Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Abuse groups query record of Roman Catholic clerics sent to Ireland


You might think - would you not - that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander would be the last member of the Cabinet the Prime Minister would appoint to carry out an investigation into the dubious but 'within-the-rules' practice of 'flipping' houses to avoid Capital Gains Tax.

Cranmer has purposely chosen Mr Alexander because he has neither been found guilty of any wrongdoing nor has felt a twinge of conscience, like so many others, to repay any amount to HMRC or even to donate it to charity.

So it comes as something of a shock to child abuse groups that some of the senior Roman Catholics who constitute the Apostolic Visitation to Ireland, charged with investigating the Church's chronic failure in child protection, are themselves not as squeaky clean and beyond reproach as an impartial investigator really ought to be.

It is rather like asking members of Haringey social services to investigate the failures which led to the death of Baby Peter Connelly, or the Israeli Government to investigate the events which led to the death of 9 'peace protestors' at sea.

The findings of such reports would be undermined from the outset and lack any credibility.

The Irish Times tells us that abuse groups have no confidence at all in two cardinals and one archbishop:

They believe the child protection records of the former primate of England and Wales and Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor; of the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Séan O’Malley; and of the Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, disbar them.

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor has been appointed apostolic visitor to the Armagh archdiocese, Cardinal O’Malley to the Dublin archdiocese and Archbishop Dolan to the seminaries at Maynooth and the Irish College in Rome. The MACSAS (Minister & Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors) group in the UK have said they were “deeply amazed and concerned” at Cardinal Murphy O’Connor’s appointment.

MACSAS founder Dr Margaret Kennedy referred to the cardinal’s decision in 1985, when he was bishop of Arundel and Brighton, to move the priest Fr Michael Hill to a chaplaincy at Gatwick airport. Eighteen months previously the cardinal had removed Hill from ministry because of child abuse allegations but then allowed him back to work at the airport where Hill abused a child. Hill was jailed in 2002.

Dr Kennedy said yesterday that the cardinal’s handling of the case “has never been examined by independent inquiry”. Hill had “abused a very vulnerable, lost, learning-disabled boy. Hill also abused other disabled children.”

Many in the UK survivor movement “would wonder why a bishop with a record of mishandling his own cases could independently look at another bishop’s handling of cases”, she said. It was a “truly farcical and deeply insulting situation” which showed that “the Vatican does not yet fully grasp the notions of ‘justice, truth or accountability’,” she said. “The Armagh people should not accept Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. However, I guess Cardinal Brady is rather happy about it.”

In a statement the US group bishopsaccountability.org has said it was “dismayed by the Vatican’s selection of Boston’s Cardinal Seán O’Malley to advise and monitor the Dublin archdiocese’s handling of child sexual abuse allegations against clergy.”

The cardinal’s “career ascent has been fuelled by his ability to walk into dioceses racked by horrible revelations of child molestation and enshroud them again in silence”, they said. Since 2003 “he has released almost no information about new allegations against Boston priests”, they said.

They also claimed he had reinstated “at least three accused priests [Rev Jerome Gillespie, Rev Eugene Sullivan and Rev Charles Murphy] about whom troubling questions persist” and that in his diocese of Fall River, Massachusetts, the district attorney in 2002 was so disturbed at Cardinal O’Malley’s failure to inform the public of sexual offenders that he himself went public with a list of names of accused priests.

It concluded that “for an apostolic visitation to have any chance of success, the participating bishops cannot be guilty of the same offences they are investigating”.

Barbara Dorris, of the United States’ SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), said that both Cardinal O’Malley and Archbishop Dolan had “troubling track records on abuse”. She said “just a few years ago Boston’s [Cardinal] O’Malley was found in violation of the US bishops’ sex abuse policy for refusing to make sure that all parishes were offering abuse training. And [Archbishop] Dolan let a priest sue his accuser in St Louis and fought against reforming Wisconsin child sex abuse laws.”
Cranmer awaits for these child protection workers to be accused of being anti-Catholic extremist Protestants, out to denigrate and undermine the Roman Catholic Church at every turn.

92 Comments:

Anonymous circus monkey said...

How is it possible for an organisation like the Catholic Church, with so many decent and intellectually gifted individuals within its ranks, to get things so terribly wrong, at just about every turn, when dealing with the question of child abuse? Apart from anything else, they have given an arsenal of ammunition to every militant atheist under the sun who looks upon religious belief as an occupation for the mad and unbalanced. As a non Catholic, but some-one who has a great deal of respect for Catholicism, I pray that they can eventually set their house in order.

2 June 2010 at 11:08  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"How is it possible for an organisation like the Catholic Church, with so many decent and intellectually gifted individuals within its ranks"

You can see this in almost all organisations, worth remembering that the people that control these organisations are so far removed from reality that they think in a completely different manner and appear off the wall to any normal people.

