Monday, December 19, 2016

Phillip Jensen explains the difference between Cultural Christians and Christian Christians

Phillip Jensen writes...Christmas is the high point of Cultural Christianity. It creates joy and confusion; joy to our culture and confusion to Christians...

Indeed, Cultural Christianity lies at the basis of Australian civil life. .
However, there is such a thing as Christian Christianity – it’s not just a matter of interpretation. Christianity is based in the reality of the Son of God: his incarnation, words and works, crucifixion and resurrection, and promise to return to judge. All this may be false or it may be true – but either way Christian Christianity is committed to the belief and propagation of these ideas.
Cultural Christians don’t have to believe in Jesus to sing carols any more than they have to believe in Santa Clause to sing Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. Christian Christianity is quite different. Christians do believe in Jesus and do know the difference between the historical reality of Jesus and the mythical nonsense of Santa and the reindeer.
Christian Christians can appeal to Cultural Christians to put Christ back into Christmas but it will not make any real difference, they will still be Cultural Christians. However, Christian Christians cannot put Christ back into Christmas because without him they have no Christmas.

Did you get that Bill... Phillip says Christianity is really about being a believer in something that could be false...yet he'll denigrate those who call themselves Christians for believing in the humanity and compassion displayed by Jesus' know...his tolerance and love of mankind...and his elevation of women and (what some branded as) sinners the eyes of God. 

Uggghhhh....I just had an ugly thought....what if Jesus Christ had been someone like Phillip Jensen...stripped of love and compassion for women and gays... only valuing women who behaved the way he wanted them to... allowing them a voice only amongst their own gender....always subservient to a male no matter how mean and nasty and stupid he is...imagine if Jesus had called same-sex attracted people shameful  and had remained silent when members of his faith supported a death penalty to be imposed...someone who promoted discrimination and  segregation...someone who ended, and encouraged others to end fellowship with a same-sex attracted person because he chose love and companionship and God... Calam the concept makes you recoil with repulsion....a mean spirited, rule driven, spiritual Jesus (that in itself is bizarre)... who to this day ...uses his word protect the economic and cultural collateral of  angry straight males...and those who gain secondary benefits...  And maybe ....that's why many people... do choose to be Cultural Christians.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Sydney Anglicans explain how tolerance works when dealing with Keith Mascord and same-sex marriage

Rev. Dr Keith Mascord appears to be the first Anglican casualty of the same-sex marriage debate.
The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Dr Glenn Davies has decided not to renew Rev. Mascord's ministry licence.
Dr Mascord - an outspoken advocate for reform in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney - has told Noel Debien that churches need to give people the freedom to say what they think and believe in the debate about marriage.

You know something least you didn't gag me like them Sydney Anglcans do...but they never let you can always rely on their tunnel vision and self serving hypocrisy...Did you read the article by Raj Gupta titled the Intolerance of Tolerance....ya know when he says...
All I am doing is upholding and defending marriage as it has been understood and embraced for thousands of years. And for that, apparently, I am labelled as a bigot! Really? This is the intolerance of so-called tolerance. And it has progressed – even to the degree of seeking to silence the national debate.
Whether or not Australia has a plebiscite remains to be seen. It would be a chance for the views of the people of multicultural Australia to be expressed.


Monday, February 29, 2016

Sunday, February 21, 2016

"Hey Calamity. I've missed you. Sadly your services here are still required!"

Dear Anonymous. It's flattering that you missed the posts on this blog... but I really believe that Sydney Anglicans are not worth the effort. They have used a literal interpretation of the Bible to push themselves into oblivion. Their only appeal belongs with right wing extremists, and  those from  countries, who  treat women as second class citizens, and gays, as criminals.

Anon, as you point out...even the teachers and girls being taught at Anglican Colleges find their doctrine on male headship offensive... How stupid to charge massive school fees to educate women to metaphorically walk behind, and never question their matter how wrong, incompetent or dumb he is!!!!!!

