Friday, June 10, 2011

Catholic school bans rainbows

Not the arc-in-the-sky sort: banning 'acts of God' or changing the laws of physics would be beyond most school principals. But a Roman Catholic school has apparently banned the 'gay' type of rainbow.

It's a pity, this. There was a time when 'gay' meant 'happy', Abba was cool, Kylie was a c-list soap star and rainbows were a symbol of God's covenant with every living thing (Gen 9:13).

The school - St Joseph's Catholic Secondary School in Ontario - has banned all manifestations of light spectrums from its premises because 'rainbows are associated with Pride'. His Grace isn't entirely sure what a 'Gay-Straight Allaince' (GSA) is, but this school apparently had an unofficial one, of which devout staff did not approve. It doesn't appear to be pro-homosexuality, but concerned instead with preventing expressions of hatred or 'homophobia'.

What on earth could possibly be wrong with that?

The children managed to raise $200 from a cake sale, but were then banned from donating the money to a charity to help gay teenagers. Instead, they were obliged to donate the funds to a Catholic homeless shelter.

Incredibly, the local Catholic District School Board chair Alice Anne LeMay has made it known that the board 'doesn’t allow Nazi groups either. Gay-straight alliances are banned because they are not within the teachings of the Catholic Church'.

Right.

When you start banning rainbows in order to stop schoolchildren from speaking up for what they believe, it is time to leave education. When you start banning children from expressing compassion and support for any persecuted minority group, it is time to leave the Church.

176 Comments:

Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I would say the banning of symbols is 'wicked' and 'sick' but since those terms mean quite the opposite in youth speak, it would all become very confusing.

So I will just say that I do not recognise sexual orientation as a minority status, the idea is just silly.

Silliness is catching, lets ban being silly, if silliness had a symbol we could force silly people to wear armbands identifying themselves.

Who knows, maybe I would be silly enough to wear it myself and we could all join together beneath a big rainbow of silliness, to show just how silly we can all be at times.

10 June 2011 at 20:27  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Where on earth do you dig these stories up? And why?

Reading the links to the news presents a more complex picture - as usual. Xtra!, a Canadian gay and lesbian news site, first released the piece. A news site you follow Mr Cranmer? 'Queer Ontario' supports the group the school banned and supplied 'educational' materials and suggested a way the pupils could get around the school rules.

Define 'homophobia' and you start to appreciate the schools position. The articles cited imply it is anything suggesting homosexuality is deviant. If that's 'homophobia', as opposed many Christians should call themselves such.

10 June 2011 at 20:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

What the school did is so gay. That means lame in yoof language, of course. And lame means sad. But sad doesn't mean unhappy, it means pitiful. Well, I think anyway.

10 June 2011 at 21:47  
Anonymous Sean Robsville said...

"...When you start banning children from expressing compassion and support for any persecuted minority group, it is time to leave the Church..."

Your Grace, be careful what you wish for!

10 June 2011 at 22:47  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

"When you start banning children from expressing compassion and support for any persecuted minority group, it is time to leave the Church..."

Except that isn't what this was about, now was it Mr AB Cranmer? And are homosexuals really a minority persecuted group?

10 June 2011 at 23:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you start insisting that the Roman Catholic Church support something it does not condone, it is time to leave the Church.

10 June 2011 at 23:40  
Blogger len said...

Surely Christians can have support and compassion for any persecuted group?. It is possible to have support and compassion for persecuted groups without condoning their actions,
isn`t this exactly what Jesus did?

A woman caught in adultery is brought to Jesus.
The crowd tells Jesus that Moses commanded that a woman
like this should be stoned to death.
They ask Jesus what is the right thing to do.
Jesus says, "go ahead... but let the person WITHOUT SIN
throw the first stone."
Jesus stoops down to the ground and begins to draw in the
dirt with His finger.
One by one...the crowd--oldest to the youngest--came and
dropped their stones and walked away.
Then Jesus says to the woman, "Where are your accusers? Is
their not one person left to accuse you?"
The woman answers, "No, my Lord."
Jesus says, "Then neither do I, GO AND SIN NO MORE".

(There is no way of knowing this but I suspect that Jesus was writing the names and the sins of the 'stone throwers 'in the dust on the ground.)

11 June 2011 at 00:02  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Thank you, Mr Len.

You often speak when His Grace has simply lost all patience and given up. You are a treasure.

11 June 2011 at 00:04  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

sigh ...

My questions Mr Cranmer:

Are homosexual people a percecuted minority group in Cananda? And, since len raised it, do they acknowledge their behaviour as sin?

Read the sourse articles, do!

I can understand the reasoning and concerns by this Catholic school. Perhaps clumsy in their actions and overlooked how this would be portrayed in the media. However, they took a stand and a part of their duty is to impart Christian morality and values.

11 June 2011 at 00:21  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

The primary Christian value is to love. Taking 'a stand' or doing 'duty' pale into insignificance.

11 June 2011 at 00:27  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len said ...

My understanding is that Jesus was demonstrating that no man is without sin - only God is without sin. The message is not to judge others or seek to impose punishment. There is no support for adultery, Jesus forgave the woman and instructed her to sin no more.

The group these school children were being encouraged/manipulated to support has the message that homosexuality is acceptable, is natural and can be praciced through choice. Anything other than this is represented as 'homophopia'.

The 'rainbow' was being misused to indicate support for this message. The point about Facism was that the swastika was a perversion of an early peace symbol.

Do you really expect any Christian school to allow this?

I hope you now understand my position

11 June 2011 at 00:39  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr Ab Cranmer

The primary christian duty is to love God!

"You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with all your strength and with all your mind: and your neighbour as yourself."

