Not to Be Served , but to Serve.

Deeply religious, Charles? This is the man who said he "wanted to be Camilla Parker Bowles tampon".

At the time he and Camilla were in an adulterous relationship, as indeed they had been from the very day Charles pledged scared marriage vows to an unworldly 19 year old virgin.

Does any of that sound deeply religious. Answers on a postcard please.

not a royalist! biggest bunch of dole dodgers........

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Callistemon21

Perhaps thinking about the different messages in the Old and New Testaments may help.

The Old Testament shows the wrath of God against sin (with glimpses of His grace); the New Testament shows the grace of God toward sinners (with glimpses of His wrath).

The Old Testament declares that man was separated from God through sin (Genesis 3), and the New Testament declares that man can be restored in his relationship to God

In summary, the Old Testament lays the foundation for the coming of the Messiah who would sacrifice Himself for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). The New Testament records the ministry of Jesus Christ and then looks back on what He did and how we are to respond. Both testaments reveal the same holy, merciful, and righteous God who condemns sin but desires to save sinners through an atoning sacrifice

Excerpts from gotquestions.

Great post, Callistemon.

Glorianny

NanaDana

From the absolute core of the bedrock prayer of the Christian churches, whether they are Catholic, C.of E., High Anglican, Methodist, Unitarian, Baptist et al. :
"Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us."
Seems clear enough to me, even as a lapsed Catholic Agnostic, but there are still those here who clearly have no working understanding of how the core tenets of the Christian faith work in the everyday lives of those who have faith. Sadly, they also appear to have no capacity for true forgiveness, despite their protestations to the contrary. Hanging judges? No room for grey in their world. Everything is so black and white... only it never is... That's why it's so much safer for society to opt for the conciliatory, benevolent, redemptive option, rather than the vengeful, bitterly destructive one. That's actually the Christian message... For a non-believer to try to tell a practising Christian that it isn't so, is utterly pointless. Doesn't seem to stop them desperately trying to, though. Ah well.. A phrase containing heads and brick walls comes to mind.. or perhaps more of a "rock" than a brick wall in this case.. Matthew 16.18.

That's very lovely. Unfortunately the Christian church has taken a less than forgiving role in many situations.
But I suppose it is much like the gathering riches concept.
Fine in theory but seldom adhered to in practice.

In the Bible, gathering riches or being rich are not wrong or sinful in themselves. But they do come with added spiritual risks, such as:

- Putting riches before God (against the first of the Ten Commandments)
- Trusting in wealth rather than God
- Exploiting or oppressing other people in order to gain wealth
(“Do not exploit the poor because they are poor
and do not crush the needy in court,
for the Lord will take up their case”. Proverbs 22:22)
- Not using the riches as God wishes (e g “look after orphans and widows in their distress”. James‬ ‭1‬:‭27‬)
- Hoarding wealth rather than using it as God wants, to help others (“You have hoarded wealth in the last days“. James 5:3)
- Treating poor people as less important than rich people, though they are equally made in the image of God and equally valuable to him. ("If you show favouritism, you sin". James 2:9.)

This is why Jesus said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. It’s relatively easy for a poor person to put God first and trust in him for what they need.

The command to sell all that you have and give to the poor was given to a particular individual who asked Jesus what he had to do to inherit eternal life, probably because he was valuing his wealth more than anything else. Luke says “he was very wealthy”. That command isn’t meant for everybody.

Abraham, King David and King Solomon were very rich. Yet David was said to be a man after God’s own heart, and Abraham is “the father of all who believe” (Romans 4:11).

“You cannot serve both God and Money.” (Matthew 6:24) But it’s OK to have money as long as you put God first and use it to serve him.

(I am anything but rich myself so I have no axe to grind here. This is just what the Bible says.)

If the C of E decides to dismiss a member of the clergy for example for committing adultery, or does not wish someone whose done so to train for ordination, it has nothing to do with them not being forgiven but everything to do with their suitability for the role.

They did not marry within the C of E Glorianny they had a civil service and a church blessing which acknowledges the commitment already made and asks for God's blessing and guidance for their lives together.

They were not married by or in the C of E, they sought God's blessing and guidance on the union they'd already made. This for me illustrates that Charles is deeply religious which as NanaDana's pointed out is at the heart of this discussion.

Perhaps thinking about the different messages in the Old and New Testaments may help.

The Old Testament shows the wrath of God against sin (with glimpses of His grace); the New Testament shows the grace of God toward sinners (with glimpses of His wrath).