Add to this the fact that as well as being separated from the reality of others, in the case of the Catholic church they separate themselves from reality by believing in the unprovable as fact.

So to me they appear double mad.

2 June 2010 at 12:23  
Blogger Theresa said...

Your Grace,

After a quick visit to Bishop Accountability and finding this on Cardinal O'Malley I find myself extremely puzzled;

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2006/03_04/2006_04_22_PatriotLedger_OurView.htm

2 June 2010 at 12:31  
Blogger Theresa said...

Ah right. It's the Patriot Ledger 'Our View', not the Bishop Accountability view. That explains it. He did open Boston's books though.

2 June 2010 at 12:57  
Anonymous circus monkey said...

Glovner, You have gone a long way towards proving my point!

2 June 2010 at 13:07  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Which was my aim, being that I agree with you on the subject of their awful actions to try and mitigate an already awful situation.

2 June 2010 at 13:25  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

"How is it possible for an organisation like the Catholic Church, with so many decent and intellectually gifted individuals within its ranks..."

I think it's because they don't preach The Word. They aren't biblically correct and so they lose the Lord's protection and blessing over them and so the devil gets in.

The Evangelical church has been as bad over recent years. They have stopped preaching The Bible and have fallen away into something which has 'a semblance but without the power.' Therefore the devil has got in again. In these churches, particularly mega-churches, there is a lot of sexual immorality. The preachers have gone into harlotry or adultery symbolically speaking and so the body has been affected too. Hence, you find the choir master is having an affair with a married woman or something...

I saw this happen with a believing friend of mine. She went into one of those Kingdom Now type of churches and forgot the Bible...a couple of years later her husband was found guilty of a sex offence against his 8 year old niece.

2 June 2010 at 14:16  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"I saw this happen with a believing friend of mine. She went into one of those Kingdom Now type of churches and forgot the Bible...a couple of years later her husband was found guilty of a sex offence against his 8 year old niece."

Not sure if I am reading this right or not, but are you suggesting that her husband became a peado because she went to a different church that you deem to be the wrong type?

2 June 2010 at 14:40  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

I deem? It's not me doing the deeming. She went into an apostate church, where there was no blessing or protection from the Lord Almighty and the devil got in. Her husband got tempted....

I've noticed that there is a pattern. When a church falls away from The Bible, falls into spiritual adultery, spiritual harlotry, call it what you will, there tends to be this sort of thing happening.

2 June 2010 at 14:58  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Anguishes soul said...

I deem? It's not me doing the deeming. She went into an apostate church, where there was no blessing or protection from the Lord Almighty and the devil got in. Her husband got tempted....

This must be a wind up? Nobody could believe this nonsense.

Glovner remind me which century we are in, the 14th perhaps?

2 June 2010 at 15:19  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Oh my word....I'm not sure if you are for real or not.

In a nut shell:

Someone doesn't do the same kind of praying as what I have been told is the right kind of praying therefore people close to them become evil where they wouldn't had they been doing the right kind of praying. In other words people becoming peado's are a direct result of people not doing the right kind of praying.

2 June 2010 at 15:32  
Blogger William said...

Graham Davis said "This must be a wind up? Nobody could believe this nonsense."

Well, millions do, so why do you say it's nonsense? Were you there? Perhaps you would like to tell us what really happened?

2 June 2010 at 15:38  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

It's got nothing to do with praying. It's all to do with preaching. Preaching The Bible. You know, that book you keep ignoring...

2 June 2010 at 15:40  
Blogger Scrigg said...

Cuckoo!

2 June 2010 at 15:48  
Blogger srizals said...

I wonder which paedo do they have the most. The ones that like boys or the ones that like girls. Should a marriage be a considerate option for the man that is born not just with sin?

2 June 2010 at 15:48  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

William

"Well, millions do, so why do you say it's nonsense? Were you there? Perhaps you would like to tell us what really happened?"

Erm.. Perhaps the peado had a unhealthy attraction to children which is viewed by the general public to be depravied and illegal if acted upon. But being that he was sick in the head he acted on his disgusting impulses.

Or I suppose you may well be right and a big red man with a pitchfork told him to do it because the magic power of prayer didn't keep him away. And when the big red man with a pitchfork tells you to do something, well you just gotta go do it don'tcha.

Madness.

2 June 2010 at 16:07  
Blogger William said...

"Or I suppose you may well be right and a big red man with a pitchfork told him to do it because the magic power of prayer didn't keep him away. And when the big red man with a pitchfork tells you to do something, well you just gotta go do it don'tcha."