Students and teachers from some of Sydney's Anglican high schools say they are shocked and angered by remarks made by one of the church's most senior clerics.
Before delivering a speech to year 12 prefects during the Annual Service for Anglican School Leaders on Thursday, Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies faced a series of robust questions from male and female students about the place of women.
In explaining his view that the Bible says men and women have different roles in society and that God intended men to be the "heads" of women, many present believed he was saying women should not aspire to the same career heights as men.

In my opinion...the diocese is a waste of space. As far as I'm concerned the diocese has been built on faulty prejudicial doctrine, which has failed to stand up over time, so the diocese's only way of coping, to use litigation practices, and name calling, to maintain it's prejudicial stance.

And to the other Anon....David Ould gets off on bashing gays. Seriously...he's a man with a big mouth and a massive ego, who has an opinion on everything. He loves gaining notoriety from being divisive, and he cannot understand that his manner is offensive. He  causes anger in those who have been victims of, or witnesses to, prejudicial abuse, and those who have been coerced into silence, through threats of litigation.
From the words of Peter Jensen said the 1980s the culture in the church was a legal one and not a moral one.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Meet the Jensens

Peter Jensen ...a man who didn't know that sexual assault, let alone that threatening a victim with litigation for disclosing the abuse,  held long term damage for the victim 

Mrs Christine Jensen awarded Medal (OAM) of the Order of Australia, “For service to the Anglican Church community in Sydney”, including her many years of encouragement to women of the Moore College family and through Mothers’ Union.... This is a woman who help develop a strategy to sustain gender inequality within the church. She began the Equal but Different group that promoted male headship within the church. This woman was appointed as the head of woman's ministry, by her husband Peter Jensen.

Phillip Jensen, the former Dean who was also appointed during the time of his brother's  reign as Archbishop.. and Phillip's request below...says it all!

Me a Jensen!!!!! ...I may be a self serving right wing extremist...but I'm not financially incompetent!

Former Sydney Anglican Archbishop Jensen says that sexual assault victims have taught him so much!!! He never knew that sexual assault has lasting psychological effects on the victim...especially when the victim discloses and is threatened with litigation...Speaking of litigation...did David Ould post something about this on his blog?

THE former Anglican Archbishop of Sydney has apologised to a victim of sexual abuse and admitted the response of the church to his allegations was wrong.
A witness, given the pseudonym BYC, has told a hearing of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse in Hobart he was abused on multiple occasions by a member of the Church of England Boys’ Society when he was a teenager in Sydney during the late 1970s and 1980s.
Bishop Jensen told the commission the church had failed to deal with the allegations of abuse victims and their aftermath.
“It has been so overwhelming to hear their testimony and to recognise how frequently we failed them,” he said.
“I head what BYC has said about the continued failure and about the way we speak and do not act.
“Again I wish to say to them they have taught me so much.
Bishop Jensen said that in the 1980s the culture in the church was a legal one and not a moral one.
“I believe it was under advice, but I believe it was quite wrong,” he said.
So is that why Robert Tong was given an Order of Australia

BYC’s mother also gave evidence this morning, saying the abuse had ruined her son’s life.
“I had no idea about the abuse while it was occurring,” she said.
She told the commission she met with Archbishop Peter Jensen in 2002 to tell him about her son’s case. The archbishop subsequently apologised to BYC in person.
But she said a church lawyer later warned her that if BYC pursued compensation “the church’s barristers will come out guns blazing and tear strips off you”.
She said the damage caused to her son by the abuse had been compounded by the unsympathetic response and inaction of the church.
Richard Kells worked with CEBS from 1976 and told the commission he made multiple attempts to raise the alarm about Jacobs but was repeatedly rebuffed by church officials.
He said he was ostracised by some members of the St Ives congregation because of his concerns and left the congregation in 1982.
Them parishioners are such nice fine upstanding people Roseanne.
I don't know all sounds pretty abusive to me....It seems like there was a real systemic approach to the abuse of young people, women and gays... all victims of the church's abuse, blacklisting and threats of litigation. ...But how else do you implement God's word!

