Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Bigotry at The Spectator? Surely not...


Is this anti-Semitic?
Are Jews going to inherit the earth? Or at least America? It is starting to look as though they might. Judaism is around 3-4,000 years old, and its followers make up just 2 per cent of the U.S. population. Yet they have an amazing number of the top jobs. It is well-known that leading Democrat Rahm Emanuel, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, still a strong presidential nomination, are Jews. It is less known that Jews increasingly run corporate America. A new Bloomberg report offers an impressive list of Jewish business leaders.

Bloomberg’s Caroline Winter attributes the success of Jews to the Missionary Training Centre, a sort of indoctrination camp for the Jewish work ethic. And I'm sure that's right. Yet Jews also benefit from the fact they are devoted to their families and almost invariably likeable. For all their weirdnesses — and there are many — they tend to be incredibly nice, albeit often in a rather disturbing, Midwich Cuckoo way. Even Bloomberg, as cheesy and slimey as any politician, has a certain irrepressible charm.

All this and more was said by Philip Delves Broughton in the Spectator in March. But the rise and rise of the Jews is an ongoing story.
Is this anti-Catholic?
Are Catholics going to inherit the earth? Or at least America? It is starting to look as though they might. Catholicism is 1700 years old, and its followers make up 22 per cent of the U.S. population. Yet they have an amazing number of the top jobs. It is well-known that leading Democrat Vice-President Joe Biden, and former Speakers Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich, a strong contender for his party's presidential nomination in 2012, are Catholics. It is less known that Catholics increasingly run corporate America. A new Bloomberg report offers an impressive list of Catholic business leaders.

Bloomberg’s Caroline Winter attributes the success of Catholics to the Missionary Training Centre, a sort of indoctrination camp for the Catholic social doctrine. And I'm sure that's right. Yet Catholics also benefit from the fact they are devoted to their families and almost invariably likeable. For all their weirdnesses — and there are many — they tend to be incredibly nice, albeit often in a rather disturbing, Midwich Cuckoo way. Even Biden, as cheesy and slimey as any politician, has a certain irrepressible charm.

All this and more was said by Philip Delves Broughton in the Spectator in March. But the rise and rise of the Catholics is an ongoing story.
No doubt if these paragraphs had been written about ‘weird’ or ‘disturbing’ Muslims plotting to take over America through hundreds of Qur'an-inculcating madrassas, there would have been almost universal approval with grave expressions of concern about the inexorable rise of Sharia and the Islamist in our midst.

Yet Freddy Gray has written these paragraphs upon The Spectator’s Coffee House blog, in reference to Mormons.

Not, it must be stressed, about the beliefs of Mormonism, or the precepts of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, but about Mormons as people. And when he says: ‘All this and more was said by Philip Delves Broughton in The Spectator (£) in March’, it is simply not true. Broughton’s article is intelligent, humorous and insightful: nowhere does he disparage Mormons en masse for their ‘weirdnesses’ or for being ‘disturbing’.

Freddy Gray is Roman Catholic. Perhaps he presumes that gives him the right to pontificate and pour scorn upon members of lesser ‘sects’ and ‘cults’, of which the Church of England is, of course, simply one among many.

If someone were to write about Roman Catholic ‘weirdnesses’, or raise suspicions about Roman Catholic education programmes, or dare to say that Catholics ‘tend to be incredibly nice, albeit often in a rather disturbing, Midwich Cuckoo way’, no doubt Freddy Gray would object very forcefully, and quite rightly, too. Such crass journalism would be pandering to stereotypical prejudices which invariably lead to discrimination and injustice. Certainly, if he had been around when John F Kennedy was bidding to be the first Roman Catholic President of the United States, he would doubtless have been among the first to raise the cry of anti-Catholic prejudice. Indeed, today his words might even fall foul of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalises language which is not only threatening, but ‘insulting’. No doubt Freddy Gray would leap to defend his own religion with headlines and strap-lines declaring that such phobia and sectarianism have no place at all in a tolerant and enlightened society. If someone were to attack his co-religionists in such an ignorant and irrational fashion, he might even be justified in mobilising his mates across the Roman Catholic media to campaign for the offender to be humiliated, ostracised and dismissed from his or her job.