Who's this big red man with a pitchfork? You sound delusional.

2 June 2010 at 16:23  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

You probably know his friend better, he's got a friend with a big white beard that lives in the clouds.

He had a son once that was actually himself at the same time through a woman that was impregnated without having sex. When the son/beardy cloud man grew up he ran about the desert with 12 pals performing magic tricks, only back then they called them miricles since they didn't have the likes of Penn and Teller to show them how it was done. Some folks got quite irate about not knowing how the magic tricks were done so they hauled him up on a cross and killed him, not to worry though he came back from the dead a couple of days later and flew off into the sky to be with his dad, or turn back into his beardy sky version, i'm not sure which. And people to this day still follow his magical expolits while killing and hating people that read a different print of the biography.

I know, it sounds just as delusional doesn't it.

2 June 2010 at 16:30  
Blogger srizals said...

Well, I didn't start this mess, not mine to clean it up. Where's Len when we need him? Viking boy? Or do you only jump when your master, Rebel Saint told you so?

2 June 2010 at 16:46  
Blogger William said...

"I know, it sounds just as delusional doesn't it."

I'm afraid it does. Have you tried reading the Bible? It might help.

2 June 2010 at 16:48  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I did actually when I was originally a catholic. But when I looked at it critically rather than just believing what I was told it begins to look about as likely as Lord of the Rings, and at least that had dragons and swords and stuff so it was a bit more interesting.

And it doesn't try to pass off magic as something else more high and mighty. And not at one point does it proclaim to be true, which is good considering how unbelievable the whole thing is

2 June 2010 at 17:03  
Blogger William said...

Wow, Graham Davis, TheGlovner, srizals and Scrigg all posting together. Must be onto something.

Perhaps the big red man with the pitchfork is pitching in. You must have read about him when you were a Catholic TheGlovner. Is he red all over, or just his face?

2 June 2010 at 17:20  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The more subtle violable methods of State and media rape the minds of our children daily.

The grooming effect starts early, with deep penetration of the subconscious, churning out future abusers compliant with their system.

Physical hurt is just a different variation of acheiving mastery.

Who will watch the watchers!

2 June 2010 at 17:48  
Anonymous Oswin said...

SRIZALS AT 15.48 - I'm not a Roman Catholic and certainly no apologist for them. However, it is worth remembering that regardless of what iniquities come to exist, within any organisation, it was not the original intention of that organisation.

That is, with the notable exception of Islam, and our old pal, the so-called Prophet Muhammad. However, I'm sure someone must already have quoted to you, chapter and verse, a litany of his iniquities; so I'll say only this : why would you be stupid enough to invite comment on an issue like this?

2 June 2010 at 20:20  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

If you want to think it's just his face then go on; you can think he bounces around on a spacehopper wearking clingfilm and a g-string for all it matters.

Imagine him how you want, since he is all in your mind anyway.

2 June 2010 at 20:28  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Oswin does have a point there, no point in a muslim having a go against peado's since their version of a god or prophet or whatever (all the same hackneyed shit to me) seems to be right up for getting it on with the kiddies.

But at the same time there isn't much use of any religion trying to slag off another since none can offer any more proof than another.

2 June 2010 at 20:32  
Anonymous len said...

Srizals,
Q,Where len when you need him?
A, At work just finished.
...............................
See we are back on the same old theme.

2 June 2010 at 20:40  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I guess the world will be until yer man comes out the sky and finally gives a reason why he has been hiding for so long.

2 June 2010 at 20:44  
Anonymous len said...

You seem obsessed with God Mr G ,why?

2 June 2010 at 20:46  
Anonymous len said...

I think by the constant re-visiting of Atheists to this blog a bit puzzling.
Do you hope to destroy the faith of Christians?
What exactly are your motives?

2 June 2010 at 20:48  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Hmm.. not God, which would be your particular flavour of the god belief.

I have an interest in the strange nature of religious beliefs in any gods and the obvious (to everyone except the religious) irony and hypocrisy in their beliefs.

A curiosity I suppose I would term it, I just find it strange and the comments from the mouths of the religious never cease to amaze me, like the one earlier in this thread where I was informed that the reason someones husband was a peado was because she had went to a church that the person telling the story didn't adhere to.

2 June 2010 at 20:52  
Anonymous len said...

I could almost draw up a profile of an atheist.It doesn`t seem that Atheists actually disbelieve in God but that they cannot bear the thought of God and their constant pulling down of anything Christian is an attempt to convince themselves.

2 June 2010 at 20:52  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

On top of that of course I find the articles interesting so I come here to read these, a lot of times I don't agree but debate serves to enlighten more than any gods will ever manage.

Other times I do agree, I also appreciate the generally uncensored administration of the site as one thing I fully disagree with is censorship.

