Cable Forum - Charlie Farley

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Charlie Farley (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33711871)

Re: Charlie Farley

Blaming Diana's death on Chrales is a very very lose thread of a theory and would hardly hold up in a court of law.

The thing I have never understood is why the King or Queen up until last year were seen as the head of the church. What is special about them to make them a chuch leader?

They don't exactly do anything for the church do they?

And as has been mentioned in this thread already, Charles is not the perfect christian following christian beliefs.

Re: Charlie Farley

Look, Charley married Diana while he remained in a secret relationship with Camilla.

Diana produced two children for Charles: William and the spare.

Charles dumped Diana for Camilla.

Instead of being safe at one of the palaces, Diana died in Paris.

Harry, it turns out, has been seriously damaged by this and is in turmoil - brought about by Charley’s preferences.

Charley, the unprincipled adulterer, is now King and head of the Church.

Charley is a bad’un.

Re: Charlie Farley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36150883)

Maybe best not to selectively quote the Bible unless you know what you’re doing with it.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” - from the mouth of the Man himself. Or how about “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Seeing as you’re interested in his adultery. Hint: none of the religious experts who wanted Jesus to condemn the adulterer actually picked up a stone when challenged. They all slunk off.

Also a lot of stuff about repentance, forgiveness and the like. We have no idea really how he’s dealt with all that in the well over 25 years since those events.

As for the oath of allegiance, I imagine it sounded like a great idea when they thought it up in some back office in Buckingham Palace. When you frame it as opening something to all people which was previously reserved to the nobility it even sounds quite modern and forward looking. They appear however not to have looked at the actual words they were proposing we say or thinking through what they actually mean.

It does rather lay bare the essential difference between a king and an elected president, though as a people we are so unruly I wonder whether we’d be any happier being asked to swear allegiance to the Flag, or a Republic, or some such.

:clap:

Re: Charlie Farley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36150918)

You accurately describe his history but show no awareness of any process of repentance, forgiveness or reconciliation that may have occurred.

Of course, much of that would be private, so you wouldn’t be expected to know. The problem from my perspective is that you’re unwilling to allow even the possibility that it might have happened, or might be happening.

I truly hope nobody ever so totally writes you off for something you did half a lifetime ago. Or perhaps they did, and that’s why you find forgiveness of others such a difficult concept?

Re: Charlie Farley

If Charley had adequately repented, Harry would not be in this turmoil and Camilla would be Consort not Queen.

Re: Charlie Farley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36150923)

Being judgemental is so much easier for some of us sadly.

Re: Charlie Farley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36150925)

If Charley had adequately repented, Harry would not be in this turmoil and Camilla would be Consort not Queen.

I find your reasoning flawed on multiple levels.

Seeing as you’ve chosen to locate this discussion in the sphere of Christian faith, I recommend you go and read one of the most important recent works on the subject, Exclusion and Embrace by the Croatian theologian, Miroslav Volf. Having lived through the Yugoslav civil war he knows a thing or two about appalling behaviour and the cost of forgiveness.

However, seeing as I know there’s not a cat in hell’s chance of you actually doing that, I’ll sum it up in a line most relevant to what you have just posted: forgiveness and reconciliation are not the same thing, and reconciliation is by far the more difficult. The lack of reconciliation between people is by no means evidence of lack of repentance on the part of the sinner.

Re: Charlie Farley

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But now I tell you: anyone who looks at a woman and wants to possess her is guilty of committing adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28

That expands the guilty of adultery group out a bit.

But it's not that part of his life that concerns me but does he truly follow Jesus (like his mother did). At one point I believe he said that he wanted to be the defender of faith as compared to defender of THE faith. That's a big difference.

Re: Charlie Farley

Forgiveness and reconciliation are different coins as you say. Charley might have repented his sordid past, but he has hardly shown it. Au contraire, he has doubled down on his sin. Hence Harry’s lack of forgiveness/reconciliation.

Charles is an awful man and he is our king and head of the church.