It is one thing to mock an individual, lampoon a belief system or pour scorn over a religious book, all of which must remain a reasonable matter of free speech and expression in a liberal democracy. But it is quite another to talk blindly and nastily of all adherents of a particular religion as being ‘weird’ or ‘disturbing’; or obstinately to compare them to mind-controlling genetic mutants and children of the damned; or hypocritically to incite suspicion and hatred about them running an ‘indoctrination camp’ which is subverting a culture or way of life.

Indeed, some might call it ‘bigotry’.

47 Comments:

Blogger DaveR said...

Dear Cranmer,

I'd read this yesterday, but I honestly think my eyes glazed over the 'disturbing' section. One just tends to get used to it. I got the sense that he was *trying* to be nice, though appreciate your point & the distinction between talking about tenets and people.

Not sure why the MTC is being seen as such a factor in, well whatever it's supposed to be though - if you already speak the language, it's only three weeks.

21 June 2011 at 09:48  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Get that man a job in the Daily Telegraph, where the political editor holds that Roman Catholicsm is more important than the CofE in the UK.

Possibly news to the Head of State

21 June 2011 at 09:55  
Anonymous De Civitas said...

Cramner,

I have to agree that the Mormons are increasingly an easy target for casual abuse, especially since a member of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints is prominently running for president.

The unfortunate article falls into a very easy stereotype that perceives all Mormons as hicks in Utah with five wives under the age of fifteen when any real examination of how the community has grown and diversified over the course of the last 180 years would show a very different picture.

That said, the public do love a good bit of sect bashing....

21 June 2011 at 10:25  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Now now, the old anti-Catholic bias raises its head again.

"Freddy Gray is Roman Catholic. Perhaps he presumes that gives him the right to pontificate and pour scorn upon members of lesser ‘sects’ and ‘cults’, of which the Church of England is, of course, simply one among many."

Come on now, don't turn this into a 'Catholic' thing. If the guy is a crass journalsit, he's a crass journalist. There's no evidence it's got anything to do with his religion.

"Mr AB Cranmer is an Anglican. Perhaps he presumes that gives him the right to pontificate and pour scorn upon members of lesser ‘sects’ and ‘cults’, of which the Catholic Church is, of course, simply one among many."

21 June 2011 at 10:32  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Oh, forgot to say, the article may be in bad taste and poorly written but it is clearly intended to be light hearted irony and if written about Catholics I wouldn't be overly offended. No doubt if it were written by an evangelical journalist it would be much, much worse!

I suspect our Jewish brothers and sisters might have something to say but that's for them.

I do agree if it were written about Muslims it would gain wide spread support.

21 June 2011 at 11:01  
Anonymous MrJ said...

After reading the Philip Delves Broughton article [5 March 2011"Mormons on the march" _ Latter-day Saints receive the perfect preparation for becoming President of the United States] it can be seen that today's Cranmercrit of Freddy Gray's [18 June] is the more effective for its mild restraint.

One thing, though: Freddy Gray's smeary piece provoked an interesting article length comment from Frank Pickering (June 19th, 2011 6:51pm).

And not forgetting that there are quite other reasons for opposing Mitt Romney (and most others) for POTUS.

21 June 2011 at 11:04  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

Perhaps unsurprisingly, you once again seek to twist and distort a reasoned and perfectly reasonable article to your own defamatory agenda and spectatularly miss the point (which His Grace thought he really couldn't have made any clearer).

This was not about tenets of belief or institutions, but individuals - people. You will not find one post in His Grace's entire history which attacks Roman Catholics in the way Freddy Gray has disparaged Mormons. His article was not even qualified with 'some' or many'.

It was entirely appropriate in this context, and in the knowledge of the beliefs and claims of the Roman Catholic Church about itself, to raise the issue of Freddy Gray's own religious adherence. Your tiresome refrain of 'anti-Catholic bias' is a myth, for His Grace makes it clear time and again that it is the '-ism': he is Anglican (in case you have not gleaned), which separates him from certain aspects of Catholicism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism and the precepts of the Jedi fraternity. If it is 'bias' to mention this, then all believers in all faiths over all time are anti whatever they are not, and so biased.

So, please, just look in the mirror and consider before you make your next anti-Anglican remark or display your own anti-Cranmer bias.

