Should women be ordained

No problem, Lion - I've had a few too many close shaves and known too many people who had closer ones to be able to view that post as very funny. Now I know you're not serious I don't hold it against you.

Ultima... Well, how would you guys feel about some of the New York jokes I was hearing about a year ago? Some of 'em doing the rounds the same afternoon I watched the Twin Towers come down... Humour is subjective...

Eon
 
personally i think the two towers incedent was one of the best things to happen to the country because it gave the country its resounding wake up call it had been needing for years. i think i was one of the few who saw the Twins fall and didnt cry or get all in upheval, i just say it was a wake up call for the world and to God. and i asked God to use this to his glory, may be wrong and quote "evil" of me to think this but it is my personal view. i feel sorry for the family and my sympathy is with them.
 
The problem is that the Twin Towers are now being used as some kind of justification for a pre-emptive approach to military problem solving.

Eon
 
what's wrong with pre-emptive military problem solving?


The western democracies have got to realize that their current approach to dealing with terrorism is failing. Appeasements and giving them what they want, does not work. When you get down to it, noone is ever safe from terrorist actions as long as they know they can scare themselves results.
 
I have no problem with Military problem solving, I just think it should be confined to actual problems rather than potential ones.

Pre-emptive foreign policy is like going around beating up on small children because you're worried that they might grow up and threaten you.
 
Eon: the jokes wouldn't hurt me. After all, sticks blah blah may blah blah but blah blah. Right? The Two Towers are history. now that they're rebuilding them, I give us a couple years before it's bombed out from the interior this time.
If our military actually acted on major probs, America would be the god of the world. All would bow before us. Korea would be a nonexistent smudge on the edge of the pinwheel galaxy. Saddam would be vapor for us to breathe. All would be the USA. Even great England, because England's monarchs sucked bad. ALways getting knocked off, especially thanks to your great Anne Marie, George III, Henry lines and on and on straight into our great Tudor period. Craptastic.
 
Anne Marie? If you're referring to the "Let them eat cake" queen - she was French.

Personally I like the idea of a Monarchy - ever since politicians worked out that in order to get elected all they really need is a cause du jour and tanker loads of money, politics has been in the hands of EVERYONE except the people.

If it's a choice between the corporations or a monarchy - I'll take the monarchy. In addition to which we've actually had some VERY decent monarchs. Henry VIIIth was good, Elizabeth was excellent, Henry Vth, Victoria ruled the world...

Eon
 
Compared to how many who failed miserably?
I was thinking Anne Boelin, I wrote Anne Marie. Anne was Henry's wife, I believe, whom he wanted divorced, just because he didn't like the whole craptastic thing of her not bearing a boy, and only one that died, Arthur.
It's thanks to awesome pairs like Henry VIIIths, Anne Marie, the Frenchie, George III, that your country suffered so much turmoil.
What, Henry inadvertently caused the burning of some few Protestants thanks to his own great Thomas More, Catholic to the core. Oo. That's a good rhyme. And then the slaughter of the Protestants by Anne.
Elizabeth was an excellent, intelligent queen. BUt far too wimpish to deal with many major problems, and her lust for her own Sea Dog captain kept a lot from happening. Affairs of state, eh? Victoria was great, but let's look at today, and then Tudor. Who's on the throne now? I figured they all would have dropped dead by now. Charles, Chuck, Chimp and the mom. It really IS just Parliament running the country. Your monarchs are nothign more than a template for the Parliament. Really. That's what they are. The power comes from the Parliament.
 
Is it true thst the speaker of the house in Brittain is not allowed to speak?
tounge.gif
 
Thanks for the opinion Ultima - it staggers me how somebody could manage to cover such a breadth of topics in such a small space whilst comprehensively demonstrating a total absence of knowledge regarding them. But still - it's your opinion and you're entitled to it...

You should be happy with Elizabeth and Henry VIIIth - between them they sowed the seeds for the collapse of the Catholic primacy over Europe, and therefore the world. Without those two great Monarchs there would have been NO protestant reformation, and the Pope might be playing stupid political games that decide the fate of nations even now.

Go and do some READING about Elizabeth if you think she was a wimp. What she did was roughly equivalent to making a country like Mexico into a Superpower equivalent to the USA or USSR. And this whilst suffering from the handicap of being a woman! When you bear in mind that your country STILL won't elect a female president or even vice-president, that should give you some perspective. The last thing you can accuse her of is being wimpy!

