Adultery, the Church of England and the Coronation of Charles & Camilla

[Inspectamus]

Discussed as a thread on Gransnet, but not on Mumsnet. What does Mumsnet think?

"The Church of England has never crowned a divorced man as King, let alone one who has publicly confessed to adultery – with the relevant woman expecting to be crowned Queen Consort," Holden writes.

I think that in these corona-virus and coronation times the Church of England should not be taking liberties with God’s Ten Commandments. But they’re doing it anyway, without explaining to the people and the world how they’re reconciling the conflict in what they preach and their new King & Queen’s actions.

How can Charles and Camilla view their adultery as a mistake if it was the means to achieve what they desired?
This, in my view, sets a bad example as Supreme Governors of the Church of England’s Christian faith and as defenders of the faith.

I’m having a crisis of faith, as it happens. For me, Charles and Camilla’s religious coronation will be evidence that the God behind the Ten Commandments cannot exist.

Good posts @CPL593H and @mixedrecycling. I agree with both

As a Christian I’d say that all have fallen short of the glory of God and you who is without sin throw the first stone.
It is not a surprise to God that people mess up. The inability of people to just be good to one another and the planet is why we needed Jesus.

His death and resurrection enables forgiveness and grace.

I don’t know Charles or Camilla but I’d guess that there are things they regret in their past. I do believe God’s forgiveness is open and available to anyone- including the king and queen of England.

How come this got moved from the religion forum?

I don’t think it was ever there, was it?

I could've sworn blind it was
@Inspectamus ?

mixedrecycling

🍷I couldn't find a brandy emoji @LaMarschallin would a glass of wine do instead?

You're very kind. I always prefer my brandy out of a wine glass

Lightweight.

This is what you want brandy from 🍺 😉

I can only aspire...

I'm not shlurrrrring my woooords...

keels over

I’m funning. 4 slugs of brandy and I’d be finding Tony Blair attractive.

For a hefty bint I am a total lightweight 😵‍💫

How times change 😳

Well, in a line up of, for example, of Trump, Putin and Blair... it would only take 3 slugs for me and I'd go for Blair 😂

🤣. But you get a free static duster with Trump….

<controversial>

Apologies - I got it confused with this one

www.mumsnet.com/talk/philosophy_religion_spirituality/4710457-are-court-seersoraclesastrologers-still-used-today?page=1

I presume, most if not all religions are written by human's for humans, and even if say god did give the original orders for humans, since then with translating, with editing of which chapters to include with some religious ect it's pretty much what the ruling classes want it to be?

It is quite simple .

All you say about forgiveness and religion is true

But in the UK we have the ludicrous medieval remnant scenario with Charlie Windsor AUTOMATICALLY head of the Church of England , regardless of his suitability

The COE os a minority interest in 2023
But
because Charles Windsor is 'king' and Henry the viii declared himself head of his own religion hundreds of years ago , we now have the CE artificially elevated . More importantly COE bishops are the only religious figures automatically given a seat on the House of Lords.

For both those reasons reform is needed
The Windsors ( I mean look at them!) should be nowhere near head of a religion .
The Bishops need removed from their falsely elevated position in the House of Lords . Or , all religions should be represented in proportion to their members

Novella4 · Today 11:29
The Windsors ( I mean look at them!) should be nowhere near head of a religion .
Sadly, saints are few. We take what we can get. And Charles is no more wicked than the average man-in-the-street. You do know it's the clergy who actually "do the business"? And very few of them are saints either.
As you say, the C of E is of minor interest (and, I would guess, you are not a member?) So maybe stop using it to point out Charles's shortcomings? We know them. That's OK There are better things to base republicanism on than the moral character of the RF

Parable of the woman taken in adultery. Jesus’s comment- Let him that is without sin cast the first stone. Also- judge not that ye be not judged.

What's the meaning please ?

Mumsnet needs to close immediately then.

and we presume it's Jesus but chances are it's a ghost writer

None of the Bible is said to have been written by Jesus.

It's a biography rather than an autobiography (but only or mostly by men of course, don't let those pesky women write history)

It's puzzling as why people quote it as fact yet most if not all of the books text is by humans for humans ect

Personally I wish we had more goddesses

I'm welsh so technically I have welsh goddesses to pick from, but they were written about by men so it's a biased view of them

I would like goddesses written by women