21 June 2011 at 11:07  
Blogger DaveR said...

I fully agree with Mr Dodo - I don't think Catholicism has anything to do with said article.

21 June 2011 at 11:11  
Blogger DaveR said...

I don't think it's biased to mention Freddy Gray's background - I just don't think it's necessarily a significant factor in the article - I've seen similar from all sorts. Except Jedi, who I've yet to see criticise anyone except the Sith.

21 June 2011 at 11:16  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Bigotry at the Spectator - Not just the Spectator.

It's all about grabbing a cheap headline; it is scaremongering through innuendo that discredits not the highlighted target but the author. This is more indicative of the decline in serious reporting, even the 'Heavies' are not immune from tabloid sound bites and sensationalism.

Even Cranmer is not beyond using this little ploy Himself to advance his own agenda. He cynically conflates the deeply emotive expression 'anti-Semetism' (and all that that it brings to mind) with a comparative sleight on the intentions/objectives of Mormons by a small time hack - not to defend them as a group or as individuals, but to use it as an opportunity to yet again demonstrate his own anti-Catholic bias.

Cranmer defending Mormons from accusations of being wierd or odd - is - a little odd in its self. On other occasions He said:-

"Mitt Romney: can a Mormon take the White House?" ... :-followed by

"the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a cult whose theology is heretical and whose customs are anachronistic (to say the least".
FRIDAY, JUNE 03, 2011

Now surely, if this is what you think of a believe, it is by association an indirect criticism of their individual reasoning.

No skin off my atheist nose either way - but ...

21 June 2011 at 12:37  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dreadnaught,

His Grace is fully aware of what he has previously written, and refers you to the comment he made to Mr Dodo some moments ago.

21 June 2011 at 12:49  
Blogger Owl said...

Mr. Gray does seem to be a bit of a prat.

Whether he is a Catholic, Anglican, Atheist or whatever type of prat, doesn't appear to be in anyway relevant.

I have to agree with Mr. Dodo on this one.

21 June 2011 at 12:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One thing is certain: the family-based procreators with supportive faith-inspired ideologies will inherit the earth, be they the clean-cut heretics of the LDS, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jewish.

The greenie non-breeding liberals who abort at whim and practise birth control as a matter of course won't replace themselves so their future is predetermined.

Additionally I found it interesting why YG dates (Roman) Catholicism as 1700 years old? Surely the Papal autocracy that has perverted and distorted the oecumenical tenets of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church would date the Latin Church as 1000 years old at most?

21 June 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

You dost protest too much!

"This was not about tenets of belief or institutions, but individuals - people."

Then why on earth mention the author's Catholic faith?

"You will not find one post in His Grace's entire history which attacks Roman Catholics in the way Freddy Gray has disparaged Mormons."

True you are not quite so openly hostile but your distain for Roman Catholicism is barely concealed. Your approach is more subtle and underhand being filled with ineuendo and suggestion.

"It was entirely appropriate in this context, and in the knowledge of the beliefs and claims of the Roman Catholic Church about itself, to raise the issue of Freddy Gray's own religious adherence."

Why so? Poor journalism is poor journalism regardless of one's religious background. I will repeat the quote:

The implication in your reference to his faith is that Roman Catholics somehow see themselves as having a right to 'pontificate' and 'pour scorn' on their 'lessers'.

Is this really how you see the Church of Rome? If so, say it!

21 June 2011 at 13:07  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I think you'll find that the RCC has existed for closer to 1978 years than 1700...

I do find it quite odd that you thought it necessary to mention the faith of the journalist in question, and then link it to your objections to his article.

It seems a storm in a teacup to me. Imperfect journalism, but I've seen worse.

21 June 2011 at 13:25  
Anonymous Sean Robsville said...

"His Grace makes it clear time and again that it is the '-ism': he is Anglican (in case you have not gleaned), which separates him from certain aspects of Catholicism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism and the precepts of the Jedi fraternity."

Oh dear, what ever happened to the old Anglican tradition of Latitudinarianism?

At least His Grace, in common with other notable Anglicans, does not distance himself from Druidism.

21 June 2011 at 13:28  
Anonymous MrJ said...

The blog-owner - author having written here "...Catholicism is 1700 years old..." it may be reasonable to take that (unless otherwise shown) as a reference to the Catholic Church as at 4c., the time of the acceptance by the bishops assembled in Ecumenical Council of what is commonly known as the Nicene Creed.

To my mind, too many comments so far are yet again demonstrating the tendency of failing to attend to what the blog-owner - author has written today and consistently for years.

No doubt that is one reason for his use of the name "Archbishop Cranmer".

21 June 2011 at 14:00  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Tres amusing, Your Grace.

For all one's non-weird religious requirements, be sure to shop at a C-of-E church near you (mostly, that is, given a following wind, a bit of luck and a reasonable Vicar). Alas, those cuckoos get into a variety of nests.

21 June 2011 at 14:07  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

Freddy Gray is Roman Catholic. Perhaps he presumes that gives him the right to pontificate and pour scorn upon members of lesser ‘sects’ and ‘cults’, of which the Church of England is, of course, simply one among many.

“My God’s better than your God”! When one religion criticises another it simply demonstrates that absurdity of all of them.

21 June 2011 at 14:31  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr J said ...
"To my mind, too many comments so far are yet again demonstrating the tendency of failing to attend to what the blog-owner - author has written today and consistently for years."

That's the problem though, he doesn't always say what he means and weaves all sorts of prejudices in his ever so clever, witty observations.

Today's post makes clear his distain for Roman Catholics and yet he denies this.

An honest enemy is more honourable than a make believe friend.

21 June 2011 at 15:11  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Unless I have misread the Gray entry how would I have known from what is written that he was a Catholic?

"Perhaps he presumes that gives him the right to pontificate and pour scorn upon members of lesser ‘sects’ and ‘cults’, of which the Church of England is, of course, simply one among many".

"Perhaps" - Perhaps YG?

Thereby 'perhaps'this was just an unmissable opportunity in establishing a straw man case to further advance the 'Anglicans as an oppressed minority' argument.

And why not - it certainly works for the Muslims.

Notwithstanding YG's huff an puff counterpoint to Dodo,(which I had read before commenting) the matter would have remained there, and in the long term hardly worth noting.

What else am I to assume other than YG deliberately brought up the matter of Gray's Catholicism in a uncharacteristically and rather clumsy manner, for no other reason than to engage in a gratuitous bit of Catholic bashing.

Given the news of the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland today, this was a most most untimely gambit - 'Perhaps' - you could have been a little more circumspect YG.

21 June 2011 at 15:27  
Anonymous Perpetua said...

It is indeed unfortunate that the
Church of England was founded by a
promiscuous philanderer who murdered his wives.It is an indelible stain that will continue to taint the religion in spite of any good it may have achieved since.

21 June 2011 at 16:18  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Neither shall inherit the earth because we have a Mahabharata Patriline, the Dharma King is coming!

21 June 2011 at 16:25  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

It is an indelible stain that will continue to taint the religion in spite of any good it may have achieved since

And Popes who were fat cat Borgias were paragons of virtue - don't make me laugh - You religionistas - what are you like - tsk tsk! - chortle.

http://www.nndb.com/people/159/000092880/

21 June 2011 at 16:32  
Anonymous MrJ said...

(Mr) Dreadnaught said "a gratuitous bit of Catholic bashing".

Mr Dodo said "Today's post makes clear his disdain for Roman Catholics and yet he denies this."

To my mind, those reponses show a reluctance to address the issue of bigotry, to which attention was clearly enough being called in the piece read as a whole, in particular in:

" ...Freddy Gray has written... in reference to Mormons... as people. And when he says: ‘All this and more was said by Philip Delves Broughton in ...March’, it is simply not true. Broughton’s article is intelligent, humorous and insightful: nowhere does he disparage Mormons en masse for their ‘weirdnesses’ or for being ‘disturbing’. "

and...

" ...to talk blindly and nastily of all adherents of a particular religion as being ‘weird’ or ‘disturbing’; or obstinately to compare them to mind-controlling genetic mutants and children of the damned; or hypocritically to incite suspicion and hatred about them running an ‘indoctrination camp’ which is subverting a culture or way of life. Indeed, some might call it ‘bigotry’. "

Mentioning that Freddy Gray is a *Roman* Catholic is a reminder that as a former deputy editor (as it happens of The Catholic Herald in London) he is open to Mr Dodo's charge of knowingly or carelessly weaving "all sorts of prejudices in his ever so clever, witty observations".

