition perpetrated than the imposition of Paul's soul upon the soul of Jesus. . . . It is now easy to understand how the Christianity of Jesus. . . . was suppressed by the police and the Church, while Paulinism overran the whole western civilized world, which was at that time the Roman Empire, and was adopted by it as its official faith."
Not a single one of those opinions impress me. Had you quoted someone of the weight of St Thomas Aquinas I would be impressed. Had you quoted Saint Francis of Assisi I would be impressed. Had you quoted Edith Stein I would be impressed.
DeleteI repeat: Those opinions carry as much weight as the scholarly opinion of Gary Glitter on the subject."
GENE
You arrogant, pompous, pig ignorant prick.
DeleteJust who do you think you are to write off some of the greatest luminaries of the twentieth century - a bigoted nobody with a degree obtained by systematic cheating?
"How about Thomas Jefferson, Soren Kierkegaard, Ernest Renan, William Durant, Robert Frost, James Baldwin, Kahil Gibran, Mahatma Ghandi, Carl Jung, George Bernard Shaw, not to mention Nietsche, Tolstoy and Bertrand Russell."
Delete"Just who do you think you are to write off some of the greatest luminaries of the twentieth century."
YES I DO WRITE THEM OFF. None of this motley crew is a luminary in the Christian faith. Certainly not Nietsche, and certainly not Bertrand Russell!!!
I repeat: Those opinions carry as much weight as the scholarly opinion of Gary Glitter on the subject."
GENE
Oh, fuck off you pretentious arsehole.
DeleteYou have never read a word of Nietsche, Bertrand Russell or any of the other intellectuals on that list, so you are no position to judge, even if you possessed the intellect to understand them, which you don't. How could you, a drink addled PPE 2:2 gained fifty years ago by stealing the work of better men and passing it off as your own?
Nor, come to that, have you read a word of Thomas Aquinas or St Francis of Assissi.
Come to that you 've never read a word of
Nietsche, Bertrand Russell and Thomas Aquinas I had to read for my degree. PPE 2:1 actually.
DeleteLearn to spell Assisi.
GENE
Well you read what other people had said about them anyway. And never a word of them since. Yours is a truly mediocre mind.
DeleteIt will be very interesting to learn what Justin Welby has to say about the C of E and its failure to comment on the PIE.
ReplyDeleteIt quite possibly would be, if ever you wrote to him, which you won't.
DeleteNB that "An open letter to Justin Welby" on this blog that no-one reads will not count.
Ponce.
"You claimed that Christ’s silence on the issue of anal sexual intercourse and homosexuality meant that He condemned both."
ReplyDeleteI have never claimed any such thing. I have stated that just because he is not quoted on the subject in the gospels does not mean we do not know what his views would be. You claimed that because he is not quoted we do not know what his views would be.
Even you can’t be too thick to understand that - oh, wait…
Balls, Gene, stop making stuff up.
ReplyDeleteToday Swashbuckling Mulligan emailed me his open letter to Detterling. My word! Watch this space! I shall publish it tomorrow or Thursday.
ReplyDeleteGENE
No he didn’t, Gene - why do you keep pretending it isn’t you? Do you not realise how demented this ridiculous charade makes you look?
DeleteAnd as for its impact, do leave off. It will be badly written and will have the rhetorical impact of a wet fart.
And do remember, whether you are writing as Swashbuckling Mulligan, Sugarboy Nando. Mary Winterbourne or ANY of your other troupe of sock puppets, ONE WORD about my wife and family and I will drop you on the shit with no further warning.