2 June 2010 at 20:54  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Get of your high horse len, I don't care if it is your god or the muslim god, shiva or whatever make believe fairy story you wish to mention. It's all a pile of equal nonsense.

The one thing I will give the christians (well some of them anyway) is at least they can accept criticism better than the muslims.

I don't need convincing of my position, it is the natural position to be in, unless I want to accept what I am told with no supporting evidence. As I wouldn't do this with anything else I see no reason to treat religious belief (all religious belief) in the same way.

It offers up no verifiable evidence therefore I won't accept it as a testable fact.

2 June 2010 at 20:58  
Anonymous len said...

Mr G, I have to agree with you on that point.(20: 52)
There is a lot wrong with religion but Jesus never came to set up a religion, that was man`s idea.
Hypocrisy,I would also agree with that, religious folk can be and often are hypocritical,
I can understand why you should look at religion( all varieties) and say there is no God.
But, there is a god and if you demand the Truth of God He will make Himself known to you.
I cannot give you any physical, material proof that God exists, but God can and does make himself known to those who seek Him in honesty and truth.
Try it you might be surprised.

2 June 2010 at 21:17  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Len - You are a far better man than I; and forever a reassuring presence. Thank you.

2 June 2010 at 21:34  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Len - You are a far better man than I; and forever a reassuring presence. Thank you.

2 June 2010 at 21:34  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Glovner,
You are right in the respect of disbelieving the existence of God being your natural state.
We all start off having a carnal mind this is the position of the natural man.Every Christian starts off having a carnal mind(like yours and every unsaved person)
A. Carnal Mind
The carnal mind is the mind of the flesh.
It means walking according to reasoning dictated by what your five senses (see, hear, touch, smell, feel) are telling you.
Your senses are not reliable guides, because they are often contradicting what the Word of God says.
Carnal or flesh is the Greek word "sarx" (456l - Greek) meaning external, human nature, body.
Romans 8:6,7 gives more insight about the carnal mind.
a. The carnal mind is death (verse 6).
b. The carnal mind is enmity (hostility, hatred) against God; it is not
subject to the law of God nor can it be (verse 7).

..................................

This is the reason man needs to be born again.
"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh."Ezekiel 36:26.


This is the one thing religion cannot do,produce life.

This is the position you are now in, helpless ,hopeless,unable to do a thing to remedy your situation, only the God you constantly deride and reject can help you.

2 June 2010 at 21:35  
Anonymous Oswin said...

TheGlovner at 20.32 - I really don't see it as one religion taking a pop at another....Islam is not a religion; it is as it always was, a pan-Arabic expansionist movement...and as such it has done exactly what it says on he tin - expanded!

2 June 2010 at 21:43  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Bless you Len and other believers on this site.

2 June 2010 at 22:06  
Blogger Theresa said...

Glovner,

I presume by the man in the red suit and pitchfork you are referring to the Devil. The devil doesn't actually wear this outfit because he would be very easy to spot. He most commonly tempts people through their family and friends because they are the hardest to square up to morally and also because we tend to take those whom we love for granted. But that aside, I thought we were having a discussion on child abuse and as I'm one of the token papes on Cranmer I'd like to put forward something for discussion. What effect do you think the child abuse scandal is going to have on other institutions dealing with children and do you think they should be made to do what we have; ie going back to the 1930s like the Nolan report, call for dismissal of someone because they made a misjudgement in 1985 like Cardinal Murphy O'Connor? Should institutions be made to pay compensation even if it bankrupts them? How much of a part do you think hindsight is playing in the judgements being made now? Do you think there is any institution dealing with children that could survive the kind of scrutiny that we have been through? Etc,etc..

2 June 2010 at 23:24  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Oh come on, there were no slight one of misjudgements here, there was a systematic cover up of the abuse, protection of the abusers and scorn for the abused.

It's not the fact that there was peadophilia in the church that is the church's fault, that fault lies with the individual. The issue is what they did with the knowledge they had of the situation, the answer is not bloody much and nowhere near enough.

3 June 2010 at 01:00  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

And then for the members of your church in the higher echelons to start coming out with stupid statements about the devil being responsible, or secularism or atheism is just even more crazy than their usual everyday beliefs.

3 June 2010 at 01:02  
Blogger srizals said...

They had enough in the inquisitions I guess, TheGlovner, and its not just the Spanish one that you should taken into account.

You're a Scientist devotee, aren't you. Have you forgotten the basic Science of observation and comparison? Science is in the habit of making a conclusion by comparing two things and examine how certain variables influence the object of a study, what to keep the same and the end result of a controlled variables that they change in order to determine the different results.

Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. married Aisyah r.a. in 623 or 624, and the marital age of a 'child bride' during George Washington was 10 years old, and that was around 1789-1797.

In 1396, Richard II of England was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who had been 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris.

Now, let's compare with the current situation at hand.

a. Secrecy.
Paedo did it in secret and will try to keep it a secret and people knew about it, well, tried to keep it in secret too.

b. Holy matrimony.
Paedo did not marry even one of his victims.

c. Torture, Force and Death.
Paedo cannot help it but use the three above in satisfying his needs.

d. Abortions and sexual freedom on the other hand were considered as a hideous act of lunacy, no matter the time frame. It is only in our recent of time of intellectual height and achievement that the misfits got to be crowned as the norm.

3 June 2010 at 01:41  
Blogger Theresa said...

Oh come on, there were no slight one of misjudgements here, there was a systematic cover up of the abuse, protection of the abusers and scorn for the abused.

It's not the fact that there was peadophilia in the church that is the church's fault, that fault lies with the individual. The issue is what they did with the knowledge they had of the situation, the answer is not bloody much and nowhere near enough.

Ok, that's my attempt to have a broad discussion on the wider implications of the Catholic child abuse scandal shot down in flames..

3 June 2010 at 02:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please refrain from using the term Catholic child abuse scandal, let's use the...Umph!

TheObserver.

3 June 2010 at 03:45  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Glovner,
The fact that people make excuses for the gross practices of the people practising their particular brand of religion illustrates my(and your)point.
Religion is useless for the purposes of salvation and people practising it prefer their prophets and their traditions to the Truth.
It is pure hypocrisy.God does not condone sin.
As I have said before this is why Jesus said you MUST be born again, a new creation,born from above not below.
To think you are serving God by blowing people up or condoning sin is an illustration of just how far away from God you actually are.

3 June 2010 at 08:27  
Blogger srizals said...

Oswin? Is there anyone that would take an advantage of my stupidity?

3 June 2010 at 12:53  
Anonymous len said...

Srizels,
Some questions are better not asked.

3 June 2010 at 13:28  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Kudos len.

You actually made me laugh out loud with that one.

wv: homno (to close for comfort for a number of people here I would wager)

3 June 2010 at 13:33  
Blogger srizals said...

Regarding what len?
On which bible is the truest or what Christianity are you actually believe in?

TheGlovner seems to laugh a lot these days. Is it becoming his style when a cat got his tongue?

Or is it safer to ignore and carry on deluding that he is the master of logic? And I thought only the ignorant would and could ignore.

3 June 2010 at 14:02  
Blogger Theresa said...

Len,

I appreciate to a certain extent the point you're trying to make; that people should not confuse religion with God. One is a road to a destination and the other is the destination. That's why at the end of Revelations, there is no Temple and no religion, because it has reached its end. That doesn't mean there's no need for it at the moment. If you want to keep people praying together and if you want to keep a body of teachings together, you need some form of organisation to pass it on. And yes, we can all accuse each other of hypocrisy, but that's the inevitable result of having any aim in life; every time you fall short of it you can be said to be a hypocrite. The only way to avoid hypocrisy is not to have any aims in life at all and I don't think it's a good way to live. The other alternative is to accept there is such a thing as moral weakness and that you have a way of coping with sin when it happens; ie admit it, make amends and try not to do it again.

3 June 2010 at 14:38  
Blogger William said...

Theresa

If I may respond to your post. I agree that it is important for Christians to organise themselves to pray, teach and learn together. These are vital to the spiritual growth of the church and the individuals themselves and (as you say) to pass these on to others. If that is the extent of religion then fine. However, I think that even to say that religion is the road to God is wrong, because it is our response to Jesus (the Way, the Truth and the Life) that determines our road. The way to God is through a person not a religion. We need to bring people to Jesus, not to Catholicism or Anglicanism or whatever other -ism there is. If our religion helps us to do that then great, otherwise ...

3 June 2010 at 17:01  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Srizals at 01.41 - I hate to burden you with this tiresome fact, but Richard II didn't pretend to be a Prophet of God. Neither did he spend twenty-odd years pretending to take dictation from God!

Before the internet came into existence, muslims could perhaps be forgiven for not knowing the true nature of their own religious history. Those such as you, who now use the net, have no excuse for perpetuating their ignorance.

For you to have a 'leg to stand on' you needs must have been born a centipede! (make that a 'millipede')

3 June 2010 at 17:15  
Blogger Theresa said...

Hi William,

Yes, but Jesus did pick twelve disciples. If he'd wanted to do it all Himself, he would have. Part of the discipline of following Christ is that He very often gives the job of teaching you to someone very human and someone you don't like. This is so that we realise that all people are important to Him and to teach us humility. We're not always going to get a direct line to heaven. We've got to learn to see Him in others and in the familiar.