The distinction between "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" should be well enough known to have been noticed before rushing to protest on this of all blogs.

21 June 2011 at 17:17  
Anonymous Swastika Logos. said...

Misogynist says: “My God’s better than your God”! When one religion criticises another it simply demonstrates that absurdity of all of them.

No, it simply demonstrates a diversity of human interpretation.

When one scientist criticises another it simply demonstrates the absurdity of all of them.

When one politician criticises another it simply demonstrates the absurdity of all of them.
.
.
Said the absurdist.

Said the absolutist.

Said the liar.

21 June 2011 at 17:53  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr J

Your loyalty for Mr Cranmer is misplaced on this occassion.

In his response to my criticism he remarked:

"It was entirely appropriate in this context, and in the knowledge of the beliefs and claims of the Roman Catholic Church about itself, to raise the issue of Freddy Gray's own religious adherence."

He clearly believes Roman Catholics, because of their religion, believe themselves more qualified than other faiths to 'pontificate' and 'pour scorn' on other religions.

21 June 2011 at 18:07  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

You are curiously tenacious over this point, and one wonders why. But your conclusion is, again, incorrect.

You omit to notice the phrase 'in this context' and the very specific reference to Freddy Gray.

His Grace does not believe that all "Roman Catholics, because of their religion, believe themselves more qualified than other faiths to 'pontificate'." Indeed, he is very well acquainted with quite a few who do not, and would never dream of doing so. Freddy Gray, however, is another matter.

If it assists you to comprehend this very simple point, His Grace will repeat it: he does not believe that all "Roman Catholics, because of their religion, believe themselves more qualified than other faiths to 'pontificate' and 'pour scorn' on other religions."

Nowhere has he ever said this, and nor would he. If ever you infer it (as you clearly do), the error in comprehension is yours.

21 June 2011 at 18:43  
Anonymous MrJ said...

MrJ is not clear about what Mr Dodo means by "loyalty", but affirms that MrJ's remarks here are not motivated by what he himself understands by that term, but rather by a regard for the purpose of this blogsite as declared in its side column headed "About Cranmer".

21 June 2011 at 19:12  
Blogger len said...

'Pontificate' now there`s a word to ponder over.

Catholicism is 1700 yrs old?, and still cannot get it right!

21 June 2011 at 20:32  
Anonymous Petronius said...

Given that Freddy Gray ought to have said something like "MormonISM can seem a bit strange to other denominations", rather than implying that all Mormons are themselves "wierd",
In the same way, I'm sure that Cranmer, when he pondered whether Gray's Catholicism had a bearing on the matter, meant that CatholicISM (ie, Vatican teachings, not each and every Catholic person) in some sense views *IT*self as more qualified to pontificate. And in that case, it has to be admitted, Cranmer does have a point. Has not the Pope (either the present or the previous one, I forget which) been quoted as saying that other denominations are "not true churches", or words to that effect? Words which many Protestants must have found quite hurtful.
It is extremely difficult for any of us to draw a distinction between criticism of "our church" and criticism of ourselves as members of it, especially as the individual Christian IS "the church", in a far deeper sense than, say, a Man Utd supporter "IS" him/herself a part of Man Utd FC.

21 June 2011 at 21:00  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

Thank you for taking the time to clarify your meaning and make it clear you do not believe all Roman Catholics are guilty of pontificating and pouring scorn on other faith groups. It's good to know you are aquainted with quite a few who are not. Some of my best friends ....

However you made the link between Mr Gray's membership of the Roman Catholic Church and the alleged pontification (an interesting choice of word) and scorn in the article saying: " ... in the knowledge of the beliefs and claims of the Roman Catholic Church about itself ..." was relevant.

There is no inference here? A direct link is made between Roman Catholicism's beliefs about its purpose and what you conclude might be called 'bigotry' in the article.

Suggestion and innuendo is very clever especially when disguised and leaves plenty of wriggle room. I much prefer honest, straight forward talking being more 'Comprehensive School' than 'Public School'.

Maybe you are unaware of what I see as a prejudice against Rome; maybe.

