No God – No Holy Spirit – No Lords Spiritual
Atheism is the one true argument against Bishops in the House of Lords
The Lords Spiritual are certain Bishops of the Church of England (including Archbishops) who have the right to sit, speak and vote in the upper chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament.
Both the Church of England and the office of Bishop, are predicated on the existence of God – in particular, on that most baffling of the three branches of the Christian triune God (itself a baffling concept), “the Holy Spirit”. Without God, “Church of England” and “Bishop” are meaningless.
The Church of England is[1]:-
part of the One, Holy[2], Catholic[3] and Apostolic[4] Church worshipping[5] the one true[6] God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
God is not true. Therefore, “Church of England” is meaningless.
The office of Bishop exists by virtue of the “Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons”, of which it is stated[7]:-
Led by the Holy Spirit, [the Church of England] has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
There is no Holy Spirit to lead the Church of England (which is meaningless anyway) to bear witness to “Christian truth” (which is not true anyway) in its “Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons”.
“Christian truth” is one and the same thing as the “faith”, of which it is stated[8]:-
[The Church of England) professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds …
The “catholic[9] creeds” are those referred to in Article VIII of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion[10]:-
The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture.
A “creed” is a formal statement of Christian beliefs. The Three Creeds have common ground but also differences. Fortunately, we do not need to look at them in detail; philosopher Michael Martin has done the work for us in his masterpiece “The Case against Christianity” and distilled the following definition:-
Person P is a Basic Christian if and only if P believes that a theistic God exists, that Jesus lived at the time of Pilate, that Jesus is the Incarnation of God, that one is saved through faith in Jesus, and that Jesus is the model of ethical behaviour.
This is “Christian truth”. It is all untrue: not “in accord with the facts”[11]. Therefore, the “Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons” and the office of Bishop are invalid.
The argument, about Lords Spiritual, is the argument about “Christian truth”, including the truth of God. Bring it on!
See also: Lords Spiritual – Atheism UK Responds
[1] Canon C15 of the Canons of the Church of England. It is also (but only within the territory of England) “established according to the laws of this realm under the Queen’s Majesty” (Canon A1). The Canons of the Church of England are part of that law.
[2] “Holy”, in this context, comes from the same root as the “holic” in “catholic”, holos “whole”.
[3] “Catholic” here does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church (although that is also part of this “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”) but is used in its original Greek sense, katholikos “universal”, from kata “in respect of” + holos “whole”.
[4] From the Greek adjective apostolikos referring to apostolos “messenger”, from the verb apostellein “send forth”. “Apostolic” here refers to the “Twelve Apostles” of the New Testament who were the founders of Christianity.
[5] To “worship” something is, literally, to “give worth” to it (Anglo-Saxon worthscipe).
[6] The expression “one true God” has its origins in the New Testament (John 17:3). “True”, in the original Greek, is alêthês “in accord with the facts”. In biblical times this claim was about one God as opposed to another: “there is none other God but one” (1 Corinthians 8:4), rather than about one God as opposed to none. Nevertheless, the former necessarily subsumes the latter.
[7] Canon C15.
[8] Canon C15.
[9] Again, “catholic” means universal.
[10] Which, under Canon A2, “are agreeable to the Word of God”.
[11] Except, arguably, “that Jesus lived at the time of Pilate”. But this is merely saying “that X lived at the time of Y”. it is only significant if the other claims about Jesus are true.
Having people who are deluded voting on serious issues that effect millions of people’s lives is unethical. Religious delusion seriously effects people’s decision making, there opinions are not based in reality and do not take in account that we are organisms with certain needs. How would these religious egocentrics vote on say Gay Marriage, they would use an out dated morality to rationalise their prejudice, but such prejudice should not be tolerated. These religious idiots should be kicked out of the government.
I agree with you 100%, time for religion to go and common sense to take over.
Yet another nonsensical piece of bigotry from Richard G. In its submission to the Cabinet Office, Atheism UK states, “There is no evidence for, and much evidence against, the existence of God.” That being the case AUKs claim that there is no God is no more than an assertion. Indeed it should be apparent that atheism is the promotion of an idea that has no factual basis. The most that any rational person suggest is that of agnosticism. The argument about the Lords Spiritual is not about the existence or otherwise of God, still less about the Christian creed as espoused by the Church of England. It is about the political structure of Parliament including that part of the British Establishment known as the Church of England which, historically, emerged from the political conflict between Henry V111 and the Roman Catholic Church. Regarding the two comments made to date both demonstrate the ignorance and conviction of all those who believe they alone know the truth and everyone else is deluded. Just the same as those fundamentalists they roundly condemn.
Hi believer. Can you tell me what it is you believe? I understand why a religious persom might be upset when someone says ‘there is no god’ but we live in a society that ‘generally’ has a lazy, unfounded assumption or acceptance that there is a god. I don’t believe in any gods, frankly I think it is a wholly absurd notion that through the centuries has caused fear, death and division around the world. I may be guilty of saying there is no god when I perhaps should say I don’t believe there is a god but I think we atheists are a long way behind ‘believers’ in the assertion department. I feel that societies, communities, whole countries are built on a lie perpetrated to control those within that group. I am not looking to antagonise just to explore and begin to explain my position.
To believe in a personal god that both created the entire universe and is also particularly interested in every aspect of your life is not only a delusion, it is very egotistical.
As for the historical origins of the cofe, no one here is disputing that history. What we are concerned about is the future and how we are governed. The fact that people believe in such delusions is not a recommendation for them to be in a position of power, it is instead a reason to trust their judgement far less than would otherwise have been the case.
On the contrary, atheism is the absence of an idea that has no factual basis: “God exists”. Indeed, the idea itself claims to have no factual basis, being based on faith.
Petchiism. I’m neither nor antagonised. I consider your position to be intellectually shallow. My own belief is irrelevant to the conversation. Graham Martin-Royal – the only delusion is that you consider your first paragraph to be an accurate statement of what people believe. You consider their beliefs to be a delusion although that is a matter of opinion not of fact. Richard G provides further evidence of his illogical thinking by suggesting atheism is the absence of an idea. The promotion of atheism as a fact is indefensible. An acceptance of agnosticism remains the only logical choice for non-theists and, in some cases, for theists too. The critique each applies to theism applies equally to atheism which is why T H Huxley developed evolutionary theory into a secular religion.
believer, try to get my name correct, thanks. My first para is what people believe, that’s why they pray. Richard G is correct in his assertion, atheism is merely a non belief, an absence of belief.
GMR I shall attempt to remember. Your first paragraph was not what people believe but what you think they believe. Your second point is worthless and has already been dealt with.
@believer, no, my first para is what people believe, just because you disagree does not alter that. You quite obviously don’t understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism.