Britain is no longer Christian

[ialmisry]

This might end up in politics, but I think it is a faith isse: how can we spread the Gospel when we cannot retain it?

Christianity isn’t dying, it’s being eradicated
By Cristina Odone

It’s official: Britain is no longer a Christian nation. In banning Eunice and Owen Johns, a devout Christian couple, from fostering children, Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson declared that we live in a secular state, and that the Johns’ religious convictions disqualified them from raising citizens of that state. We’ve outgrown Christianity, the judges professed. Instead, we have graduated to the status of a multicultural nation, blessed by a plurality of faiths.

Ironically, the justices who have pronounced that Britain is no longer Christian did so in a court where witnesses swear on the Bible and invoke God’s help in telling the truth. I do not imagine that these judges leave out the first word in “God Save the Queen” – nor would they shun an invitation to the Royal wedding, which is happening not at a registry office but the centrepiece of official Christendom, Westminster Abbey.

In taking part in these traditions, the judges – and the rest of us – are no different from past generations. For Christianity is not merely a part of life here, a provider of schools, hospitals and orphanages. It is the backbone of our laws, the impetus for the charity, justice and tolerance that have long been characteristic of this country. Its grand principles have inspired citizens to extraordinary actions, such as William Wilberforce’s campaign against slavery, and to ordinary kindnesses, such as reading to hospital patients or delivering meals on wheels. When David Cameron speaks of our moral duty to our Arab brothers, or shares his vision for the Big Society, he taps not into narrow party allegiance, but into our common Christian heritage.

The Christians of an earlier era may not have known about multiculturalism, or predicted that it would be the signature tune of our times. Yet their faith gave them a moral imperative that demanded respect for others: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Without this moral underpinning, multiculturalism sags into a factionalism of competing demands and conflicting interests. Instead, the Gospel’s commandment inspires the Christian majority to accommodate Jewish, Muslim, atheist and Hindu minorities, without losing sight of the basic principle of mutual respect.

This, indeed, is one of the reasons why non-Christian believers are so passionate in wanting to protect Christianity as a presence in public life. Jews, like Muslims, recognise that while Christians – and especially Anglicans – may enjoy a special status, their faith embraces all people as made, and loved, by God. The Act of Succession, which bans us Catholics from the throne, makes me angry; but like all members of a religious minority, I feel safer in a culture that cherishes spiritual values than in one that rubbishes them.

So it is not just Christians that the ruling in the Johns case will alarm and unsettle. As the judges wagged their fingers about the secularist principles that, they claim, define the nation (and which “ought to be, but seemingly are not, well understood”), they were not describing the status quo: a strong majority of Britons still consider themselves to be Christian. Instead, they were making clear their desire to steer this country in a direction of their own choosing – one that matches the views of an increasingly strident group that is determined to scrub Christianity from public life.

Its efforts to push the majority faith underground are evident everywhere, from our bus stops to our workplaces. The British Humanist Association is campaigning to discourage “cultural Christians” from identifying themselves as believers in the forthcoming census. Jo Johnson, a Tory MP, wants to drop the prayer that traditionally opens Parliamentary sessions. Companies like BA forbid their Christian staff from wearing crosses to work. Schools and offices present Christian holidays as secular breaks. And now devout Christians are to be prevented from becoming foster parents.

According to our learned judges, “the aphorism that ‘Christianity is part of the common law of England’ is now mere rhetoric”. How excruciatingly unjust.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100078209/christianity-isn%E2%80%99t-dying-it%E2%80%99s-being-eradicated/#

[LBK]

Ironically, the justices who have pronounced that Britain is no longer Christian did so in a court where witnesses swear on the Bible and invoke God’s help in telling the truth. I do not imagine that these judges leave out the first word in “God Save the Queen” – nor would they shun an invitation to the Royal wedding, which is happening not at a registry office but the centrepiece of official Christendom, Westminster Abbey.

The irony is indeed lost on these learned gentlemen:to add to the above, their own monarch and Head of State is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. 

[ialmisry]

Ironically, the justices who have pronounced that Britain is no longer Christian did so in a court where witnesses swear on the Bible and invoke God’s help in telling the truth. I do not imagine that these judges leave out the first word in “God Save the Queen” – nor would they shun an invitation to the Royal wedding, which is happening not at a registry office but the centrepiece of official Christendom, Westminster Abbey.

