Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

'Lord’s Prayer opening may be ‘problematic'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • eider
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    I recall watching a documentary that showed just how badly the cast was treated [and paid] for those Carry On films. There are some classic moments though and my two favourites lines are from Williams as Citizen Camembert in Carry On Don't Lose Your Head" with his "Allez to Calais" and his "Infamy Infamy they've all got it in for me" as Julius Caesar from Carry on Cleo.


    The family has been dysfunctional for generations. The only person that married into it that showed some humanity was Diana. I was always struck by the footage of Charles aged around 5 waiting in line to shake his Mama's hand on her return from some globetrotting event and Diana on her return from some foreign visit rushing up to her two boys and engulfing them in her arms and hugging them. William used to be quite attractive when he was a teen/early twenties with a distinct look of his mother, but those Hanoverian genes have certainly kicked in.
    Well.......... a mess indeed. After Edward VIII (and those recent shocking reports) the whole history has been clouded, apart from Elizabeth who was outstanding. When World leaders were travelling out behind bullet resistant panels and glazing she was riding high on horseback in public, wearing bright colours. In the early reign her visit to Kenya was absolute gallantry. She was brave.....very brave.

    Leave a comment:


  • eider
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    They do present as being pretty much place holders. I was kind of hoping (forlorn hope) that Charles would either forego the crown or abdicate in favour of William.
    Snap........ That might give the Crown a chance.
    I don't think that Charles cares about the Crown, just about Charles.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by eider View Post
    I didn't know that KW had committed suicide. So many of the 'Carry on...' crew had such dreadful personal difficulties and problems. Some were just nasty in their private lives.
    I once thought that the caste of Dad's Army must have been brilliant together, but they couldn't stand one another, one documentary explained. They gathered, shot show/s and departed.
    I recall watching a documentary that showed just how badly the cast was treated [and paid] for those Carry On films. There are some classic moments though and my two favourites lines are from Williams as Citizen Camembert in Carry On Don't Lose Your Head" with his "Allez to Calais" and his "Infamy Infamy they've all got it in for me" as Julius Caesar from Carry on Cleo.

    Originally posted by eider View Post
    I feel sad for Charles in some ways, his totally destructive school experiences and ways in which his father pushed him where he didn't fit, but when he clutched to the crown it was clear that he didn't care so much for the monarchy, more for himself. William and Kate might save something of the monarchy, but Charles and Camilla?....
    The family has been dysfunctional for generations. The only person that married into it that showed some humanity was Diana. I was always struck by the footage of Charles aged around 5 waiting in line to shake his Mama's hand on her return from some globetrotting event and Diana on her return from some foreign visit rushing up to her two boys and engulfing them in her arms and hugging them. William used to be quite attractive when he was a teen/early twenties with a distinct look of his mother, but those Hanoverian genes have certainly kicked in.
    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 09-22-2023, 12:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    They do present as being pretty much place holders. I was kind of hoping (forlorn hope) that Charles would either forego the crown or abdicate in favour of William.
    His popularity has been bouncing around in the mid to low 60s FWICT. Numbers that many politicians over here would be jealous of.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Oh I think Cleese has completely fallen off his perch - rather like his Norwegian Blue! But he has suffered from psychological issues for some decades.
    Only thing I ever heard along those lines is that he admits he has problem dealing with wimmenfolk in a relationship which he has blamed on his mother.


    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by eider View Post
    William and Kate might save something of the monarchy, but Charles and Camilla?....
    They do present as being pretty much place holders. I was kind of hoping (forlorn hope) that Charles would either forego the crown or abdicate in favour of William.

    Leave a comment:


  • eider
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    As is sometimes the way with comedians he has psychological problems. Robin Williams was a brilliant comedian but suffered from depression. The British comedian Kenneth Williams was a superb comedian and raconteur but was a deeply troubled individual and both men committed suicide.
    I didn't know that KW had committed suicide. So many of the 'Carry on...' crew had such dreadful personal difficulties and problems. Some were just nasty in their private lives.
    I once thought that the caste of Dad's Army must have been brilliant together, but they couldn't stand one another, one documentary explained. They gathered, shot show/s and departed.

    Reading Private Eye your present monarch is not exactly exerting himself or making any kind of "splash" with his new reign. I think you are right and many people feel that with the old Queen gone the regime has lost something and the reign of Charles III is just the "fag end" of the reign of Elizabeth II. However, I do not suppose he will refuse his 45% "wage increase" courtesy of the British tax payer.
    I feel sad for Charles in some ways, his totally destructive school experiences and ways in which his father pushed him where he didn't fit, but when he clutched to the crown it was clear that he didn't care so much for the monarchy, more for himself. William and Kate might save something of the monarchy, but Charles and Camilla?....

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by eider View Post
    He's made his fortune and fame, so let's hope that he can afford any medicine that he may need.
    I enjoy comedy but I find a vein of 'nasty' in those who set out to hurt with their humour.
    Cleese's film 'Clockwise' was great fun, but his nasty reduction of other folks showed that he was a true carnivore.
    As is sometimes the way with comedians he has psychological problems. Robin Williams was a brilliant comedian but suffered from depression. The British comedian Kenneth Williams was a superb comedian and raconteur but was a deeply troubled individual and both men committed suicide.