The Old Testament declares that man was separated from God through sin (Genesis 3), and the New Testament declares that man can be restored in his relationship to God

In summary, the Old Testament lays the foundation for the coming of the Messiah who would sacrifice Himself for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). The New Testament records the ministry of Jesus Christ and then looks back on what He did and how we are to respond. Both testaments reveal the same holy, merciful, and righteous God who condemns sin but desires to save sinners through an atoning sacrifice

Excerpts from gotquestions.

NanaDana

Glorianny, might I suggest that as you're having so little success in victimising Charles as an "unworthy" character, who couldn't possibly be "deeply religious", you perhaps shift your aim towards some alternative targets which might prove more fruitful? In fact you almost appear to have decided to move that way yourself, in that in your latest post, it's "the Christian Church" who have been "less than forgiving". My, those constantly shifting goalposts are becoming almost a blur. Here are a few suggestions, all of which would fall into the "rich and privileged" category, so you wouldn't even have to switch hobby-horses :
1. Henry VIII. Founder of the Church of England, on the basis that the then Pope refused to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. We know what came next. So much mileage there.
2. The corrupt Popes. Fertile ground. Murder, adultery, illegitimate children, corruption, fraud. The Medici Popes in particular are worth a close look.
3. The Spanish Inquisition. Tomas De Torquemada, Dominican Friar and Grand Inquisitor, in particular. Directly appointed by the Pope, and responsible for more than 2,000 agonising deaths, all in the name of religion.
4. The European wars of religion, also known as the Wars of the Reformation, fought during the 16th, 17th and early 18th Centuries. Many atrocities on both sides. Rich pickings again.
So there's just a few suggestions... none of which actually have any relevance as to whether or not Charles can be described as "deeply religious", which is where this thread kicked off, it seems aeons ago now, However, the topics may give you an opportunity to garner at least some support for a critical and even damning assessment, and who knows, you might even be able to set a few hares running as regards potential reparations, an area which I know is close to your heart.

Actually none of this is "close to my heart". I do enjoy religious discussion if only for the sake of the discussion.
What I often find is that I am accused of bringing irrelevancies into the discussion whereas others can veer as far off as they like, or I'm accused of hatred or being judgemental.
I just find the shifting of goalposts, when it suits, fascinating and wonder sometimes how far it could go.
It seems back to the Spanish Inquisition which I suppose no one was expecting.!

Now there’s a good suggestion! Well done!

Glorianny puts me in mind of that old saying about arguing the hind leg off a donkey (though I have never understood how the leg came to fall off).

Glorianny, might I suggest that as you're having so little success in victimising Charles as an "unworthy" character, who couldn't possibly be "deeply religious", you perhaps shift your aim towards some alternative targets which might prove more fruitful? In fact you almost appear to have decided to move that way yourself, in that in your latest post, it's "the Christian Church" who have been "less than forgiving". My, those constantly shifting goalposts are becoming almost a blur. Here are a few suggestions, all of which would fall into the "rich and privileged" category, so you wouldn't even have to switch hobby-horses :
1. Henry VIII. Founder of the Church of England, on the basis that the then Pope refused to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. We know what came next. So much mileage there.
2. The corrupt Popes. Fertile ground. Murder, adultery, illegitimate children, corruption, fraud. The Medici Popes in particular are worth a close look.
3. The Spanish Inquisition. Tomas De Torquemada, Dominican Friar and Grand Inquisitor, in particular. Directly appointed by the Pope, and responsible for more than 2,000 agonising deaths, all in the name of religion.
4. The European wars of religion, also known as the Wars of the Reformation, fought during the 16th, 17th and early 18th Centuries. Many atrocities on both sides. Rich pickings again.
So there's just a few suggestions... none of which actually have any relevance as to whether or not Charles can be described as "deeply religious", which is where this thread kicked off, it seems aeons ago now, However, the topics may give you an opportunity to garner at least some support for a critical and even damning assessment, and who knows, you might even be able to set a few hares running as regards potential reparations, an area which I know is close to your heart.

should be: by His grace we try again.

Glorianny

So carrying this to its ultimate conclusion then. Do you all feel that the C of E rules on remarriage are wrong, and that any behaviour, provided the sinner says they have repented should be accepted, and anyone should be permitted to remarry in the church.
Isn't that virtually ignoring one of the commandments?

Glorianny Isn't that virtually ignoring one of the commandments?

No.

Ten Commandments, given by God in Old Testament are still God’s expectations. He expects much, we fail, by His grace try again.