The irony is indeed lost on these learned gentlemen:to add to the above, their own monarch and Head of State is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. 

And they wonder how the Muslims set up their Islamist Muslim Parliament of Great Britain, which "upheld" the death fatwa on Salman Rushdie.

Matthew 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 44Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. 45Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Seems the judges want to find seven spirits worse than Anglicanism.

[John Larocque]

There's even more commentary here.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/03/laws-and-usages-of-realm-do-not-include.html

It is a matter for the Johns as to whether they appeal, but this aspect of the judgment against them is easily refuted. Genesis 19:1-29, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is actually irrelevant to the topic (being concerned with gang rape and sex with angels [cf Jude 7]), but it has often been adduced throughout church history as being concerned with homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are more useful, being quite obviously concerned with homosexual behaviour and being unremittingly negative in their judgment. To insist that obedience to these scriptures may not constitute a Christian ethic on homosexuality must mean that the traditional beliefs on adultery, incest and bestiality (Lev 20:10-16) may also not constitute a Christian sexual ethic. It is to be observed that ‘lying with a man as with a woman’ is categorically proscribed. This is an unambiguous legal prohibition which stands as the foundation for the universal rejection of same-sex intercourse within Judaism.

Of course, quoting levitical law does not settle the question for Christian ethics. But the early church did consistently adopt the Old Testament’s teaching in matters of sexual morality (1 Cor 6:9-11; 1Tim 1:10; Acts 15:28f). The fact that malakoi and arsenokoitai are mentioned as wrongdoers who will not inherit the kingdom of God is sufficient in itself to refute the assertion of Munby and Beatson. Yes, the terms are open to interpretation, for neither translates directly as ‘homosexual’. But malakoi is pejorative Greek slang for ‘passive’ sexual partners – often young boys – in homosexual activity. And arsenokoitai has traditionally been interpreted as a male who lies with a male, directly linking it to Leviticus 18:22.

But perhaps the most crucial text for Christian ethics concerning homosexuality is Romans 1:18-32, which sets condemnation of the act in an explicitly theological context. This is also the only passage that refers to lesbianism. Rebellion against God leads to depravity, among which is listed sexual activity between members of the same sex. For Paul, homosexual acts are sinful and, indeed, evil.

[Achronos]

I have a question, actually: Are there any actual completely secular states? As in, states where God isn't mentioned anywhere in the government documents, currency, buildings, anthems, etc? I would imagine some European countries might fit the bill, but I don't know for sure.

[Alive]

I have a question, actually: Are there any actual completely secular states? As in, states where God isn't mentioned anywhere in the government documents, currency, buildings, anthems, etc? I would imagine some European countries might fit the bill, but I don't know for sure.

Secularity – is fraud.

Any thing we (or any one) do – express state of our (them) heart.

So any we do are effected by our religious perception and basically is form of religion act any way.

Secularity is religion - antichristian religion promoting atheism, “humanism” or “wellbeing” , “fun” etc.


Capitalism – is religion 
Communism  - is religion
Patriotism – is religion
Nationalism – religion.

Secular propaganda is antichristian act to brain wash ignorant people.

[ialmisry]

I have a question, actually: Are there any actual completely secular states? As in, states where God isn't mentioned anywhere in the government documents, currency, buildings, anthems, etc? I would imagine some European countries might fit the bill, but I don't know for sure.

Albania tried it, to the point of chiseling religious names off of tombstones and giving 20 years hard labor if a fragment of red eggshell was found near your house during bright week.

It didn't work.

[Achronos]

There must be more to this story. I refuse to believe based on one article that a judge actually denied a couple from foster care based solely on believing in Jesus Christ. Other people who would be banned from foster care under such a standard: Mr. Rogers.

It had nothing to do with them belonging to Christianity let alone a loony snake-handler cult. It had to do with them being homophobes. There's a very real chance that one of the children they adopt could be queer, and if thats the case then these guys would present a real threat to those children. The only way religion intersects this is the judges noting that religion is no excuse. That they have fostered nearly 20 kids, means statistically at least 1 or 2 of them have been greatly harmed by this. That's 1 or 2 too many, and it would be gross neglect to allow this potential to continue.