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Loonpond readers discover Claire Smith and her Sydney Anglican Complementarian views on feminism

 And will Sydney Anglican Complementarian men write to Dorothy and demand an apology?

Dorothy quotes Claire Smith at the Loonpond...If, however, you mean, ‘Is it sexist in that women are inferior to men?’ then it’s not sexist. This is not a statement about worth. It’s a statement about our participation in the congregation and in one limited aspect of what happens in our congregation involving teaching and authority. In fact, not even all teaching, but a particular sort of teaching: the ongoing, authoritative, formal instruction of the congregation. So, it’s saying, ‘Women are to be submissive in that they are not to have a formal teaching role with respect to men in the congregation.’ They are not to engage in that sort of teaching.

...and the readers' responses


  1. Fucking patriachs - all of the one God religions are anti-women. It was when they wrote Lilith - hunter gatherer woman - out of history and replaced her with the gormless Eve - agricultural woman - that the 'original sin' was perpetrated on both men and women.

    From wiki:

    "The idea in the text that Adam had a wife prior to Eve may have developed from an interpretation of the Book of Genesis and its dual creation accounts; while Genesis 2:22 describes God's creation of Eve from Adam's rib, an earlier passage, 1:27, already indicates that a woman had been made: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

    "The Alphabet text places Lilith's creation after God's words in Genesis 2:18 that "it is not good for man to be alone"; in this text God forms Lilith out of the clay from which he made Adam but she and Adam bicker. Lilith claims that since she and Adam were created in the same way they were equal and she refuses to submit to him:[57]

    "The background and purpose of The Alphabet of Ben-Sira is unclear. It is a collection of stories about heroes of the Bible and Talmud, it may have been a collection of folk-tales, a refutation of Christian, Karaite, or other separatist movements; its content seems so offensive to contemporary Jews that it was even suggested that it could be an anti-Jewish satire,[58] although, in any case, the text was accepted by the Jewish mystics of medieval Germany."


    1. Lilith was most probably a Lesbian, Anon. Explains it all.
    2. Crap anon, Lilith would have eaten the snake, made sauce from the apple and given Adam a good time and then she could be a lezzie in her spare time if she felt like it. Only the power of property relations explains the conservative women like Eve who survive the patriarchy by sucking up the blame for everything the alpha Adam man chooses to do, like eating the apple she offered him. What a little boy, dog ate my homework type excuse for making the wrong choice? My mother would have said "and if Adam jumped off the cliff would you follow?".

      But here you go; a real life running dog collaborator Eve on RN this morning - of course on the Tom Switzer program - a dinosaur woman who must be Miranda Divines' heroine and source of her wisdom.

      Christina Hoff Sommers says, "But some commentators warn that today’s modern feminism is a corruption of what feminism should be; that feminism is no longer about freedom, it’s just a lobby group for pet grievances. That it's not so much about emancipation; it’s now reactionary."

      But she is in favour of lezzies, listen and weep.

  2. Hi Dorothy,

    It would appear that nowadays the Liberals have two Saviours in their pantheon, God and Coal.

    The question however is how do the creationists among them explain the formation of coal. Thanks to the intertubes we can wonder no longer;

    A delightful piece of tosh evidently written by a real geologist.



    1. A classic DW, and the pond is eternally grateful, at least until the twelfth of never, for the link.

  3. Thanks Claire Smith. Now I know why Xians don't support SSM: they can't tell who the submissive partner is. And now I know why that is so critical to their whole existence.
    Maybe if we offered to wear labels that would resolve the issue? A dress? HIgh heels? I'd do almost anything to marry my partner of 20 years; I'd even be prepared to identify as the submissive one - at least in public.


    1. I think a Venn diagram might help sort out some of those tricky areas of responsibility between man and woman in Smith's argument.