21 June 2011 at 22:47  
Anonymous MrJ said...

With all respect to Mr Dodo's attempt to defend his case, it now appears that his repeated assertions (explicit and implicit) in favour of the exclusive claim to "magisterium" on the part of the present ruler of Vatican City and predecessors is connected with what he mentions as "a preference for honest, straight forward talking being more 'Comprehensive School' than 'Public School'."

He seems to be unaware that this looks like having resort to yet another kind of unseemly bigotry which could be a hindrance to the development of fruitful discussion; and it is unlikely that others of a similar 'Comprehensive School' education would wish to be associated with so lame an argument.

It is not self-evident that the papal claim to such "magisterium" is more "honest or straight forward", and reasoned rejection of the claim is as old as the claim itself, long before the 'Public School' became part of the educational system or the later introduction of the 'Comprehensive School'. Neither the claim nor its rejection need repeating here.

22 June 2011 at 00:19  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr J

My point is that you and others on here are at least open and honest about your opposition to the Roman Catholic Church's doctrines and dogmas. You don't hide this behind selected cover stories and insinuate criticism of Roman Catholicism within these.

Objections towards Rome's claims of Apostolic authority are often presented with hostility and some aggression. In return, I can be abrassive and perhaps on occassions we all overstep the mark. Calling my Church a 'whore' or the 'anti-Christ' is hardly likely to facilitate polite discussion!

However, at least when engaged in this we're not presenting ourselves as neutral or balanced. We have clear views and we state them openly.

The Vatican of course uses carefully chosen words and more diplomatic language and complex theological arguments to justify its claims.

22 June 2011 at 02:05  
Anonymous MrJ said...

MrJ thanks Mr Dodo for the courteousy of his reply at 02:05 this morning; notes his remarks; and would have concluded with "Just so" (as at 9 April 21:42 and 23:48 under April 08) save that he regrets that Mr Dodo mentions "selected cover stories" as if he still feels justified about harbouring a grievance despite what is openly declared under the blogsite column headed "About Cranmer"; and amicably refers to G.K. Chesteron's "Antichrist, or the Reunion of Christendom: An Ode" with its memorable final line addressed to Mr. F.E. Smith M.P., on the Welsh Disestablishment Bill: "Chuck it, Smith!".

22 June 2011 at 07:54  
Anonymous MrJ said...

typo: G.K.Chesterton

22 June 2011 at 07:57  
Blogger len said...

The description of false religion as a'whore'comes from God Himself.

The Bible says in Rev. 17:1-2, "And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come here; and I will show unto you the judgment of the great whore who sits upon many waters; with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
................
I guess if God calls false, man made, man orientated, religions 'whores' I suppose we should too.

22 June 2011 at 08:18  
Blogger len said...

In a democracy everyone should be able to select any religion/or not as they desire.
The only stipulation should be that their religion does not incite hatred or violence to others.
There we enter a 'grey' area,is it hate to tell a person they are a 'sinner' and on their way to Hell?.
Well, to use an(imperfect) analogy. If we see someone driving down a road where we know the road ends on the top of a cliff with a mile drop to the ground below, is it better to tell them this or just shrug your shoulders and let them do it?.I suggest it is ones responsibility to tell them.
I suppose it is a matter of free will, tell people and give them the opportunity to respond or not.
The problem arises when people are forced to convert to whatever religion through fear or threats however subtly presented.
I believe religion and State should be separated as they are incompatible.

22 June 2011 at 09:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mormons of Catholics? Hmmm. Given the demand for a US Personal Ordinariate for Anglicans deserting a sinking ship I think I’ll put my money on the Catholics.

22 June 2011 at 09:53  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr J

We can probably leaver matters where they are now. Maybe I do miss the subtlety of the blogger's intent on occassions and when this is the case I'm happy to be corrected.

Mr len

The fallacy in your analogy is of course that it's only your opinion someone is heading for disaster. I do agree though that it is proper to share this opinion, but in a respectful and sensitive manner, not in a way that incites hostility and hatred.

In my world Christ is of course the way to salvation and faith in Him is an absolute necessity. However, I believe in a God that is loving and compassionate and for many people access to the living Word is denied in so many ways. Will God condemn those who through no fault of their own have either no knowledge of Christ or have received a distorted message? I know my answer to this.