Its a wonderful outcome. Biggots should not be rewarded with responsibility unless they are prepared to seek treatment for their biggotry.

We don't allow racists (I hope, I'd be shocked if we do) to raise foster kids, why apply a different standard to homophobes who can be just as harmful to sexuality questioning children (I'm serious, homophobia is one of the major motors behind teen suicide. This stuff screws with kids heads)

[John of the North]

There must be more to this story. I refuse to believe based on one article that a judge actually denied a couple from foster care based solely on believing in Jesus Christ. Other people who would be banned from foster care under such a standard: Mr. Rogers.

It had nothing to do with them belonging to Christianity let alone a loony snake-handler cult. It had to do with them being homophobes. There's a very real chance that one of the children they adopt could be queer, and if thats the case then these guys would present a real threat to those children. The only way religion intersects this is the judges noting that religion is no excuse. That they have fostered nearly 20 kids, means statistically at least 1 or 2 of them have been greatly harmed by this. That's 1 or 2 too many, and it would be gross neglect to allow this potential to continue.

Its a wonderful outcome. Biggots should not be rewarded with responsibility unless they are prepared to seek treatment for their biggotry.

We don't allow racists (I hope, I'd be shocked if we do) to raise foster kids, why apply a different standard to homophobes who can be just as harmful to sexuality questioning children (I'm serious, homophobia is one of the major motors behind teen suicide. This stuff screws with kids heads)

Yes. How dare free Britons claim the right to freedom of conscience in their own country?! How dare they indeed.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

Secularity is religion - antichristian religion promoting atheism, “humanism” or “wellbeing” , “fun” etc.

Damnable fun!

[ialmisry]

There must be more to this story. I refuse to believe based on one article that a judge actually denied a couple from foster care based solely on believing in Jesus Christ. Other people who would be banned from foster care under such a standard: Mr. Rogers.

It had nothing to do with them belonging to Christianity let alone a loony snake-handler cult. It had to do with them being homophobes. There's a very real chance that one of the children they adopt could be queer, and if thats the case then these guys would present a real threat to those children. The only way religion intersects this is the judges noting that religion is no excuse. That they have fostered nearly 20 kids, means statistically at least 1 or 2 of them have been greatly harmed by this. That's 1 or 2 too many, and it would be gross neglect to allow this potential to continue.

Its a wonderful outcome. Biggots should not be rewarded with responsibility unless they are prepared to seek treatment for their biggotry.

We don't allow racists (I hope, I'd be shocked if we do) to raise foster kids, why apply a different standard to homophobes who can be just as harmful to sexuality questioning children (I'm serious, homophobia is one of the major motors behind teen suicide. This stuff screws with kids heads)

The gay agenda screws with the kids heads, like any other reeducation program.

Same sex marriage is banned in the UK.  Not just not legal, but explicitely banned. Again, the judges are to interpret the law, not make it. They have elections for that.

[Achronos]

Ah an egregious mistake on my part, I did not know they had a law that banned same sex marriage. It's only a matter of time when that ban gets uplifted though.

I can't help but to recpatiluate what TS Eliot said in the past: "The world is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time; so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization, and to save the world from suicide."

[Jharek Carnelian]

While it is true that same sex marriages are not recognised in the UK that is not quite the whole story:-

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_10026937

Originally those couples who used the Civil Partnership system were forbidden from having religious symbolism present at the ceremony or from marrying in religious premises but that was overturned (for at least part of the UK) towards the end of last year.

[Jetavan]

From the actual court decision:

Mrs Johns stated, 'I will not lie and tell you [that] I will say it is ok to be a homosexual. I will love and respect, no matter what sexuality. I cannot lie and I cannot hate, but I cannot tell a child that it is ok to be homosexual. Then you will not be able to trust me. There has got to be different ways of going through this without having to compromise my faith.'

What does "OK" mean, exactly? If I say that it is "OK" if someone is a practicing homosexual, what does that mean?

And it's unclear if Mrs. Johns is addressing homosexual orientation, or homosexual activity.

If "OK" means "allowed", then I would say that it is "OK" if someone is homosexually oriented and a Christian.