Re: Charlie Farley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36150935)

He is not and never will be my King

Re: Charlie Farley

Also, why would that fool want to be the ‘defender of faith’? They can’t all be right as to who created what? He can’t believe in all faiths? There are laws protecting people’s right to religious belief so why get stuck into what has been the most common cause of wars and violence?

Re: Charlie Farley

Religion may be the excuse for many wars and much violence but secular governments have been the ones committing the greatest genocides. And where religion is more involved it is often the abuse of religion or religion just the vehicle for incitement or involvement.
The crusades were political and militarist and used religion (or ignorance of religion) to promote action. They were not primarily religious in nature. The same is true in many situations where the men of violence will use religion to maintain the violence for their own ends.

Re: Charlie Farley

I am not sure but I do not think religion is the sole excuse for any major war since the Crusades and even if you take ever single war in history up to say 1900 you will not be able to beat the grand total of deaths from WWI WWII Vietnam and Korea combined none of which had anything to do with religion

When you consider WWI killed between 15 and 22 Million people I doubt all war up to that point got even close to that figure

Re: Charlie Farley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36150868)

You couldn't make it up!

From today's Torygraph:

The polls show low public interest in the Coronation.

Just remind, Charlie, head of the CofE, was an adulterer (7th Commandment) and was indirectly responsible for Diana's death.

Plus, his eyes are too close together!

Seph, you may be shocked but we are (almost) in violent agreement on this. :D

His wasn't responsible for Diana's death but his actions & infidelity added a lot to the context in which Diana found herself and, fatally, tried to escape from.

---------- Post added at 11:59 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halcyon (Post 36150917)

From my understanding, there is no Christian teaching where an obscenely wealthy individual who demands deference & fealty from others is appropriate as the Head of a Church. I may be wrong though :)

Re: Charlie Farley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaymoss (Post 36150942)

https://borgenproject.org/top-12-dea...rs-in-history/

Quote:

The Thirty Years’ War
As the name implies, the Thirty Years’ War was fought between Catholic and Protestant states in Central Europe from 1618 to 1648. The conflicts eventually drew in the great powers of Europe, resulting in one of the longest, most destructive and deadliest conflicts in European history. It is estimated that the war was responsible for the deaths of 8 million civilians and military personnel alike.

Quote:

The Dungan Revolt
The Dungan Revolt was a war fought between the Hans (Chinese ethnic group native to East Asia) and the Huis (Chinese Muslims) in 19th-century China during the Qing Dynasty. There were approximately 20 million war-related deaths, mostly caused by famine and migration brought about by the war.

Quote:

Taiping Rebellion
Yet another war in China, the Taiping Rebellion was another large-scale rebellion that was fought between 1850 and 1864. The war was fought between the Qing Dynasty and the Christian millenarian movement of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. Although there isn’t an exact number, most estimations have the Taiping Rebellion responsible for 20-30 million deaths.

Those alone add up to 48-58 million…

Then there’s

Quote:

The Spanish Reconquista*, which began in the early 8th century and lasted for nearly 800 years, accounted for 7 million dead.

*Christians vs Muslims

Quote:

The centuries-long Crusades (1095-1291), which were known for brutality and all-out war on both sides, saw just some 3 million deaths

Quote:

While it is easy to think of the wars between the Christians and Islam as having a significantly high body count, in fact the Christians did a very good job of killing each other from the 14th to 17th centuries. Some 4 million may have been killed in the French Wars of Religion in the 16th century, while the Thirty Years' War resulted in the death of 11.5 million – and has been considered as devastating for Germany as the 20th century's World Wars! It was fought between Catholic and Protestant states in Central Europe from 1618 to 1648. The war eventually drew in the great powers of Europe, resulting in one of the longest, most destructive and deadliest conflicts in European history.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...history-162752

It’s also estimated that the Mongol Conquest deaths were between 30-60 million (1206-1324), 25 million died in the Qing v Ming Dynasty wars (1616–1662), and quite a lot more like those.

Whilst the 20th Century industrialised war, our ancestors were no slouch at it either (for various religious, dynastic, or nationalistic reasons).