Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 04/05/2007 View Wed 04/04/2007 View Tue 04/03/2007 View Mon 04/02/2007 View Sun 04/01/2007 View Sat 03/31/2007 View Fri 03/30/2007
2007-04-05 Britain
Crucifixion 'repulsive,' says British clergyman
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2007-04-05 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [336067 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 I'm starting to believe that much of the Western leadership, punditocracy, and chatterati have been abducted and taken over by Pod People.
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2007-04-05 00:11||   2007-04-05 00:11|| Front Page Top

#2 Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

"Penal Substitution? Is that like Transubstantiation?"
Posted by Anonymoose 2007-04-05 00:21||   2007-04-05 00:21|| Front Page Top

#3 Anonymoose, you are talking about Penile Substitution.
Posted by twobyfour 2007-04-05 01:50||   2007-04-05 01:50|| Front Page Top

#4 UK is a big Mess. Gay clergy, too tolerant of jihadist ,anti-American Media, terrible rules of engagement, high prices, rated worst place to grow up, Cops without guns...
Posted by Victor Emmanuel Grusong8179 2007-04-05 02:41||   2007-04-05 02:41|| Front Page Top

#5 Crucifixion 'repulsive,' says British clergyman

And water is wet. No duh. It's supposed to be repulsive. Keeps the peasants in line.

And since when did you get inside God's mind? Dork.
Posted by gorb 2007-04-05 03:08||   2007-04-05 03:08|| Front Page Top

#6 BTW, what does the pic of Rosie have to do with this? ;-)
Posted by gorb 2007-04-05 03:08||   2007-04-05 03:08|| Front Page Top

#7 Debka-like salt here: If I want to know about what' happening in the United Kingdom I would certainly not go to a Pakiutani site to find it.
Posted by JFM">JFM  2007-04-05 04:22||   2007-04-05 04:22|| Front Page Top

#8 Gorb, 's not Rosie, her moustache is not that pronounced. Some say on that picture is Khalid Shaykh Mohammed, or Ron Jeremy. Penile Substitution was Ron Jeremy's invention.

Hope it is all clear to you, now. ;-)
Posted by twobyfour 2007-04-05 04:37||   2007-04-05 04:37|| Front Page Top

#9 You're right. Whoever it is, it looks like this guy is thinking about $ex, and we all know Rosie doesn't think.
Posted by gorb 2007-04-05 04:42||   2007-04-05 04:42|| Front Page Top

#10 actually, I believe Penile Substitution was a Lorena Bobbitt trademark
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-04-05 04:43||   2007-04-05 04:43|| Front Page Top

#11 Frank, nope, that was Penile Extraction. There was nothing that it has been substituted with. Just, eh... extracted.

The Penile Substitution invention was triggered by the realization of Ron Jeremy that he can't, possibly, you-know-what every woman. Hence he used his equipment as a master copy for a mass production of latex substitutes. After the production went into full gear, Ron is rumored to exclaim: "Now I can!"

Posted by twobyfour 2007-04-05 04:52||   2007-04-05 04:52|| Front Page Top

#12 No that would be the Penile Subtraction. Something Rev. Jeffrey John clearly knows about.
Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger  2007-04-05 08:17||   2007-04-05 08:17|| Front Page Top

#13 “It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this, we’d say he were a monster.”

He then added…

“Ohhhh…and that whole Resurrection thingey…Pshaww…that’s like…totally over the top. It’s like a trick from that magician David Copperfield. I mean…he’s really dreamy and all…but gawwwd…what’s with his eyebrows? Now that MindFreak stud from the states…hubba hubba…he can turn my water into wine anytime.”
Posted by DepotGuy 2007-04-05 09:14||   2007-04-05 09:14|| Front Page Top

#14 Here's hoping Old Spook took a day off from RB. If he reads this C of E dribble I'm not sure his heart could take it. These are words of war to an old school Roman Catholic.
Posted by Mark Z">Mark Z  2007-04-05 09:46||   2007-04-05 09:46|| Front Page Top

#15 He must have been on of the idiots advising (either history or Nat Geography) cable channel on their show last night about some weird gospel found in a leather bag buried somewhere that claimed Christ tricked somebody else to be executed for him.

I am to the point where I suspect conspiracy by these channels to attempt to destroy the Christian faith by showing this BS just before Easter and Christmas. The only thing that keeps me from accepting conspiracy is when idiot church "leaders" open their mouths and spout garbage.

Its like the media and the institutional leadership bureaucracy have all reached and exceeded their "Peter Principle" points.

Posted by 3dc 2007-04-05 11:17||   2007-04-05 11:17|| Front Page Top

#16 Sounds like somebody should be assigned to make sure the Very Reverend lays off the sacramental wine...
Posted by tu3031 2007-04-05 11:19||   2007-04-05 11:19|| Front Page Top

#17 Good Lord, this man's a moron.