[Achronos]

To answer the thread title, it's true
"And we read of the reactions of the disciples - fearful, incredulous, but eventually believing that, as millions of Christians will proclaim tomorrow morning: 'The Lord is risen indeed!'

But how many in Britain today actually believe the story? Most recent polls have shown that considerably less than half of us do"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169145/Religion-hatred-Why-longer-cowed-secular-zealots.html#ixzz1FUNSohmh

I think I saw a poll where 60% of all Brits considered themselves unbelievers, but I can't find the article on that.

[Aidan]

My wife is a Buddhist meaning atheistic humanist. She belongs to a militant Japanese sect whose aim is to convert people. She is having a great amount of success because people in Britain, nice and polite as they generally are, are not Christians. Her converts are nearly all Catholics and Anglicans who have left there childhood beliefs with no twinge of regret.

Further, both my mother and father, unchurched Anglicans, died with no signs of repentance or appealing to God's mercy.

Further, the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph are both old fogey papers that like to talk about decline in all sorts of areas. Christians, according to their lights, would be three wheeler ones. There is a decline among those.

If I am a Christian then Britain isn't as a whole.

[Jetavan]

My wife is a Buddhist meaning atheistic humanist. She belongs to a militant Japanese sect whose aim is to convert people. She is having a great amount of success because people in Britain, nice and polite as they generally are, are not Christians. Her converts are nearly all Catholics and Anglicans who have left there childhood beliefs with no twinge of regret.

Further, both my mother and father, unchurched Anglicans, died with no signs of repentance or appealing to God's mercy.

Further, the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph are both old fogey papers that like to talk about decline in all sorts of areas. Christians, according to their lights, would be three wheeler ones. There is a decline among those.

If I am a Christian then Britain isn't as a whole.

Did your wife convert to Buddhism?

[Aidan]

My wife is a Buddhist meaning atheistic humanist. She belongs to a militant Japanese sect whose aim is to convert people. She is having a great amount of success because people in Britain, nice and polite as they generally are, are not Christians. Her converts are nearly all Catholics and Anglicans who have left there childhood beliefs with no twinge of regret.

Further, both my mother and father, unchurched Anglicans, died with no signs of repentance or appealing to God's mercy.

Further, the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph are both old fogey papers that like to talk about decline in all sorts of areas. Christians, according to their lights, would be three wheeler ones. There is a decline among those.

If I am a Christian then Britain isn't as a whole.

Did your wife convert to Buddhism?







It's along syory, but she did, 24 years ago

[Aidan]

Sorry, I didn't get the quote thing right.

Yes, she did convert 24 years ago. Three of my daughters joined her plus several friends and neighbours.

[sainthieu]

Natura abhorret a vacua.

[TryingtoConvert]

It's really interesting that the couple apparently has "traditional Christian views" on homosexuality which means that they would raise children to be bigoted against homosexuals.

Also, it kills me when people talk about Western civilization being based on Christianity, but dont' acknowledge that being the case in large part because throughout history Christians purged, subjugated or wiped out all opposition.

[Stephen St. Pierre]

 
It had to do with them being homophobes.

What does that even mean? The parents are scared of queers? What a stupid word!

There's a very real chance that one of the children they adopt could be queer, and if thats the case then these guys would present a real threat to those children.

How is telling them the truth a threat?

The only way religion intersects this is the judges noting that religion is no excuse. That they have fostered nearly 20 kids, means statistically at least 1 or 2 of them have been greatly harmed by this. That's 1 or 2 too many, and it would be gross neglect to allow this potential to continue.

So what you're saying agrees with these retarded anti-Christian judges! Christians shouldn't be allowed to raise kids on the off-chance that one of them might be queer?

Its a wonderful outcome. Bigots should not be rewarded with responsibility unless they are prepared to seek treatment for their bigotry.

We don't allow racists (I hope, I'd be shocked if we do) to raise foster kids, why apply a different standard to homophobes who can be just as harmful to sexuality questioning children (I'm serious, homophobia is one of the major motors behind teen suicide. This stuff screws with kids heads)

Wow. So ^ this ^ is Orthodox Christianity you think?

[orthonorm]

Natura abhorret a vacua.

srsly? She must hate that post then. And if you are going to post cliches in languages you think will make them seem more insightful, check your facility in the language first.

