It's not me that invoked that literal principle. On the contrary, I was pointing out that a literalistic interpretation would also be against the law here.
Calling 'freedom' a 'privilege' is perhaps more accurate. I have the freedom (or the privilege of being permitted after passing a test and conforming to insurance legislation) to drive a car. I don't have the freedom to drive it in such a way that someone dies as a result. However, so long as I operate my privilege responsibly I remain free to drive. Of course, it might be a privilege that is essential for my livelihood or the quality of my life, but my freedom to exercise it still depends on my responsibility of use.
That seems perfectly right to me, if I want to continue living, freely, in society.
I'm glad I live in a country which permits freedom of religion and freedom to worship. But having been brought up on the books of Pastor Wurmbrand and his ilk, I've always felt that it was the circumstance of pure luck, not my personal deserved entitlement, that allows me to walk into a church building any Sunday of the year I want to. We've really been spoilt in our part of Christendom. We ignore the services we can't be bothered with, whinge about the things that irk us when we do go, and behave as if God himself has died when a building is threatened with closure after ten years of heart-breaking deterioration within a congregation; or services are reduced etc.
On a lighter note I know of a doughty old clergy wife who insisted that the workmen outside our church last month on a Sunday morning, putting much needed fresh tarmac on the road, open their barricades to let her through to park in her usual place. She wasn't kidding when she said to me 'it's an attack on Christianity!'
Actually, the most severe attack on Christianity is from within, having grown complacent and entitled, and reaching the stage of thinking that the building is there to serve our personal satisfactions, rather than being principally there to keep the rain off while we give God his due in public witness.
From my perspective the Solar Temple type of concern is not really typical of the motives for surveillance; that's just the kind of thing that gets media attention.
It's not me that invoked that literal principle. On the contrary, I was pointing out that a literalistic interpretation would also be against the law here.
It's not me that invoked that literal principle. On the contrary, I was pointing out that a literalistic interpretation would also be against the law here.
It's not me that invoked that literal principle. On the contrary, I was pointing out that a literalistic interpretation would also be against the law here.
Heh. The woman says "I was shocked by what I saw." Is this the public-safety version of Disgusted In Tunbridge Wells?
Yes! And it wasn't even HOLY WATER!!
But the group responsible was Wrong™, and should really be brought to book, even though being Spoken To Severely by the police would probably have zero effect...apart from causing them to whinge about Christians being persecuted.
It's not me that invoked that literal principle. On the contrary, I was pointing out that a literalistic interpretation would also be against the law here.
In the grand (and chilly) days of yore, chapels would often be built near streams so as to ensure a good supply of water, but I doubt if people were actually dunked in them very often. (Having said that I have baptised in a West African river where, I realised later, I was in genuine danger of picking up bilharzia or its ilk. And I have heard of people being baptised in the River Clyde ... and the Municipal Swimming Baths).
I have never come across a baptistery with running water (unless someone has left the tap running and the plug out!) Usually baptisteries are hidden and only exposed and filled when they are needed. However I think there are one or two modern church buildings which have open baptistries with constantly circulating water. There is certainly no requirement for such though.
1. The only time I've seen a wetsuit used for a baptism was in a Pentecostal church, when the Pastor (but not the candidates) wore one. He was of a certain girth and the wetsuit was of a certain shininess - I'm afraid there were a few (well, quite a lot of) suppressed giggles in the congregation. The water was warm anyway.
2. We don't believe that the water washes away sin. Believers' baptism is a testimony to a person's faith commitment, and (we believe) an outward sign of grace and forgiveness that have already been conferred. https://tinyurl.com/ts2znxq
I understand that quite a few of the 'holy wells' in the UK were (or are still occasionally) used for baptisms. Most of them are in the open air, too - our forefathers (well, three of them, anyway*) were hardier folk than we...
(*due acknowledgement to the late Michael Flanders)
I understand that quite a few of the 'holy wells' in the UK were (or are still occasionally) used for baptisms. Most of them are in the open air, too - our forefathers (well, three of them, anyway*) were hardier folk than we...
Or had the sense to baptise in good weather. Though were more likely just tolerant of people dying more often.
… I have baptised in a West African river where, I realised later, I was in genuine danger of picking up bilharzia or its ilk.
I remember a friend and fellow-student showing me the idyllic green fringed pool in which he had been baptised in Bangladesh, before explaining that candidates for baptism would rub themselves with kerosene before the service in order to discourage invertebrate wildlife from attaching to their persons.
