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.

Me too, I wish we knew the whole truth about it all, e.g. Area 51, gods, goddesses, time travel, parallel universes, ect. I bet the history books would then truly be omg 😲

The meaning of "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone" is that churches and formal religion has moved a long way from Jesus's teaching as reported in the Bible. I'm well aware that Jesus didn't write the Bible but it's what he's reported to have said. (Yes, I know by men in the time after he died.) According to them he didn't have a lot to say about family values either. He did have a lot to say about giving away everything you have, leaving everything behind and following him etc. That's all a bit difficult though, easier to pass judgement on other people.

So before you judge your ment to be a saint so to speak ?
But then what if sometimes it takes a snake to know a snake so to speak.

That's if my interpretation is apt

I think you’re supposed to concentrate on dealing with your own defects rather than policing other people’s morality. I only posted it because Christianity gets such a bad press on here. It’s seen as linked to the patriarchy and oppression in general. The various churches are a bad advert for Christianity. How the right wing American Bible Belt came about puzzles me. Likewise some aspects of the Catholic Church. Jesus was actually very radical. This thread with its OMG they’re crowning an aldulterer is typically judgemental.

Romans 3:23
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Charles is no different from any other holder of the office. And plenty of them (most?) were adulterers.

And it seems little odd to me that those who are most aghast at an adulterer being Head of the C of E are those who say "I'm not a Christian" or "I have no time for God/the church"
Could it be (perish the thought) they are using this argument to push for a Republic? Because we all know those we freely elect are faultless....

In my experience, those who chops on and turn themselves inside out regarding others not being worthy, often fall far short themselves.

And while they are turning themselves inside out, you catch sight of their wipe clean inner gimp or a tail and a natty pair of cloven hooves.

With all due respect and each to their own, but why does humanity need religion to begin with, ?

How can Charles and Camilla view their adultery as a mistake if it was the means to achieve what they desired?

But it didn't, did it ?
If Diana hadn't been tragically killed (thus setting Prince Charles free) they would not have been together.

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.

During the church blessing given by ABC there was a prayer saying basically they were sorry for whose who they had hurt or wronged.
www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/mar/28/monarchy.stephenbates

The Christian view is that repentant sinners should be forgiven.

I’m having a crisis of faith, as it happens.

Then you need to speak to your priest, vicar or other spiritual adviser. I'm sure MN members are too busy looking after their own souls and/or not qualified to advise you.

And plenty of them (most?) were adulterers

As was Diana, in case anyone's forgotten. Wasn't she the first one to have an affair?

I assume it must have served a purpose as nearly every tribe/civilisation/group has had some form of religion at some point

But I do question whether it's still needed, and whether it's still needed in it's current form. The Christian Church (amoungst others) has been responsible for so many wrongs that I don't know how I could ever use it as a moral guide to my behaviour regardless of belief in God

Humans like explanations for things, be they made up or real.
Look at cargo cults.

Much appreciated, basically beware the humans that come bearing gifts

Someone responded to my post by asking why humanity needs religion. I can only give my own take on it. I think humanity doesn’t need organised religion as we often see it. It leads to wars, division etc. In the past it has functioned as the opium of the people and kept the population docile. However some people who reject religion start to ridicule all forms of spirituality which I think is sad. Many people find that they do need a spiritual dimension to life and have a personal experience of faith. Jesus, if you read what he is supposed to have said , didn’t promote what some churches preach now and the Buddha intended to share a philosophy for living at peace, not to found a religion.

Hawkins003 · Today 14:14
With all due respect and each to their own, but why does humanity need religion to begin with, ?

An interesting question! I wonder if "need" is the right word? If someone develops a conviction that, say, Christianity or Islam is the ultimate truth It is bound to of primary importance to that person to attempt to live their life by it's principles.

And, yes, it leads to disagreements between adherents, but so do most human beliefs - religious, political, royalist/republican. (And on MN whether the Sussexes are martyrs or traitors!)

That's understandable, as for the Sussexes, the elite don't usually go to war so to speak, with themselves, I suspect there is a lot more to it all that the public are being included in. Plus they would have teams of experts managing it all etc

*arnt

What is an ect?

The Church of England is not a religion. It is a denomination of Christianity. King Charles is not the head of a religion.

If you want to know about Christianity read about Jesus in the four stories about him. Whoever it was that wrote them says that the first person to see Jesus after the resurrection was not a white middle-class C of E member, but a middle-eastern woman, so not wholly mysoginistic.
Some of Jesus's teaching is quite difficult. That's one of the reasons why some people reject it. They sometimes dress it up by saying that this bod or that bod, who goes to church, is an old sinner, so that's why they don't go, but it could just be that Jesus is difficult. What, Lord? Be willing to forgive seventy times seven? Heck. Don't throw a stone at that woman/king because I'm not perfect either?? Oooh, you do expect a lot of us, Lord.

Topic for discussion - do human beings have a need for religion/s or do they have a huge tendency/need to put someone/something on a pedestal and worship it/her/him? Football? Fast cars? Not really?

Ect for me is an extension eg they have more management for different aspects but for simplicity it can be shortened to etc

The issue for me on any of the old books is as we have now also know about is books being edited and words substitute, but back then it's translating from one language to another and then changing words etc which is why I would never trust and of the books about Jesus.

He had 12 male disciples (according to the stories written by men) but its okay very occasionally a woman featured so it's not sexist honest....

The bible features over 2000 men and 202 women

10707 verses mention men and 783 verses mentioned women

And only 6 verses in the entire bible where a woman is speaking to a woman and its not about a man

So sure its not wolly mysognistic, but I also don't feel wholly represented

Which back then?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

The bits about language and textual variation are useful.

Pretty much, and we all know change a couple of words here and there it can make all the difference in context and meaning and interpretation etc.

Some of the original books are said to have been written within 100 years of Jesus's life; the gospels were referenced in 180CE, and translations of the NT into other languages began in the 2nd century.

Any major change in interpretation/twisting of meaning of anything before these would have had to have been within a pretty short time of Christianity beginning.

"According to Norman Geisler and William Nix, "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book—a form that is 99.5% pure" "