3 June 2010 at 18:27  
Blogger William said...

Hi Theresa,

Yes, the church is vital for those both within and without. I didn't mean to imply that we simply point people at Jesus and say "there you go". We also need to be salt and light as that is part of Jesus' plan to reconcile the world to Him. But He is the Way.

3 June 2010 at 19:01  
Blogger srizals said...

Oswin 17:15,
Then what about Paul? Is he a Prophet? Was he one of Prophet Isa's 12 disciples? How long does it take for Paul to follow Prophet Isa? Right after his so called crucification or a hundred years later?

What about the Prophets in the OT and NT? Did they marry and how many wives do they have? And how would you know that they are Prophets? Because they said so?

Is it the average double standard views of the West in interpreting things and events?

If a Muslim did it, it is bad and unacceptable. But if others did it, well, it's quite ok and it's not so bad after all.

3 June 2010 at 22:24  
Anonymous Oswin said...

srizals - I cannot pretend that I have the first clue as to what you are talking about - I suspect it woffle.

4 June 2010 at 00:35  
Blogger srizals said...

Then woffle it is. I have to withdraw in the memoriam of the fallen at Cumbria. So long Oswin. Nice not talking with you.

4 June 2010 at 01:58  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Srizals - we British have a saying: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

You forget that you know neither what you are talking about, nor to whom you speak. On the other hand, Oswin knows more about Northumbria than you could even imagine exists. He doesn't have to tell me how much he knows, I know it by every syllable he writes; nor does he need to identify himself in order to impress me. So please don't ask for any further communication from me on the subject - now is not the time.

However I also know that Oswin and His Grace will understand why the following is in my thoughts just now:
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum,
si ðin nama gehalgod.
To becume þin rice.
Gewurþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
Urne gedæg hwamlican hlaf syle us to dæg.
And forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltemdum.
And ne gelaed þu us on costnunge,
ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.

4 June 2010 at 05:55  
Anonymous len said...

Islam is an antithesis of everything Christ stood for and muslims are driven by that spirit.
I agree with you no nonny.

4 June 2010 at 08:05  
Blogger srizals said...

Tu quoque, no nonny. Pardon me, I'm merely responding to Oswin. In no way I'm communicating with all of you without any respect, but then, what you give, you get back.

My deepest condolences, your grace.

4 June 2010 at 11:49  
Blogger srizals said...

Father our thou that art in heavens
be thy name hallowed
come thy kingdom
be-done thy will
on earth as in heavens
our daily bread give us today
and forgive us our sins
as we forgive those-who-have-sinned-against-us
and not lead thou us into temptation
but deliver us from evil truly.

Amin.

4 June 2010 at 12:45  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Is that the lords babel fish prayer?

4 June 2010 at 13:07  
Blogger srizals said...

Something that you'll never understand, TheGlovner. Since you are a sinless and the most perfect being in this blog. You're a being that is heading to nothingness. So this doesn't concern you. Nothing does.

4 June 2010 at 13:28  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

And that would be the babel fish reply.

I'm sinless in the supernatural sense but I wouldn't say I've never committed a sin a naturalisc moral sense of the word.

But yup, the end of me and everyone else is very probably nothingness which is where I came from and to which I shall return.

However, rather arrogant on your part to suggest nothing concerns me, would you be trying to imply you are better than me as you have belief in an unprovable position?

4 June 2010 at 15:33  
Blogger srizals said...

You and everyone else are better than me. I'm just a Muslim.

4 June 2010 at 15:43  
Blogger Theresa said...

'Yes, the church is vital for those both within and without. I didn't mean to imply that we simply point people at Jesus and say "there you go". We also need to be salt and light as that is part of Jesus' plan to reconcile the world to Him. But He is the Way.'



Absolutely, William. God bless..

4 June 2010 at 17:15  
Blogger William said...

Theresa,

May He bless you too.

4 June 2010 at 18:22  
Anonymous len said...

For 17 Centuries the greatest understanding in Christendom has been hidden behind the ministry of the priest and pastors of the traditional church. Starting first under the Roman Catholic (i.e., "universal") Church, then by way of the reformation to the protestant church, and finally into the evangelical church, this great understanding, the way of truth, has been maligned.
This great understanding is the ekklesia.


Ekklesia means "the called-out ones."

Ekklesia does not mean, "church."

The ekklesia are those persons that Jesus has called-out to Himself. When Jesus began His public ministry He went through Judea and called-out a group of men that became His disciples. Jesus did not begin His ministry in the temple or within the denominations of the priesthood. Jesus began His work outside the temple format and the religious practices of His day by building up men upon "a rock" of revelation: "Thou are the Christ, the son of the living God." Upon this rock, I will build My ekklesia, not My church! Jesus set out to build people up and into Himself, upon the rock of revelation—He is the Christ!