… I have baptised in a West African river where, I realised later, I was in genuine danger of picking up bilharzia or its ilk.
I remember a friend and fellow-student showing me the idyllic green fringed pool in which he had been baptised in Bangladesh, before explaining that candidates for baptism would rub themselves with kerosene before the service in order to discourage invertebrate wildlife from attaching to their persons.
Hm. I can kinda see why JWs use swimming pools. Not quite the same mystique as a flowing river, but then, probably the only reason river dunkings have their mystique is because they're old.
I've performed baptisms in permanent baptistries, a lake, a bathtub, a cattle trough, a cider barrel sawn in two, and several collapsible models. The sea (not too far from where I live) is our church's baptism destination of choice.
Almost forgot: also co-officiated at a baptism by sprinkling in prison (due to immersion being off the cards for the foreseeable future for the person being baptised).
Alas, we've had to postpone a baptism scheduled for the Easter Sunday Parish Mass - the baby son of a young family who have recently joined our little flock (well, Mum was a regular attender until a few years ago, when she moved away, but has returned, bringing toddler, baby, and husband!).
Disappointing for the family, but something to look forward to later in the year, we hope. Baby Son is fit and well, so there's no need for an emergency baptism, which is still permitted in hospital or at home.
Why could the numpties who used the lake in Birmingham (NOT EVEN HOLY WATER!!) not wait, like everyone else?
Alas, we've had to postpone a baptism scheduled for the Easter Sunday Parish Mass - the baby son of a young family who have recently joined our little flock (well, Mum was a regular attender until a few years ago, when she moved away, but has returned, bringing toddler, baby, and husband!).
Disappointing for the family, but something to look forward to later in the year, we hope. Baby Son is fit and well, so there's no need for an emergency baptism, which is still permitted in hospital or at home.
Why could the numpties who used the lake in Birmingham (NOT EVEN HOLY WATER!!) not wait, like everyone else?
It's not me that invoked that literal principle. On the contrary, I was pointing out that a literalistic interpretation would also be against the law here.
It's not me that invoked that literal principle. On the contrary, I was pointing out that a literalistic interpretation would also be against the law here.
What is odd, but not uncharacteristic, is that on the face of it that group would not be the sort to believe in baptismal regeneration, so one would have indeed thought they could have postponed.
To return somewhat to the thread topic, I think traditionalists can often turn out to be less fazed by upsets to traditional praxis than alleged non-traditionalists.
Perhaps all the water in Birmingham is already, by definition, duly sanctified?
Or, more likely, incapable of being so.
Birmingham tap water is the best in the country.
Birmingham lake water, on the other hand... ew. Especially in Kingshurst, which is not exactly renowned as the most salubrious of suburbs. I'll note here that Kingshurst Park is pretty much the back garden for the New Testament Church of God Kingshurst, which is presumably the group in the photo.
… I have baptised in a West African river where, I realised later, I was in genuine danger of picking up bilharzia or its ilk.
I remember a friend and fellow-student showing me the idyllic green fringed pool in which he had been baptised in Bangladesh, before explaining that candidates for baptism would rub themselves with kerosene before the service in order to discourage invertebrate wildlife from attaching to their persons.
Hm. I can kinda see why JWs use swimming pools. Not quite the same mystique as a flowing river, but then, probably the only reason river dunkings have their mystique is because they're old.
… I have baptised in a West African river where, I realised later, I was in genuine danger of picking up bilharzia or its ilk.
I remember a friend and fellow-student showing me the idyllic green fringed pool in which he had been baptised in Bangladesh, before explaining that candidates for baptism would rub themselves with kerosene before the service in order to discourage invertebrate wildlife from attaching to their persons.
Hm. I can kinda see why JWs use swimming pools. Not quite the same mystique as a flowing river, but then, probably the only reason river dunkings have their mystique is because they're old.
I think there is also the precedent of J the B.
Yes. And unlike pools (except for properly constructed mikvot), rivers meet the Jewish/Biblical understanding of mayyim hayim, or “living water”—water that flows from a spring or, well, a river—which is why J the B was at a river.
MegaChurch Pastor: To Hell with the government directives, we are having Sunday Services.
Insurance Company: You're on your own, bub.
That did not last long.
MegaChurch Pastor: To Hell with the government directives, we are having Sunday Services.