[orthonorm]

Its a wonderful outcome. Bigots should not be rewarded with responsibility unless they are prepared to seek treatment for their bigotry.

We don't allow racists (I hope, I'd be shocked if we do) to raise foster kids, why apply a different standard to homophobes who can be just as harmful to sexuality questioning children (I'm serious, homophobia is one of the major motors behind teen suicide. This stuff screws with kids heads)

Wow. So ^ this ^ is Orthodox Christianity you think?

You think placing children in situations which could increase their vulnerability to suicide is?

And I don't see anywhere Aposphet says that statement is some Patristic doctrine.

He is posing a question that is not without merit, if you care for the mental health of children I suppose.

Arguing on the facts or opinion pointed out would be more helpful, than making statements which nature evidently abhors.

[Stephen St. Pierre]

Its a wonderful outcome. Bigots should not be rewarded with responsibility unless they are prepared to seek treatment for their bigotry.

We don't allow racists (I hope, I'd be shocked if we do) to raise foster kids, why apply a different standard to homophobes who can be just as harmful to sexuality questioning children (I'm serious, homophobia is one of the major motors behind teen suicide. This stuff screws with kids heads)

Wow. So ^ this ^ is Orthodox Christianity you think?

You think placing children in situations which could increase their vulnerability to suicide is?

And I don't see anywhere Aposphet says that statement is some Patristic doctrine.

He is posing a question that is not without merit, if you care for the mental health of children I suppose.

Arguing on the facts or opinion pointed out would be more helpful, than making statements which nature evidently abhors.

I think it's all a bit of a strawman. All coded language, all anti-Christian in origin.

"Bigot" = Christian. "Homophobe" = Christian. How did the human race manage to get this far being scared of the gays? Why, we just pressured them into killing themselves naturally. What we really need to do is stop the blatant promotion of homosexuality and the assault on Christianity. Can't you see where this is headed?

Abe Foxman says that the New Testament is antisemitic! We're under attack! Stand up for the truth I say. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person." (I Cor 5)

[orthonorm]

I think it's all a bit of a strawman. All coded language, all anti-Christian in origin.

"Bigot" = Christian. "Homophobe" = Christian. How did the human race manage to get this far being scared of the gays? Why, we just pressured them into killing themselves naturally. What we really need to do is stop the blatant promotion of homosexuality and the assault on Christianity. Can't you see where this is headed?

Abe Foxman says that the New Testament is antisemitic! We're under attack! Stand up for the truth I say. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person." (I Cor 5)

Sorry, I didn't get the new Christian decoder ring in my box of Cracker Jacks.

You ain't getting fed to the lions, lighten up.

Thanks for the laughs.

[Father Peter]

This couple fostered young children. The % of male population who consider themselves homosexual is 1%. The chance of a 5 year old deciding it is homosexual in this family's care is nil.

Most people in Britain do not consider homosexual practice to be normal, but it is forced down our throats by a media industry which is grossly over-represented by homosexuals (This is a fact). It is impossible to have a TV programme without homosexuals in it, even though they represent a noisy tiny minority. Most British people adopt a 'what goes on in your house is your business' point of view. This is not what the homosexual lobby wants.

Indeed I recently read a political commentary by a homosexual who insisted that heterosexual marriage was depravity.

Such is the aim of political homosexuality. But the pendulum is swinging in Britain. People do actually know what is normal, traditional and Christian. 71% still consider themselves Christian in some sense. Most people do not want those engaging in homosexual acts to be penalised, but they don't want such acts to be taught as normal to their children either.

This is not a 'fear of the same', it is a straightforward and reasonable rejection of homosexual practice.

[Jharek Carnelian]

Why, we just pressured them into killing themselves naturally.

Ah righto so now suicide is 'natural' for certain classes of people...

[Stephen St. Pierre]

Sorry, I didn't get the new Christian decoder ring in my box of Cracker Jacks.

You ain't getting fed to the lions, lighten up.

Thanks for the laughs.

(HINT) The decoder ring is in the Bible.

I would rather be fed to lions than have to watch the slow-motion destruction of the truth and of Christian culture.

It's not funny. Not even a little bit.

Ah righto so now suicide is 'natural' for certain classes of people...

Really? Come on!

"Why, we just pressured them into killing themselves naturally." = SARCASM

Peter Farrington,

Thank you for your reality-based input and analysis.  Their clear message is that homosexuality is ACCEPTABLE. The Bible says otherwise. But if you point that out, then their narrative labels you a "Hater" and a "Homophobe" and a "Bigot". It's ridonkulous.

Houston, we have a problem here.

[Margaret S.]

This couple fostered young children. The % of male population who consider themselves homosexual is 1%. The chance of a 5 year old deciding it is homosexual in this family's care is nil.

Most people in Britain do not consider homosexual practice to be normal, but it is forced down our throats by a media industry which is grossly over-represented by homosexuals (This is a fact). It is impossible to have a TV programme without homosexuals in it, even though they represent a noisy tiny minority. Most British people adopt a 'what goes on in your house is your business' point of view. This is not what the homosexual lobby wants.

Father Peter,
Your blessing.

Thankyou.

[Jharek Carnelian]

(HINT) The decoder ring is in the Bible.

Right that's it. I'm taking my KJV| and Douay-Rheims and other translations back to the bookshop as they forgot to put the ring in. Or was it a time limited offer or only available with a certain edition?

[Robb]

I have a question, actually: Are there any actual completely secular states? As in, states where God isn't mentioned anywhere in the government documents, currency, buildings, anthems, etc? I would imagine some European countries might fit the bill, but I don't know for sure.

France.

Mexico too (I think). 

[Stephen St. Pierre]

(HINT) The decoder ring is in the Bible.

Right that's it. I'm taking my KJV| and Douay-Rheims and other translations back to the bookshop as they forgot to put the ring in. Or was it a time limited offer or only available with a certain edition?

[Jharek Carnelian]

Oh quite possibly. To reference a certain ursine anthromorphic character I am a bear of remarkably little brain. However I would think you might help us out by explaining where this ring is to be found, perhaps it's the ring of Solomon, but that's a part of folklore after all.

[Stephen St. Pierre]

Oh quite possibly. To reference a certain ursine anthromorphic character I am a bear of remarkably little brain. However I would think you might help us out by explaining where this ring is to be found, perhaps it's the ring of Solomon, but that's a part of folklore after all.

Get over it my friend.

[Jharek Carnelian]

Is this part of the secret code? Do I need to substitute letters to break this code or transpose them using numerical codes? This cipher is very difficult I see.

[Andrew Crook]

I think everyone who's been paying attention to the increased secularization of western Europe has seen this coming.  It's odd that after the fall of communism, Eastern Europe only strengthened it's faith in Christianity.  Western Europe however seems to be slowly eroding, perhaps this is just because of the faulty premises of "Western" Christianity?  People are educated in the discipline of scholasticism somehow thinking they can reconcile faith and reason, which I personally am of the opinion that this laid the foundation for all of the rampant agnosticism, and atheism.  Most people aren't able to hold up the arguments that were originally used by the thinkers of the Roman Catholic world like Thomas Aquinas, etc..

[Stephen St. Pierre]

I think everyone who's been paying attention to the increased secularization of western Europe has seen this coming.  It's odd that after the fall of communism, Eastern Europe only strengthened it's faith in Christianity.  Western Europe however seems to be slowly eroding, perhaps this is just because of the faulty premises of "Western" Christianity?  People are educated in the discipline of scholasticism somehow thinking they can reconcile faith and reason, which I personally am of the opinion that this laid the foundation for all of the rampant agnosticism, and atheism.  Most people aren't able to hold up the arguments that were originally used by the thinkers of the Roman Catholic world like Thomas Aquinas, etc..

Well said. Thanks for bringing us back on track.

Personally I believe that faith and reason can indeed be reconciled but one has to begin with the correct (Orthodox) hermeneutic otherwise the end result is almost inevitable, as we see all around us. Let us therefore now look to the East!

[Iconodule]

Let mods arise and let the SaintIaint sockpuppets be scattered.

[Jharek Carnelian]

You're so cynical iconodude. Haven't you considered the possibility of synchronous evolution of styles?.......vaninshingly small as it might be...

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Britain is no longer Christian