I'm no expert on religious matters, but I can see that there are at least three things he doesn't understand. First of all, man's fallen nature is a condition that came about through our own actions, not through God's (He doesn't do anything to alter our state but, in all fairness, He did warn us; the consequences are ours to deal with). Because of this condition, we must pay for our sins - and since we all sin, there's no getting out of it; the question is more "how much" than "whether." What Christ did, through being betrayed (psychological suffering) and being beaten and crucified (physical suffering) was take the worst of it for everyone. Hence by accepting His sacrifice on our behalf we can come to know God (or something like that; as I said, I'm no expert, although I clearly know more than this guy).

What's almost as important as His actions on our behalf is the covenant that it seals. During the Last Supper, Jesus brought forth symbols of his later torment - the bread and wine, the body and blood. By partaking in the sacrament we accept His sacrifice, and we affirm that covenant. Now, the first covenant was the one made with Abraham, and it involved slaughtering lambs in order to cleanse oneself of sin. This new covenant involved Christ offering Himself as a once-and-done-forevermore sacrifice (hence the phrase "Lamb of God"). Through baptism, through our faith and deeds which are partially informed by that faith, and through the Eucharist (among other things) we affirm our commitment to the covenant and hold up our end of the bargain long after He has fulfilled His.

Finally, the nature of the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) means that in a very real sense God Himself was taking the punishment. He didn't so much send someone else as take it on our behalf.

Now, if God functioned like the EU, then it would indeed be "repulsive," as He clearly neglected to ban the fruit from the Garden (as opposed to simply telling Adam and Eve not to touch it). If God functioned like the Democrats, then His non-intervention and refusal to remove the consequences of the exercise of Man's free will (i.e. saying "Oh, well," and removing the penalty of the wages of sin, just because) is indeed "psychopathic."

However, in light of the fact that as fallen creatures we bring punishment upon ourselves in a world where the exercise of free will naturally brings about varying results and consequences (not all of them pleasant), then God's intercession on our behalf, His offering of His Son - part of Himself - to take that punishment, and thus His offer of redemption make Him appear as far more of a loving God than anything that Mohammed ever babbled about.

Does this mean I'm qualified to become a clergyman in the Church of England?
Posted by The Doctor 2007-04-05 11:53||   2007-04-05 11:53|| Front Page Top

#18 Doctor: Based on the foregoing, I would consider you qualified to teach the RCIA class at my parish. (Not that we lack for qualified instructors, mind you.)
Posted by Mike 2007-04-05 11:58||   2007-04-05 11:58|| Front Page Top

#19 Doc, No. You are overqualified and understand what Christianity is all about.
Yes, Christ forgave sinners. BUT he also admonished them to go and sin no more.
Posted by Rambler">Rambler  2007-04-05 12:39||   2007-04-05 12:39|| Front Page Top

#20 It is supposed to be repulsive. It was public display of torture and death to keep the rest of the conquered peoples in line and obeying the Romans. If Christ had come during the Middle Ages it might be the Iron Maiden that would be the religious symbol.
Point is, God's son was to be used as the sacrificial lamb. Full stop, end of fucking story.

The UK and the west is in a very sad, sad state of affairs.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2007-04-05 15:08||   2007-04-05 15:08|| Front Page Top

#21 twobyfour, I find it somewhat deeply disturbing that anyone knows that particular story, true, urban myth, or otherwise...

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg  2007-04-05 16:03||]">[]  2007-04-05 16:03|| Front Page Top

#22 The Doctor, you have it almost right.

What Christ did, through being betrayed (psychological suffering) and being beaten and crucified (physical suffering) was take the worst of it for everyone. Hence by accepting His sacrifice on our behalf we can come to know God (or something like that; as I said, I'm no expert, although I clearly know more than this guy).

What Christ actually did was take the weight of the worlds' sin, and all future sin, upon Himself. As God in human flesh, and as the Son of God, and with the weight of human sin so profoundly enormous, ONLY God could be strong enough to bear it, to pay for it, and to defeat the wages of sin which is death (and obescience to God's non-eternal rival, Satan). Thus, Christ took the weight of ALL sin eternally upon Himself in the aspect of His Son and, through defeating death, eternally paid the debt of anyone who believes, or comes to believe in Him through His Son Jesus Christ.

The path is long, and it is strewn with an extraordinary number of obstacles, but Christ has already paid your penalty for you and you can come to heaven through Him. You, as human, can never earn Gods' grace or forgiveness - it cannot be done.

Christs' death on the cross was a GIFT, unearned, unwanted (in most cases), and unwarranted by an eternal loving God who cared for His creation.

That God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that no man may die.

Salvation is a gift. We do not do anything to warrant it, to deserve it, or to earn it. It's is Gods' greatest gift to His creation and He did it for His love of that creation.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg  2007-04-05 16:19||]">[]  2007-04-05 16:19|| Front Page Top

#23 Oh, and by the way, He didn't take "the worst of it" for us, He took ALL OF IT for us.