Insurance Company: You're on your own, bub.
That did not last long.
Gee, if the Lord is their protector against getting sick from Coronavirus, why do they need insurance?
Funny how much a parallel that is with American professional wrestling.
WWF:"We're a legitimate sport, everything is real!"
IRS:"Well, then, we need to raise your taxes."
WWF:*"Like I said, we are entertainment, we got the drama and the scripts!"
MegaChurch Pastor: To Hell with the government directives, we are having Sunday Services.
Insurance Company: You're on your own, bub.
That did not last long.
Gee, if the Lord is their protector against getting sick from Coronavirus, why do they need insurance?
Good question.
The answer surely is that they (well, the 'pastors') are frauds, charlatans, mountebanks, lying barstewards etc. etc.
What continues to amaze me is that anyone with enough brain cells to qualify as a pot plant continues to believe what they say.
MegaChurch Pastor: To Hell with the government directives, we are having Sunday Services.
Insurance Company: You're on your own, bub.
That did not last long.
Gee, if the Lord is their protector against getting sick from Coronavirus, why do they need insurance?
Good question.
The answer surely is that they (well, the 'pastors') are frauds, charlatans, mountebanks, lying barstewards etc. etc.
What continues to amaze me is that anyone with enough brain cells to qualify as a pot plant continues to believe what they say.
Much as I find their position incredible, it is not lack of intelligence that drives acceptance. Not in everyone. Cognitive dissonance is not limited by intelligence.
Much as I find their position incredible, it is not lack of intelligence that drives acceptance. Not in everyone. Cognitive dissonance is not limited by intelligence.
I would argue cognitive dissonance is driven by intelligence.
If a stong held belief on my part is disproven by intelligence, I experience cognitive dissonance. I will either have to change my belief or deny intelligence. This is one reason why Fundamentalists find it so hard to live with science, but that is getting off the topic.
Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? Then you're washing away the sins of the wetsuit, not the person.
You know wetsuits let the water in, right?
Some. They do however keep people warm, so there's not exactly a free flow.
AIUI, most wetsuits do not let water in. Some do, and work on the principle that the water that gets in rapidly reaches body temperature and so keeps the wearer warm. There's more body than water, if you get what I mean.
I've been told by indignant divers that if you don't want any water in, you get a "dry suit." Personally I doubt I could tell the difference from six inches away.
Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? Then you're washing away the sins of the wetsuit, not the person.
You know wetsuits let the water in, right?
Some. They do however keep people warm, so there's not exactly a free flow.
AIUI, most wetsuits do not let water in. Some do, and work on the principle that the water that gets in rapidly reaches body temperature and so keeps the wearer warm. There's more body than water, if you get what I mean.
I've been told by indignant divers that if you don't want any water in, you get a "dry suit." Personally I doubt I could tell the difference from six inches away.
Wetsuits are called wet precisely because water gets in. You will be wet. Drysuits are called dry, because it doesn't.
Yes, I know from experience.
MegaChurch Pastor: To Hell with the government directives, we are having Sunday Services.
Insurance Company: You're on your own, bub.
That did not last long.
Church leadership where I work talked to our insurance company about how big the skeleton crew could be when we took the church service online. And not being fools, they didn't try to put more people in the building than allowed.
Funny how much a parallel that is with American professional wrestling.
WWF:"We're a legitimate sport, everything is real!"
IRS:"Well, then, we need to raise your taxes."
WWF:*"Like I said, we are entertainment, we got the drama and the scripts!"
The Hooters restaurant chain had a similar dilemma a few years back. To get around sex-discrimination laws, they argued that they were a "sexual entertainment" company, and so HAD to hire only females of a certain bust-size for their wait staff.
Soon after, some anti-Hooters activists launched a campaign to get minors banned from the diners, on the grounds that kids had no business being in a "sexual entertainment" establishment. Not sure how that all panned out.
Funny how much a parallel that is with American professional wrestling.
WWF:"We're a legitimate sport, everything is real!"
IRS:"Well, then, we need to raise your taxes."
WWF:*"Like I said, we are entertainment, we got the drama and the scripts!"
The Hooters restaurant chain had a similar dilemma a few years back. To get around sex-discrimination laws, they argued that they were a "sexual entertainment" company, and so HAD to hire only females of a certain bust-size for their wait staff.
Soon after, some anti-Hooters activists launched a campaign to get minors banned from the diners, on the grounds that kids had no business being in a "sexual entertainment" establishment. Not sure how that all panned out.