So far as the 'whore' is concerned I think you need to look further eastwards than Rome into the mystery religions originating in Asia that spread to Persia. The fusion of Hinduism, Buddhism with Tantra is older than Christianity and at least as old as Judaism. These are resurfacing in the neo-paganism that is 'New Age' and have the all the elements of occultism and satanic worship within them.

In the face of this challenge, Christian division is surely sinful in the eyes of God!

22 June 2011 at 13:28  
Blogger len said...

The whore is anyone or anything that offers salvation through any means other than through Jesus Christ.
I believe the whore has many faces and many disguises.

Jesus never attempted unity with the Pharisees in fact they were the only people Jesus condemned.
Jesus clearly warned people of the consequences of leading sinful lives.
There are clearly pagan influences in Catholicism if one but scratches the surface.

22 June 2011 at 16:02  
Blogger len said...

Mr Dodo, The foundation stone of Catholicism is built on error , I can prove it to you.If the foundation is faulty, then the whole structure will be faulty.

Who is the rock Peter or Christ?.
Let us go to Peter and ask him.

'As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:

"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

"The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,"and
"A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense."

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
.............
Peter himself tell us who the 'rock'is.
Many, many Scriptures say the Jesus Christ is the 'rock' .
I will list them all if you are interested in hearing the truth.

23 June 2011 at 20:28  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

"You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church..."

Yup, He is quite obviously switching from the second person to the first person for no apparent reason and without explanation or clarification. Jesus may be the cornerstone, but there are still less important rocks.

Jesus actually renames this person Rock, and in the same sentence says that He will build His Church on "this rock". There are no languages where such a grammatical switch could be considered remotely coherent.

I don't ever remember the bit where the disciples say

"but Lord, are you saying that you will build the Church on Peter the Rock whose name you've just given him means rock?"

and Jesus replies

"What on Earth gave you that idea? Of course I was referring to myself! Can't you see that if you take obscure single lines of scripture out of context, that I am the rock and there can be no other rocks, pebbles, stones or other hard mineral substances? I just garbled my words and it came out so wrong that the Church I am about to set up will for the next 1500 years will also get it wrong."

"In fact," he continued "despite the fact that my words clearly seem to say one thing, but mean another, I will condemn to death all those that believe that what I said seems to point to Peter being the temporal leader of the Church (with the Spirit as a guide) after I have left to be with my Father."

"It seems a little unlike you to be quite so deceptive, Lord. Isn't that a bit mean?"

"Don't worry," He said "despite the condemning of all those who believe in me for the next 1500 years, I will send an egotistical jew hater who will explain everything perfectly."

Maybe it was omitted as part of a Papist conspiracy?

23 June 2011 at 23:48  
Blogger len said...

Lakester,
If that is indeed you I think you are in danger of loosing the plot.

Do you need the scriptures I referred to earlier or are you writing them yourself now?

24 June 2011 at 00:08  
Anonymous Adam said...

Ahh, the editor of this blog (I refuse today Cramner as he most obviously isn't the long dead coward) displays his anti catholic bigotry once again. Why the arbitrary 'Catholicism is 1700 years old line. It's most obviously 2,000.

25 June 2011 at 12:28  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Lakester

I thought your ironic exposure of Luther and his twisting of Christ's meaning interesting and helpful.

25 June 2011 at 14:09  
Blogger len said...

It is truly more difficult to preach the gospel to those who have accepted religion as 'the way' rather than Jesus Christ as 'THE WAY.'

How they hang onto their Popes and dogmas, their Idols and 'infallibilities'like children hanging onto cherished toys which they will not give up and and thereby grow up.
These Popish things are their comfort toys and they resist all attempts to persuade them to give them up.
They are well and truly trapped within the system .Its a very clever system. How to preserve error. How to perpetuate error. Make heresy infallible. And the arch heretic unassailable, ir-reformable and absolutely authoritative.

God says after many, many, attempts, leave them to it if they will not hear the truth.
You(adherents to religion) are not alone with your religion there are many others trapped within religious systems which all have different names and different 'prophets' the one factor which binds them all together these religions all come through and from men and not God.

1 July 2011 at 08:10  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older