Eon
 
Absence of intellect? It is merely an opinion of a monarch. It is excellent that the Catholic hold on the known world at the time was abolished and replaced...but not with a State Church, which is an oximoron. The Anglican Church was not the best substitute.
To protest it all, we had some thinkers, starting with our great German meister, Luther! Following his footsteps was the English Tyndale. And Tyndale was stalked and burned. Awesome fate for a Christian "heretic."
So, uh, minus Elizabeth and Victoria...we can pass the great killer of his wives because he separated Church and State? And how about the current rulers?
 
I never said you displayed an absence of intellect, I said you displayed an absence of KNOWLEDGE on the subjects you mentioned.

And whilst you may claim that the Anglican church was not the best substitute, you have to agree that a church allied to a strong state was the only one that the Catholics couldn't manage to put to fire or sword. From entirely secular beginnings came the religious freedom that you value so highly - and it couldn't have happened without a string of rather strong monarchs, who managed to hold off the Papists whilst building the largest land empire that the world has ever known, and probably WILL ever know.

Here... Read this...

Kings and Queens of England and Britain

It's a potted history of each Kings reigns - the good ones, the bad ones and the ones inbetween. If, after reading it, you still don't understand what a Monarch is for in this country, we'll talk further.

Eon
 
Heh. Thanks for the history lesson dude. I'll be sure to actually use it in my knowledge. You still haven't told me of your general opinion of your today monarchs, though...from the great Princess Diana (not English) to the great Queen Elizabeth of today and her great sons, Chuck and Chimp.
 
Hmmmm.... Lesseee....

No Monarch has ever lived under such scrutiny, that's for sure. Royals are strange people, as people, because they don't live a normal life, don't have a normal upbringing and have an unusual set of circumstances put upon them. If the jobs being done properly, then it isn't really a job that I'd want at all, to be honest - it comes at the price of subjugating your personal self UTTERLY to the needs of the state that you are the head of.

I think you can say that Her Majesty has certainly done that.

As for the new crop? Well, I don't rate His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, particularly. I think that's who you're referrin to as Chuck. Charles is a particularly inauspicious name for a monarch - if you check the list I gave you ealier you'll see that. I personally don't know if he has the "right stuff" but we'll find out, I suppose.

His Royal Highness the Duke of York is a different matter. I personally rate Prince Andrew, because during the Falkland Islands conflict he was actually serving as a helicopter pilot in the Navy. He disobeyed a direct order, flew into a hilltop under fire and extracted a bunch of guys from a hot LZ. That takes balls... A LOT more balls than any of your recent Presidents have displayed. Let's be honest, pretty much ALL your recent Presidents have shown their TRUE worth by rabbitting when their country called.

His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh is what I've come to expect from the third son of Royalty. Everybody focusses on the "Heir and the Spare" that is the Heir apparent and the next in line after him. A third son comes a VERY distant third in a Royal household, so no wonder he turned out to be a bit of misfit. Possibly gay, even. Who knows.

I'm not sure which of the last two you meant by "chimp" - again, I think you might be confused with George Bush who looks more like a chimpanzee than his father did. As has been pointed out in less than flattering terms recently and often.

Diana? I thought she was a social butterfly and a bit of a lightweight, and I was constantly tempted to ask her what the bloody hell she expected when she signed up for the job. As much as I regret her tragic death, I am relieved she will never ascend the throne as Queen. That would have been a TRUE disaster - since I doubt she was capable of attendin to the unpopular necesseties of ruling as opposed to whichever popular "warm and fuzzy" issue was flavour of the month.

I understand she was one of the worst Royals to have as your honorary CO. Princess Anne, apparently, was a very good honorary CO and often went into bat for her regiments during budget cuts. Prince Philip (The Queen's consort) is apparently a good honorary Regimental CO as well, I understand Charles is ineffectual. That's pretty much all I know.


Eon
 
this is just to make this Topic really long but a good discussion will start


Freewill


who says that we have free will now?

maybe our freewill was when God had us in the garden and we CHOOSE to eat the fruit and now we are servents to Him but sum of us dont like it and rebell and will not except that he is God because of Pride


Just a thought hehe
 
Maybe... Maybe some of us won't accept it because it's so bloody implausible, and nobody seems to be able to put together a convincing argument in defence of the concept?

Eon
 
Question Eon: if the great Brits are so....uh, great, I'm scratching my head right now in question to one slight little place called Gruinard Island...what happened there? Even in America we have it in a fort. All screwed up with anthrax. But you....you guys screwed up a whole island! What happened?!
As to free will....don't start this dude. Please don't. Here's a poser for you: were you predestined to write that post? Or did you choose to? Bwahahahahaha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top