Don't sexual entertainment venues have different licensing and zoning requirements to ordinary restaurants?
Funny how much a parallel that is with American professional wrestling.
WWF:"We're a legitimate sport, everything is real!"
IRS:"Well, then, we need to raise your taxes."
WWF:*"Like I said, we are entertainment, we got the drama and the scripts!"
The Hooters restaurant chain had a similar dilemma a few years back. To get around sex-discrimination laws, they argued that they were a "sexual entertainment" company, and so HAD to hire only females of a certain bust-size for their wait staff.
Soon after, some anti-Hooters activists launched a campaign to get minors banned from the diners, on the grounds that kids had no business being in a "sexual entertainment" establishment. Not sure how that all panned out.
Don't sexual entertainment venues have different licensing and zoning requirements to ordinary restaurants?
Well, IANAL, but my guess would be that depends on local laws, whereas I think Hooters anti-discriminatiom tussle was at the federal level.
And I'm not sure if "sexual entertainment" was an official legal term, or just the way they described themselves in the relevant proceedings, to explain why they thought they deserved an exemption. I do remember the term being used in news articles encapsulating their position.
My informal guess would be that the law would usually consider Hooters to be sexual entertainment in the sense that eg. the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is sexual entertainment: enough that they can justify hiring only female models of certain body-type, but not enough that it needs to be kept on the top-shelf away from kids.
Comments
(There again, if one is baptising...)
Calling 'freedom' a 'privilege' is perhaps more accurate. I have the freedom (or the privilege of being permitted after passing a test and conforming to insurance legislation) to drive a car. I don't have the freedom to drive it in such a way that someone dies as a result. However, so long as I operate my privilege responsibly I remain free to drive. Of course, it might be a privilege that is essential for my livelihood or the quality of my life, but my freedom to exercise it still depends on my responsibility of use.
That seems perfectly right to me, if I want to continue living, freely, in society.
I'm glad I live in a country which permits freedom of religion and freedom to worship. But having been brought up on the books of Pastor Wurmbrand and his ilk, I've always felt that it was the circumstance of pure luck, not my personal deserved entitlement, that allows me to walk into a church building any Sunday of the year I want to. We've really been spoilt in our part of Christendom. We ignore the services we can't be bothered with, whinge about the things that irk us when we do go, and behave as if God himself has died when a building is threatened with closure after ten years of heart-breaking deterioration within a congregation; or services are reduced etc.
On a lighter note I know of a doughty old clergy wife who insisted that the workmen outside our church last month on a Sunday morning, putting much needed fresh tarmac on the road, open their barricades to let her through to park in her usual place. She wasn't kidding when she said to me 'it's an attack on Christianity!'
Actually, the most severe attack on Christianity is from within, having grown complacent and entitled, and reaching the stage of thinking that the building is there to serve our personal satisfactions, rather than being principally there to keep the rain off while we give God his due in public witness.
So what would you say is the typical concern?
Heh. The woman says "I was shocked by what I saw." Is this the public-safety version of Disgusted In Tunbridge Wells?
I beg your pardon E. A bit litrul minded me. Sigh. Guilty of what I project.
Yes! And it wasn't even HOLY WATER!!
But the group responsible was Wrong™, and should really be brought to book, even though being Spoken To Severely by the police would probably have zero effect...apart from causing them to whinge about Christians being persecuted.
The fruitloops are with us always.
Wonder what she woulda made of the Baptism Of Jesus.
Isn't it also supposed to be running water i.e. a river?
In the grand (and chilly) days of yore, chapels would often be built near streams so as to ensure a good supply of water, but I doubt if people were actually dunked in them very often. (Having said that I have baptised in a West African river where, I realised later, I was in genuine danger of picking up bilharzia or its ilk. And I have heard of people being baptised in the River Clyde ... and the Municipal Swimming Baths).
I have never come across a baptistery with running water (unless someone has left the tap running and the plug out!) Usually baptisteries are hidden and only exposed and filled when they are needed. However I think there are one or two modern church buildings which have open baptistries with constantly circulating water. There is certainly no requirement for such though.
Sorry about using the Wrong Word - I just couldn't think of the Right Word...
Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? Then you're washing away the sins of the wetsuit, not the person.
