General synod.....

[R1Geezer]

On news 24 this morning I'm sure I heard that the synod is the only place other than parliament where laws are made, this horrified me slightly before I though, well there must be limits or we'd all be going to church on Sundays by law. So exactly what laws can they enact?

[DTCwordfan]

So Mike you are pretty well gemmed up on your history, does Canon Law apply just to Church property, churchyards and clergy/standards/behaviour/discipline or there are other areas they can dabble in - I presume one has to add Church process re format and content as to major ticket tems.....

[naomi24]

DT, Yes, and the discussion has moved on since your initial input, and will no doubt move on again later. In fact I would like to see it go on to address the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords. However, back to now. Impertinent is rather a lofty term, but it appears to suit your penchant for rudeness and your impudence in presuming to tell other people what they may or may not discuss here. If you don't like the subject under discussion you are not obliged to contribute.

Steg, neither ritual burials nor the presence of life on this planet qualify as evidence for the existence of a supernatural god.

Dinner time. Bye.

[modeller]

steg
The Inqusitions lasted from 1184 to 1833 and then they changed its name . The present Pope was its head until they gave him another job. During 1184-1833, 68 million people were put to death.
steg # if the church made all laws, then i bet the country/world would be a much safer and probably better place to live #
When the Inquisition was set up in France half the population were tortured and put to death over a period of 20 years. They only stopped/ slowed then because they were running out of victims. It was Napolian who finally closed it down in France . The Church has used brutality to enforce its rules throughout history . I suggest you read up the history of the Holy Roman Empire before making ridiculous remarks.

[mike11111]

The Synod cannot enact laws. It may propose them, but they still have to be sanctioned by parliament.

[steg]

may be according to you naomi, but probably about 90%+ of all humans that ever walked the earth would disagree with you

modeller,
R1Geezer
Question Author
yeah like the spanish inquisition, perlease!

the Spanish Inquisition: started in 1478

[steg]

modeller you should read the thread better before spouting off

[NazNomad]

"may be according to you naomi, but probably about 90%+ of all humans that ever walked the earth would disagree with you "


So who's wrong? ... Disagreement doesn't mean proof, does it?

[DTCwordfan]

Just had dinner here - well main course. Desert later.

Of course threads move, naomi.......however, it is evident from other posts that you do not believe.

However, what I object to is that you do seem to like to hector and, badger folk - wit your October thread on faith where you were badgering folk to say yes or no to a very hypothetical question and one which has no solution - the compromise being the Likelier than Not concept which allows a balance in law and in debate - the position in that debate that it is "likelier than not" that there is not an after life, but supporters of the "faith"would say the opposite.

I do not mind constructive debate but your is one that is not debate or consideration - you come across as being very polar in your views - I do not see any instances of "you raise a very good point, however," or "I welcome that view and will reflect on it"

Then we have your very personal attack - I am going to take a holier than thou position to this and not descend further into this - it is not a subject for here. I will accept that I can be cynical/satirical but hopefully I have been able to give relevant and pertinent info and opinions to various folk.

So, in summary, I propose that we should agree to disagree and that obviously I am not your cup of tea, and you are not mine. Who knows there may be some issues out there we do agree on. Hopefully you have had a good dinner and maybe even a glass of wine......back to mine.

[steg]

disagreement? lol i think the 90%+ had enough proof,................ they bet there lives on it

[NazNomad]

Steg, that's exactly the type of answer I expected ... so in true 'Dragon's Den' fashion ... I'm out.

[steg]

oops, their ( think i may of gotten away with it Shhh dinea say anything lol)

[steg]

lol Naz..... if you asked me if i believed in god, i would have to say i don't honestly know

[steg]

if there is a god/gods (if there is one then there is a good chance there may be more) though, i bet what happens in life is meaningless, it is probably all about death, as it is the only guarantee we all have

[naomi24]

Oo-er.... incoherent ramblings. Pity. That could have been a good discussion.

Incidentally, DT, even though your game plan is proven once again to be one of shooting the messenger rather than addressing the issue with intelligent and rational debate, I think you mean dessert - or even pudding. :o)

[R1Geezer]

Well I seem to have attracted a pro god squad loony! All I was saying with the spanish inquisition comment was that if religion made all the laws it'd be like sharia but in what ever set of fairy tales you prefer.

[naomi24]

Yep!! :o/

[steg]

are you calling me a god squad loony, Geezer?

[R1Geezer]

I'll take the 5th on that one!

[steg]

what a guy...... pmsl

[Quizmonster]

It may be worth pointing out that all Church of England bishops are automatically members of the House of Lords. Consequently, as members of the synod, they DO have an impact on general law in Britain as well as canon law. Neither the Moderator of the Kirk of Scotland nor any of his ranking colleagues has such a right. Why? The C of E is merely the "established church" in England, not Britain.