“Doing God.”

Above, Ōrigénēs Adamántios. Tony Blair’s Spin Doctor Alastair Campbell famously declared “…..we don’t do God” – he was referring to “New Labour” (Why do I think of the words; “New DAZ washes whiter!” Every time I hear this? – Ed.). Fortunately for Mr Campbell, God does Mr Campbell and everybody else!
This organ is not a religious organ. Like “New Labour” the British Gazette tends not to “do God.” There is a good reason for this: Our Readers are of many faiths and none.
Nevertheless, “religion” is, in a different way, at the centre of much of the political controversy in the England today of Queen Elizabeth II, just as much as it was in the England of Queen Elizabeth I. And sadly, it threatens to bring the same level or worse of violence.
There are of course many religions in this world and of course it is possible to categorise these in various ways, monotheist and polytheist for example. For the purpose of today’s article we will suggest they be categorised (for the Reader’s examination thereof) into proselytising and non-proselytising.
It is often (but NOT always) the case that the problems occur with the proselytising religions. Again for the purposes of this article we will classify Buddhism along with Judaism, Hinduism and Sikhism as non-proselytising religions. Clearly, the two major proselytising religions are Christianity and Islam.
Again, it is WRONG to state that ALL those adherents who actively go out and seek converts for these two religions are the cause of problems. It is just the case that SOME are. Like concentrated nitric acid, concentrated sulphuric acid and glycerine, this can become extremely dangerous when combined with other incendiary factors.”
Earlier, we referred to England in the reign of Elizabeth I. In a curious way, the England of the 16th Century has more in common with 21st Century Syria (whose population is in the process of moving en masse to Europe!) than it does with the England of the 21st Century. This is because of the mindset of many in those societies.
We refer you Dear Reader to the online following report:
http://www.premier.org.uk/News/World/Young-Christians-would-be-delighted-with-LGBTI-liturgy-says-Bishop-of-Buckingham?utm_source=Premier%20Christian%20Media&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6743432_daily%20news%205%20feb&utm_content=gay&dm_i=16DQ,40J9K,M9A8UA,EIDGT,1
Now, we know EXACTLY what would be the consequences of any person making that suggestion 17th November 1558 and 24th March 1603! They would be similar to the consequences of any Muslim making a similar suggestion in relation to Islam in say, Al-Raqqah, Syria today!
To use a modern phrase, both societies had/have “Zero Tolerance” of dissent.
Previous articles in this organ have described the situation we have in Western Europe today: a largely secular permissive (this is a description and not a criticism) society and an enormous number of conservative Muslim migrants who are generally intolerant of those with greatly differing lifestyles, mores and behaviour patterns to their own.
The problem is we are afraid only going to get worse. This is because the Christian churches are continuing to debate within themselves some of their core beliefs. The debate about for want of a better phrase, “gender and sexuality” in the Anglican church is an example.
The reason for the seriousness of this is that it threatens to go beyond a “straightforward” argument about what should be and what should not be in a prayer book. The reason why “gender and sexuality” and especially the controversy surrounding the issue referred to as “trans-gender” threatens the core beliefs of this church.
You see many individuals who describe themselves as trans-gender feel that they, to use the words they often use, “have been born into the wrong body” – that they feel themselves to be female in a male body and vice versa.
This situation has caused some individuals to move to a belief in reincarnation; the logic of that particular argument being that a “soul” of one gender has been reborn into the body of the opposite gender and the “merging” of the “soul” with the new body hasn’t quite “taken” and the reincarnated individual has not lost the gender identity of the earlier life.
The problem for the Anglican church here is obvious: such a debate would recall the debate in the earliest period of the church’s history with The Origen controversy.
Herewith two links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen
AND: http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen3.html