1. The only time I've seen a wetsuit used for a baptism was in a Pentecostal church, when the Pastor (but not the candidates) wore one. He was of a certain girth and the wetsuit was of a certain shininess - I'm afraid there were a few (well, quite a lot of) suppressed giggles in the congregation. The water was warm anyway.
2. We don't believe that the water washes away sin. Believers' baptism is a testimony to a person's faith commitment, and (we believe) an outward sign of grace and forgiveness that have already been conferred. https://tinyurl.com/ts2znxq
I understand that quite a few of the 'holy wells' in the UK were (or are still occasionally) used for baptisms. Most of them are in the open air, too - our forefathers (well, three of them, anyway*) were hardier folk than we...
(*due acknowledgement to the late Michael Flanders)
You know wetsuits let the water in, right?
I remember a friend and fellow-student showing me the idyllic green fringed pool in which he had been baptised in Bangladesh, before explaining that candidates for baptism would rub themselves with kerosene before the service in order to discourage invertebrate wildlife from attaching to their persons.
Hm. I can kinda see why JWs use swimming pools. Not quite the same mystique as a flowing river, but then, probably the only reason river dunkings have their mystique is because they're old.
Disappointing for the family, but something to look forward to later in the year, we hope. Baby Son is fit and well, so there's no need for an emergency baptism, which is still permitted in hospital or at home.
Why could the numpties who used the lake in Birmingham (NOT EVEN HOLY WATER!!) not wait, like everyone else?
Could you explain, please?
Hopefully, that should explain things...
Ah, sorry @Bishops Finger I’m being a bear of little brain at the moment. Many thanks 🙂.
To return somewhat to the thread topic, I think traditionalists can often turn out to be less fazed by upsets to traditional praxis than alleged non-traditionalists.
Or, more likely, incapable of being so.
Birmingham tap water is the best in the country.
Birmingham lake water, on the other hand... ew. Especially in Kingshurst, which is not exactly renowned as the most salubrious of suburbs. I'll note here that Kingshurst Park is pretty much the back garden for the New Testament Church of God Kingshurst, which is presumably the group in the photo.
Some. They do however keep people warm, so there's not exactly a free flow.
I think there is also the precedent of J the B.
Insurance Company: You're on your own, bub.
That did not last long.
Gee, if the Lord is their protector against getting sick from Coronavirus, why do they need insurance?
WWF:"We're a legitimate sport, everything is real!"
IRS:"Well, then, we need to raise your taxes."
WWF:*"Like I said, we are entertainment, we got the drama and the scripts!"
Good question.
The answer surely is that they (well, the 'pastors') are frauds, charlatans, mountebanks, lying barstewards etc. etc.
What continues to amaze me is that anyone with enough brain cells to qualify as a pot plant continues to believe what they say.
No argument.
I would argue cognitive dissonance is driven by intelligence.
If a stong held belief on my part is disproven by intelligence, I experience cognitive dissonance. I will either have to change my belief or deny intelligence. This is one reason why Fundamentalists find it so hard to live with science, but that is getting off the topic.
AIUI, most wetsuits do not let water in. Some do, and work on the principle that the water that gets in rapidly reaches body temperature and so keeps the wearer warm. There's more body than water, if you get what I mean.
Drysuits are called dry, because it doesn't.
Yes, I know from experience.
Church leadership where I work talked to our insurance company about how big the skeleton crew could be when we took the church service online. And not being fools, they didn't try to put more people in the building than allowed.
The Hooters restaurant chain had a similar dilemma a few years back. To get around sex-discrimination laws, they argued that they were a "sexual entertainment" company, and so HAD to hire only females of a certain bust-size for their wait staff.
Soon after, some anti-Hooters activists launched a campaign to get minors banned from the diners, on the grounds that kids had no business being in a "sexual entertainment" establishment. Not sure how that all panned out.
Don't sexual entertainment venues have different licensing and zoning requirements to ordinary restaurants?
Well, IANAL, but my guess would be that depends on local laws, whereas I think Hooters anti-discriminatiom tussle was at the federal level.
And I'm not sure if "sexual entertainment" was an official legal term, or just the way they described themselves in the relevant proceedings, to explain why they thought they deserved an exemption. I do remember the term being used in news articles encapsulating their position.
My informal guess would be that the law would usually consider Hooters to be sexual entertainment in the sense that eg. the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is sexual entertainment: enough that they can justify hiring only female models of certain body-type, but not enough that it needs to be kept on the top-shelf away from kids.