Feedback on the above article:
Peter Carr (01/03/2011 16:26)
1 The fool[a] says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
2 The LORD looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Martin Lisemore (01/03/2011 16:53) Well, that statement from the judges puts us all in our place. But are they not under oath of office also?
I can only put my thoughts with Peter's scripture. How can this nation hope to be prosperous under a Holy God if it's institutions deny Him in their practices?
Alec (Guest) (01/03/2011 17:32)
From the footnote to the article:
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God
There are a couple of questions here that need to be addressed.
1) What "power" does the Queen actually have? Surely it is purely symbolic - the real power lies with the Government of the day. OK, I know the Queen can actually refuse to sign any given Act of Parliament but that would create a constitutional crisis.
2) What does the "Laws of God" refer to? Which laws? Every one of the Old Testament ones? Or are we back to that old 3 fold division thing, with only the "Moral Law" applying, unless one advocates theonomy?
Are these "Laws of God" defined anywhere?
This type of thing opens up a huge can of worms.
RF (Guest) (01/03/2011 17:36)
ML When has this country ever been prosperous [using that word however you like] under a holy God?
I will come back asap on an earlier query concerning another discussion point located elsewhere on site.
Martin Lisemore (01/03/2011 17:42)
Roland, I said, 'hope to be prosperous.'
And in Biblical terms that doesn't necessarily mean rich in money or assets, but that were have prosperity in what we undertake as a God fearing nation.
RF (Guest) (01/03/2011 20:08)
Thank you for the clarification. It seems reasonable to assume that you believe that up to now the country has not achieved prosperity [financial or otherwise] under a holy God;if that is your view I agree with you. I agree with you - that is right - you read it here; mind you it took some getting out; it was a bit like struggling to extract a fish bone lodged in my throat.
Bill Mackay (Guest) (01/03/2011 22:14)
Alex siad "This type of thing opens up a huge can of worms."
Only for those who strain out gnats and swallow camels and who are hung up with semantics. the oath was written many years ago. For God's "LAWS" just substitute "ordinances" or "statutes" or "pattern for living" or "whatever word suits the context" and you should be OK.
Arguing about the 'letter of the law' is for legalists who want to sidestep the spirit of the law.
Alec (Guest) (02/03/2011 09:27)
"For God's "LAWS" just substitute "ordinances" or "statutes" or "pattern for living" or "whatever word suits the context" and you should be OK."
The problem is, those expressions are so malleable as to be meaningless
The Queen takes an Oath and vows to uphold certain things. The things being upheld need to be clearly defined within a particular frame of reference, otherwise, you could have a situation where it becomes open to a legal challenge.
Personally I would like to see complete separation of Church and State - it is much neater and tidier and for an example, religious liberites in America havent doen too badly from it.
And there was no problem in JFK being a catholic either!
The idea that the UK is a "christian country" is nonsense - that idea went down the tubes a long time ago. Most people who tick "christian" in the census form do so for cultural reasons, not becasue they wake up each day and think "I know that my Redeemer liveth"
Much of the archaic nonsense about cornoation oaths and so on is a throwback to the Jacobite era
AndreaM (Guest) (02/03/2011 14:05) "The idea that the UK is a "christian country" is nonsense - that idea went down the tubes a long time ago."
Quickly followed by the country itself. Can anyone, Christian or otherwise, honestly say the UK is a better, safer, more moral place to live than it was, say, 20 to 30 years ago? Every few days we are hearing of another parent murdering their child that it's barely news now.
You are right, Alec, that many people tick 'Christian' just because they aren't any of the other options but our country is definitely not better off for having rejected Christianity. We are never left with a vacuum - some other influence will come in and fill the gap and it may be something far, far worse than what some people consider Christianity to be.
Martin Lisemore (02/03/2011 14:28)
I agree with you - that is right - you read it here;
Roland. I could love you for that! But I won't!
Sorry I couldn't reply earlier, my server went wrong, and internet connections failed.
© 2013 Christians Together
High Accessibility Version
Full Graphics Version