Vat or not to vat
- 15 April 2012 15:06165701Keith, you have attributed to me something I have never stated.
I have never preached intolerance against other religions.
I have simply written here that in our Christian Country, churches should be funded by the State, and that they should be allowed some estates for purposes of Communion.
I fully reject your statement that this is intolerance!
Your statement there is not fine, I find it offensive!Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
15 April 2012 19:30165768alexander
i suggest you read your 3rd line of post 19
nothing by me is offensive merely a viewp;oint in reply to your postingALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 15 April 2012 22:18165859Keith, I have not written anything offensive against non-Christian religions or have shown any intolerance towards them.
Out of policy I do not remark on non-Christian religions.
If Muslim, Hindu and Bhudist countries have ways of funding their own buildings of worship, as they do, often through state-funding, that is their business.
When I write that our Christian Country should fund church buildings, I am not being intolerant.
Faith is not politics, and you cannot politicise the Faith.
There is not such a thing as a multi-faith religion.
Your thread here was about churches in Britain and how the British state acts with regards to policies concerning their funding. I made a comment in relation to the thread, and you started sounding off about other religions that don't concern me in any way what so ever and concluded that I am intolerant!
This begs belief!Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 15 April 2012 23:39165874Why, pray, should this utterly 'un-politicisable' entity's, the Christian Religion, upkeep be a matter for all tax-payers to donate to?
Why, too, should we roll the clock back to the days of Church Estates?
Who or what sort of God-head or holy prophet demands that specific grand buildings be built for their use? Which holy-tome asserts the necessity of such idolatry?
I think it might be the prominence of set-square and compass that not only separates Religion from Church, but Creator from created. Those who wish such organisation and such structures should set themselves the task of their upkeep and leave that which is for Caesar to Caesar to deal with?Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - 16 April 2012 00:17165878The reason, Tom, why estates could be assigned to parish churches, as expressed in my above post, is for the purpose of communion.
An estate could be a few fields and orchards, and serve for meals which the congregation attends. With some volunteers working these small plots, the produce would be stored in the Parish pantry, and then used in the Parish kitchen to prepare free communion meals.
The New Testament does explain that meals in common were, in fact, suppers, possibly even dinners. So my view is, that one day churches will go back to this ancient custom, which I call meaningful communion.
As for the upkeep of church buildings, the invested state money would go to the builders and renovators, for the materials and the work. So it would remain in the economy, create employment, happiness and modest (underlined) wealth for the workers and their families.
Churches are places where people meet to hear the Word of God, to be in Communion with one another and with Jesus, and to worship the Father.
To allow these buildings to decay, close them down, sell them off, while maintaining at State expense the house of Windsor, an extremely rich family that also cashes in on EU subsidies on at least one of their many estates, and enjoys tax privileges, and lives in palaces and castles, many of which are owned by the State, is actually contrary to British custom: yes it is something quite recent, and British monarchs of old would turn in their grave if they saw all this!
Now Caesar you mention! Yes, the house of Windsor, not! 
Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 16 April 2012 00:20165879For me,Tom, Christ is the Emperor. The One we would call Caesar.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
16 April 2012 08:34165904Whilst I go down a christian route
alexander i hold an open mindALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 16 April 2012 14:46165954That is fine, Keith. Important is that we agree that my comments here regards churches in Britain do not interfere in any way with other religions.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