    Originally posted by eider View Post
    People can be so wicked. If the monarchy reduces (which it might do now) then maybe the Church could be removed from anything to do with government?
    My support for the monarchy dwindled with the passing of Elizabeth, and I think that has happened to many people here.
    Reading Private Eye your present monarch is not exactly exerting himself or making any kind of "splash" with his new reign. I think you are right and many people feel that with the old Queen gone the regime has lost something and the reign of Charles III is just the "fag end" of the reign of Elizabeth II. However, I do not suppose he will refuse his 45% "wage increase" courtesy of the British tax payer.

    Leave a comment:


  • eider
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    Oh I think Cleese has completely fallen off his perch - rather like his Norwegian Blue! But he has suffered from psychological issues for some decades.
    He's made his fortune and fame, so let's hope that he can afford any medicine that he may need.
    I enjoy comedy but I find a vein of 'nasty' in those who set out to hurt with their humour.
    Cleese's film 'Clockwise' was great fun, but his nasty reduction of other folks showed that he was a true carnivore.

    As for the CoE and the Christian religion generally, one only has to read the history of the Christian church once it was granted toleration in the early fourth century to see how quickly it succumbed to "Mammon" and the desire for power. The internecine factionalism among ecclesiastical prelates vying with one another for patronage and ascendancy both within the confines of the church and with the secular [imperial] authorities would bear comparison with any half-decent US drama/soap opera. Many of those prelates could have taught the Roys of Succession of the Carringtons of Dynasty a thing or two.
    People can be so wicked. If the monarchy reduces (which it might do now) then maybe the Church could be removed from anything to do with government?
    My support for the monarchy dwindled with the passing of Elizabeth, and I think that has happened to many people here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    The dissenters were removed (or in the case of the fourth and fifth councils particularly, thoroughly cowed into submission) - the vast majority of the people remaining were in agreement.- which means that there was a consensus.
    That was the only way the orthodoxy could be enforced. Believe it or else.

    Although we can never know how many in those early centuries merely paid lip service to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    There was no consensus "from Nicae" i.e. the First Council, concerning the "doctrines" believed to be in accordance with "the teachings of Christ". Do read up on the history of your religion. Comments like that serve to illustrate your ignorance.

    For the more prominent it was usually exile and texts destroyed. However, decisions determining which orthodoxy should be applied were ultimately derived from the secular authorities [i.e. the various Emperors] influenced by the particular ecclesiastical party that was in the ascendancy at any given time.
    The dissenters were removed (or in the case of the fourth and fifth councils particularly, thoroughly cowed into submission) - the vast majority of the people remaining were in agreement.- which means that there was a consensus.
    Last edited by tabibito; 09-21-2023, 07:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    "Consensus has it" refers to the current consensus, otherwise, "consensus had it" would have been the appropriate phrasing.
    That is debatable concerning "doctrines in accord with the teachings of Christ.". Which teachings from the gospels are you going with?

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    However, from Nicea and later, there was consensus,
    There was no consensus "from Nicae" i.e. the First Council, concerning the "doctrines" believed to be in accordance with "the teachings of Christ". Do read up on the history of your religion. Comments like that serve to illustrate your ignorance.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    if only because dissenters were cancelled, often by the most final means possible.
    For the more prominent it was usually exile and texts destroyed. However, decisions determining which orthodoxy should be applied were ultimately derived from the secular authorities [i.e. the various Emperors] influenced by the particular ecclesiastical party that was in the ascendancy at any given time.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Given the schisms and squabbles [often violent] within the early church how do you arrive at the conclusion there was "Consensus"? Do explain.
    "Consensus has it" refers to the current consensus, otherwise, "consensus had it" would have been the appropriate phrasing. However, from Nicea and later, there was consensus, if only because dissenters were cancelled, often by the most final means possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    And yet


    Consensus has it that those same men had what it took to rightly divide the scriptures and establish doctrines in accord with the teachings of Christ. Mind-boggling.
    Given the schisms and squabbles [often violent] within the early church how do you arrive at the conclusion there was "Consensus"? Do explain.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    As for the CoE and the Christian religion generally, one only has to read the history of the Christian church once it was granted toleration in the early fourth century to see how quickly it succumbed to "Mammon" and the desire for power. The internecine factionalism among ecclesiastical prelates vying with one another for patronage and ascendancy both within the confines of the church and with the secular [imperial] authorities would bear comparison with any half-decent US drama/soap opera. Many of those prelates could have taught the Roys of Succession of the Carringtons of Dynasty a thing or two.
    And yet


    Consensus has it that those same men had what it took to rightly divide the scriptures and establish doctrines in accord with the teachings of Christ. Mind-boggling.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by JimL, 07-09-2024, 10:33 PM
192 responses
940 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
78 responses
406 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
27 responses
149 views
0 likes
Last Post Cow Poke  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
82 responses
486 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
156 responses
652 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X