Revelation from the Father in heaven is the only way to come to a full understanding and experience of ekklesia. Unless the Father in heaven reveals who Jesus is, then we cannot even begin to be built up into the ekklesia. No preaching, Sunday school teaching, or religious activities can be substituted for direct revelation of who Jesus is.

4 June 2010 at 18:52  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Oh drop the victim act.

4 June 2010 at 20:00  
Anonymous len said...

Predictable as ever Mr G.Anything original to say?

You seem to have resorted to sniping tactics rather than direct confrontation.

4 June 2010 at 23:05  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Glovner,
Have you heard this one, A Christian, a Jew, and an atheist are standing in line to be executed during the French Revolution.

The christian is first, and he lays down on the guillotine. Before the executioner pulls the lever he shouts, "My god will save me!". The lever is pulled, and the blade swooshes down, stopping just short of his neck. The executioner, believing a miracle of god has occurred, figures he can't kill this man, as so sets him free.

The Jew lays down on the guillotine. Like the christian, he shouts, "My god will save me!". The lever is pulled, the blade falls, and once again it stops just short of his neck. The executioner, again, believes god is on this man's side, and lets him go.

Finally, the atheist lays down on the guillotine. He examines the guillotine, finds a rock in the gears, and says to the executioner, "Well here's your problem..."

The moral? There's a time and a place for skepticism.

4 June 2010 at 23:17  
Blogger Theresa said...

Good one Len! I'll be dining out on that one..

4 June 2010 at 23:51  
Blogger srizals said...

The victim act, TheGlovner?

What exactly do you mean by that TheGlovner? At Bosnia? At Palestine? Or in Protestants' land that had forgotten how the Catholics had kindly treated them before and how they turned to the Ottomans for assistant and protection. Are they becoming like the Catholics now?

5 June 2010 at 00:22  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Len.

"Predictable as ever Mr G.Anything original to say?

You seem to have resorted to sniping tactics rather than direct confrontation."

Can't have been that predictable then since I wasn't actually aiming anything at you with the victim comment but at sirzals with his "OOoo i'm just a poor muslim and nobody loves me, everybody hates me, why don't I just go and eat worms."

6 June 2010 at 17:05  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Glovner,
Srizals pops up now and then just to wind people up bit like the genie of the blog.
Perhaps if you addressed your comments to the poster they are aimed at it would clear up any confusion.
Apologies if I misunderstood you.

6 June 2010 at 19:27  
Anonymous Oswin said...

no nonny 4June at 05.55 - yet again, you are too kind.


Paulinus at Ad Gefrin!


My regards, Oswin.

7 June 2010 at 03:17  
Anonymous Oswin said...

srizals 4June at 11.49 - being a Muslim you'll know all about ''tu quoque'' fallacies. Most muslim defences are based upon one or another.

You really can't ignore valid criticism simply beause someone, somewhere, has committed an equal wrong.

As I've stated before, you cannot defend your so-called Prophet, on that basis.

However, it is interesting that you should use such an expression....I suspect that you have been doing a little extracurricular reading; just don't let the Mullah catch you at it. You know the penalty for apostasy!

Rest easy, I wouldn't dream of snitching on you.

7 June 2010 at 03:52  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Apology accepted and my apolgies for not adding the name to whom I was replying at the top of my post, I just assumed it was obvious from the content and previous posts.

7 June 2010 at 12:46  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Sirzals:

"What exactly do you mean by that TheGlovner? At Bosnia? At Palestine? Or in Protestants' land that had forgotten how the Catholics had kindly treated them before and how they turned to the Ottomans for assistant and protection. Are they becoming like the Catholics now?"

I'm sorry but I can't really reply to you when I can't actually understand the point you try to make.

If you are trotting these points out to try prove your point all it seems you are doing is proving mine.

Where you at Bosnia? Or at Palestine? Or in Protestants' land that had forgotten how the Catholics had kindly treated them before and how they turned to the Ottomans for assistant and protection?

If you weren't then trotting these out to suggest you are treated unfairly would just seem like you have a victim complex to me.

7 June 2010 at 12:50  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Sirzals:

"What exactly do you mean by that TheGlovner? At Bosnia? At Palestine? Or in Protestants' land that had forgotten how the Catholics had kindly treated them before and how they turned to the Ottomans for assistant and protection. Are they becoming like the Catholics now?"

I'm sorry but I can't really reply to you when I can't actually understand the point you try to make.

If you are trotting these points out to try prove your point all it seems you are doing is proving mine.