Sorry GSM. I thought G’s post Yes but they remarried within the C of E. was a fact, not just on her authority.

Did they all remarry within the CofE Glorianny? I have seen no authority for that statement.
I don’t make the Church’s rules and my opinion is neither here nor there.

Yes they did Glorianny.
So why are you judging them?
Did it hurt you?
Are you as judgemental of all divorcees or just famous ones?
You’ve already had all the explanations necessary.
Matthew 7

So carrying this to its ultimate conclusion then. Do you all feel that the C of E rules on remarriage are wrong, and that any behaviour, provided the sinner says they have repented should be accepted, and anyone should be permitted to remarry in the church.
Isn't that virtually ignoring one of the commandments?

Germanshepherdsmum

I know about the rules for remarriage. I asked for your authority on an employment issue. It has been pointed out on this thread that the CofE has clerics who have been divorced and remarried.

Yes but they remarried within the C of E. which is within the rules already posted.

Smileless2012

No, it has nothing to do with forgiveness being selective. The clergy preach to their congregation about among other things sin. Understandably, it would not go down very well if a vicar was talking about the sanctity of marriage if s/he had been an adulterer, it would be hypocritical.

There's nothing hypocritical about Charles being the Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. His adultery doesn't preclude him from this role. How could it when an adulterous and divorced king established the C of E in the first place.

If Charles and Camilla have truly repented of their sin of adultery they will have God's forgiveness, the same as anyone else.

Agreed.

God never ask any of us to judge. God's in charge of judgement.

The cause of the breakup of the marriage was quite possibly not as the media claims

I know about the rules for remarriage. I asked for your authority on an employment issue. It has been pointed out on this thread that the CofE has clerics who have been divorced and remarried.

NanaDana

From the absolute core of the bedrock prayer of the Christian churches, whether they are Catholic, C.of E., High Anglican, Methodist, Unitarian, Baptist et al. :
"Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us."
Seems clear enough to me, even as a lapsed Catholic Agnostic, but there are still those here who clearly have no working understanding of how the core tenets of the Christian faith work in the everyday lives of those who have faith. Sadly, they also appear to have no capacity for true forgiveness, despite their protestations to the contrary. Hanging judges? No room for grey in their world. Everything is so black and white... only it never is... That's why it's so much safer for society to opt for the conciliatory, benevolent, redemptive option, rather than the vengeful, bitterly destructive one. That's actually the Christian message... For a non-believer to try to tell a practising Christian that it isn't so, is utterly pointless. Doesn't seem to stop them desperately trying to, though. Ah well.. A phrase containing heads and brick walls comes to mind.. or perhaps more of a "rock" than a brick wall in this case.. Matthew 16.18.

That's very lovely. Unfortunately the Christian church has taken a less than forgiving role in many situations.
But I suppose it is much like the gathering riches concept.
Fine in theory but seldom adhered to in practice.

Germanshepherdsmum

What is your authority for saying that the church would not employ a cleric with Charles’s marital background?

Read the thread GSM I've already posted the rules for remarriage in the C ofE which Charles couldn't match. With a link to the document because they were questioned.

From the absolute core of the bedrock prayer of the Christian churches, whether they are Catholic, C.of E., High Anglican, Methodist, Unitarian, Baptist et al. :
"Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us."
Seems clear enough to me, even as a lapsed Catholic Agnostic, but there are still those here who clearly have no working understanding of how the core tenets of the Christian faith work in the everyday lives of those who have faith. Sadly, they also appear to have no capacity for true forgiveness, despite their protestations to the contrary. Hanging judges? No room for grey in their world. Everything is so black and white... only it never is... That's why it's so much safer for society to opt for the conciliatory, benevolent, redemptive option, rather than the vengeful, bitterly destructive one. That's actually the Christian message... For a non-believer to try to tell a practising Christian that it isn't so, is utterly pointless. Doesn't seem to stop them desperately trying to, though. Ah well.. A phrase containing heads and brick walls comes to mind.. or perhaps more of a "rock" than a brick wall in this case.. Matthew 16.18.

No, it has nothing to do with forgiveness being selective. The clergy preach to their congregation about among other things sin. Understandably, it would not go down very well if a vicar was talking about the sanctity of marriage if s/he had been an adulterer, it would be hypocritical.

There's nothing hypocritical about Charles being the Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. His adultery doesn't preclude him from this role. How could it when an adulterous and divorced king established the C of E in the first place.

If Charles and Camilla have truly repented of their sin of adultery they will have God's forgiveness, the same as anyone else.