If we come to God via Christ, our extraordinary debt has already been paid in full in blood.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg  2007-04-05 16:23||]">[]  2007-04-05 16:23|| Front Page Top

#24 Rambler, you are incorrect. Christ directed the adulteress who was about to be stoned to death by hypocrites to "Go and sin no more".

Basically, he told her to go home to her husband and to not leave him to lie with anyone else.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg  2007-04-05 16:56||]">[]  2007-04-05 16:56|| Front Page Top

#25 Does the church of england not buy into the "theory of penal substitution?" (I call it "the substitutional theory of atonement" - kind of same-same.) I would figure if you were senior clergy in that church then this would be part of your fundamental beliefs, yes?
Seems kind of incongruent or counterintuitive to me that the "very reverend" Dean of St Albans belongs to an organization in which he doesn't share the basic tenets.

I personally don't believe in the substitutional atonement of Christ either, (or original sin, the trinity, immaculate conception, and a lot of other things written in the bible) but then again, I'm not a church goer, a very reverend anything & certainly not the dean at St Albans.

Posted by Broadhead6 2007-04-05 17:17||   2007-04-05 17:17|| Front Page Top

#26 Hehehe...I can't resist...

Broadhead6, God loves you just the same as you are.


Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg  2007-04-05 17:58||]">[]  2007-04-05 17:58|| Front Page Top

#27 Thanks FOTSGreg, I love Him to. Though in my case I'm quite certain it's more in the vein of that great old Peter Green song "oh well":

-"Now when I talked to God I knew he'd understand, He said "stick by me & I'll be your guiding hand; but don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to.........."
Posted by Broadhead6 2007-04-05 20:06||   2007-04-05 20:06|| Front Page Top

#28 The Church of England hasn't required belief even in God's existence from its clergy for several generations. Once upon a time unbelieving clergy were expected at least to be terribly learned or of appropriate lineage, but even that has gone by the way, apparently. A pity Victoria hasn't poked her head in -- she'd know.

Broadhead6, I'm quite certain God understands and properly appreciates Marines.
Posted by trailing wife 2007-04-05 20:36||   2007-04-05 20:36|| Front Page Top

#29 old Fleetwood Mac fan (also), eh, BH? Bare Trees and Hypnotized works too? LL
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-04-05 21:19||   2007-04-05 21:19|| Front Page Top

#30 or Albatross? lol
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2007-04-05 22:18||   2007-04-05 22:18|| Front Page Top

#31 "Even at the age of 10, I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive as well as nonsensical"

Then why did you become a member of the Clergy if you reject the core of Christianity?


He apparently never bothered to read up on the Old Testament and the original covenant.

Go read on Abram (and how he was changed int Abraham). Read especially how Jaweh/God requested the preparation of the sacrifices - and note that they were all killed and split in two with a path between them; its a fairly gory scene that is set. The Light and Smoke (Being and Spirit of God) went between the split carcasses, trhough the gore and out the other side, and in doing so entered into the original Covenant with Abraham and his descendants.

It was a blood pact - in the terms of those days, both participants were essentially saying "Let what happened to these animals happen to me if I break this covenant, this promise". Its remarkable - a Creator putting himself on the level with His created, making an even bargain.

The rest of the old testament details the issues the people of the Covenant had with keeping their end of the bargain.

But the New Testament shows the end of all that.

God, in the person of Christ, came to fulfill His part of the original covenant by having Himself slaughtered (per the agreement with Abraham, see above) in order to take up the transgression against God under the old covenant - which freed mankind from our obligations and debts (sins) under the old covenant, thus fulfilling the covenant (and prophecies). This fulfillment finished the old covenant, allowing the New Covenant of Christ to be established with all to wash away all old sins, and allow God to enter into the lives of anyone that agreed to the new covenant - Jew and Gentile alike.

Too many Christians simply don't understand the significance of the Old Testament and its role. This so-called Reverent apparently missed out on a lot of education and catechism, and absorbed a lot of heterodox and heretical beliefs. He should know better, even with as lightweight a catechism as the Anglicans have in England these days, it still teaches these basics of Christology (Africa? Different story - strongly orthodox).

FYI, I do teach RCIA and have studied Biblical Theology at a graduate level.
Posted by OldSpook 2007-04-05 23:45||   2007-04-05 23:45|| Front Page Top

23:55 OldSpook
23:55 JosephMendiola
23:45 OldSpook
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:36 3dc
23:34 3dc
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:21 OldSpook
23:18 Cromert
23:18 OldSpook
23:13 WTF
23:07 OldSpook
23:00 OldSpook
22:54 Barbara Skolaut
22:52 Mark Espinola
22:50 Old Patriot
22:39 3dc
22:38 3dc
22:37 newc
22:37 DMFD
22:24 Frank G
22:18 Frank G
22:00 Valentine
21:57 The Ghost of Hideki Tojo

Search WWW Search