Where you at Bosnia? Or at Palestine? Or in Protestants' land that had forgotten how the Catholics had kindly treated them before and how they turned to the Ottomans for assistant and protection?

If you weren't then trotting these out to suggest you are treated unfairly would just seem like you have a victim complex to me.

7 June 2010 at 12:51  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Double post, don't know why, apologies.

7 June 2010 at 12:51  
Blogger srizals said...

Oswin,

Your judgement is entirely based on an assumption that ignored other examples that exist along with it. The facts that differentiate the events of the so called paedophiles in modern day definition would of course be ignored by you. Current situation at hand is the best example one could have ever imagine, for the ones that hate history, of course. The Monster of the Andes is still fresh in the memories of many.

The facts that I've stated before, not in a very difficult academia to be understood and countered by a personality like you, have not been addressed with. Why? You’ve just said that the King of England didn't pretend to be a prophet and that was it. I'm sure Paul didn't pretend to be a prophet too.

If only there were proper records of Europe from 600 - 700. I'm still trying to look for them of course.

The fact that none ridicule Muhammad for his marriage with Aisyah, at the time the marriage had taken place, is not taken into consideration. Mind you, he had enemies more powerful than you could have imagined nowadays. With him, baby killings, sexual dehumanizing of women in Arabia and centuries of blood feud ended.

He is only been ridiculed at in a near century, in a time where sex is a luxurious industry, where porn star is a distinguished celebrity that got an interview in the Oprah and gay marriages are blessed along with abortions that would scare to death the Neanderthals. The Paedophiles' tape scandals, not just of those involved the Catholic Priests, must be taken into consideration as a basis of comparison and understanding. Without comparison what would the thesis statement be?

There were no recordings anywhere in history, where HIV, Aids and STDs have been documented as a plague, sweeping down the vast humanity as they are now. At a time where Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. is considered as a Paedophile, for marrying a girl that would be an important source of reference for the Muslims, for years to come and known as the mother of the Muslims. Name me a victim of paedophiles that had such distinguished honour.

Would you be wondering in another 1,500 years to come, would our future generation reflect them as the same as how we reflect what once was?

Sorry TheGlovner,

I'm overexcited I guess. Misfire. Carry on. Len’s suggestion is good to avoid misunderstanding in the future.
A victim complex? You must be joking.

7 June 2010 at 15:35  
Anonymous Oswin said...

srizals at 15.35 - clearly you are having a laugh? Your so-called Prophet has only been criticised relatively recently??? Is that what you are saying? If so; you are beyond any hope of legitimacy.

You continue still with your ridiculous 'tu quoque' (YOUR accusation against no nonny!)arguments...you can't have it every-which-way, regardless of how much you muslims dearly love to do so!

To save further blether on the subject, I suggest you read the following link, it is even moderately sympathetic to your own opinion. Although it fails to delineate the exact nature of Muhammad's pre-coital/pre-consummation activities with his young bride:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/pedophile.htm

I think you will find it a satisfyingly comprehensive appraisal; even, as I have said, dismissive of some of the wilder accusations against Muhammad. It remains, however, a rebuttal of all you claim; and is expressed more accurately, and more concisely, than I could ever hope to offer.

It may be of interest to others too...it's worth the read!

7 June 2010 at 16:19  
Anonymous Oswin said...

My apologies, the above link does not appear to go directly to the article : ''Was Muhammad a Pedophile? An examination of Muhammad's Relationship with a nine year old girl.''

You'll just have to trawl-through the contents....do try NOT to become diverted by other articles, save them for later!

7 June 2010 at 16:31  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Again, my further apologies, the article is by David Wood.

7 June 2010 at 16:32  
Blogger srizals said...

Relax Oswin, don't get overexcited. I've known about them a long time ago. Thank you for using links again to demonstrate your point. They are dedicated enemies of Islam, what do you expect they'll do?

I knew a thousand of links that would help my arguments much better, but then again, I don't need them. I'll use what I have.

8 June 2010 at 00:05  
Anonymous Oswin said...

srizals - the truth is the truth is the truth, wherever you may find it.

You are like those so-called Christian 'creationists' in America who believe that the earth is less than ten thousand years old....bloody disturbing!

Until you open your eyes, and your brain, you are just another bloody encumbrance...and an ever arrogant one too!

8 June 2010 at 00:44  
Blogger Richard.K.Halliday said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8 June 2010 at 10:09  
Blogger Richard.K.Halliday said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8 June 2010 at 10:09  
Blogger srizals said...

Cool down Oswin. Relax, go take a break, have a Kit Kat. Have a vacation of me once in a while. You'll need it, obviously. Our path will cross again. Cheerio!

8 June 2010 at 11:46  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older