Are homosexuals a persecuted minority in Cananda? And is it loving them to offer support for behaviour christians believe is grievious sin?

11 June 2011 at 00:46  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Cranmer, Mr Len.

Jolly good show!

"I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel."

11 June 2011 at 00:54  
Blogger len said...

Mr Dodo with the greatest respect you have missed the point.

1 Corinthians 13. If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
...............
The whole message of the Gospel is the love of God revealed to man through Jesus Christ.

Jesus said He did not come to condemn but to save.

11 June 2011 at 01:03  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Well said Bish.

Personally.

I would incarcerate all religious people of ANY faith under the mental health act due to their illogical ill thought out unresearched irrational misguided application of personal biases hidden behind the cloak of their personal ill thought out unresearched irrational misguided brainwashing of there over mistranslated so called good books.

Not many agreeing with you here. Your job is done. You have succeeded in spreading your hate. Its what religions DO.

Round of applause for the Bish.

Hope you and your own personal faith can sleep at night after the harm that you people do.

11 June 2011 at 01:12  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len you are missing my point.

How is this action of this Canadian school a contradiction of the message of love? If he money was being donated to a group supporting homosexuals in Saudi Arabia I could understand. But a LGBG in Cananads? Come off it!

Love the sinner and not the sin, springs to mind!

Nah, just another cheap dig at Roman Catholicism by Mr AB Cranmer.

11 June 2011 at 01:14  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Is it 'homophobic' to hold the view that homosexual behaviour is forbidden by Scripture?

Is it 'unloving' to refuse to support an organisation that promotes the idea that homosexuality is normal and acceptable?

Is it unreasonable for faith run school to teach it's pupils discernment in these matters?

11 June 2011 at 01:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes it is when your priests are rapists of children.

All sanctified by your leaders, your Pope.

How many billions has your filthy religious sect paid out to the victims of your religions rape.

Utterly disgusting. You are up their with Hitler and his kind.

Lets hear about love the sinner.

And PS. I was born the way I am. Made by your god.

Was he incorrect.

You are now questioning him.

11 June 2011 at 01:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In Toronto public schools parents can’t even opt kids out of pro-homosexual curriculum which starts systematically indoctrinating children in this disordered and unhealthy lifestyle starting in kindergarten. By grade 3 children are encouraged to participate in raunchy "Pride" parades.

Anonymous 2

11 June 2011 at 01:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Yes it is when your priests are rapists of children

Studies show that homosexuales are 50 to 100 times more likely to to molest a child than heterosexuales. Incidents of ephebophilia in the Church scandal were predominantly homosexual in nature. You are using the scandal in the Church as a vehicle to divert attention from problems connected with homosexual behaviour.

Anonymous 2

11 June 2011 at 01:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr Robin Guthrie said...

I would incarcerate all religious people of ANY faith under the mental health act due to their illogical ill thought out unresearched irrational misguided application of personal biases

Very tolerant of you.

Anonymous 2

11 June 2011 at 02:04  
Anonymous Oswin said...

I doubt that the children concerned decided to donate money to help homosexual teenagers...someone else thought that one up.

11 June 2011 at 02:25  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Pope Benedict and the Vatican has decided to prevent applicants from being acceptedto the priesthood who have a predisposition towards homosexuality. Hard line but in the Church's view necessary to avoid future abuse. Homophobic? A breach of 'human rights'?

An interesting issue for all Christians is how to express love without condoning or supporting behaviours against Christian teaching. Ministry takes different forms in different circumstances. Canada in 2011 is very different to other contexts and situations.

So far as I can ascertain, the charitable donation was intended for teenagers struggling with their 'emerging' sexuality to reassure them homosexuality was perfectly okay.

I repeat Jesus' summation of the law:

"You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with all your strength and with all your mind: and your neighbour as yourself."

Love God first and grow in knowledge of Him. This is followed by the parable of the Good Samaritan urging us to show compassion and mercy for others in distress and pain. To minister to others as all are our neighbours.

There are many Catholic pastoral organisations offering emotional support to young people with sexual identity confusions - and other difficulties. They are non-judgemental about the person but are based on a Christian understanding of God's law. Homophobic?

11 June 2011 at 02:48  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Ah but Dr Robin Guthrie, let us remember that belief in God is in essence a fiction beyond proof.

Belief in acts of the State however, is a self evident fiction that can be proved.

The crimes of psychiatry are undoubtable, yet you criminals still behave like untouchables.

Release your victims now and pay reperations to all of their kin.

11 June 2011 at 02:58  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Oswin, I agree.

That is the point we are missing here, the fact is this whole Rainbow Nation agenda stinks.

11 June 2011 at 03:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would anyone want to bring children into this world? For gender-benders? To serve in foreign armies? To be denied education? To inherit debt and servitude? To hate their parents and cultural heritage?

I'd rather die than force someone I love to "live" under present day "humanity."

11 June 2011 at 04:47  
Blogger gresham58 said...

If you want some more f@#$wittery go here
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/catholic-hospital-bars-contraception-advice-20110605-1fnj3.html

For a comment on the above so totaly devoid of any hint of humanity that it enrages me go here
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/catholic-hospital-forbids-contraception-for-a-medical-purpose-to-avoid-grave-consequences/

11 June 2011 at 04:56  
Blogger Gnostic said...

So what did Geoffrey, Bungle, Zippy and George do to upset them? It's because George was pink, isn't it...

11 June 2011 at 07:00  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Gnostic - you swine - you beat met to it! :-)

11 June 2011 at 08:01  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Dreadnaught - hail and well met, fellow traveller. :D

11 June 2011 at 08:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^ I'm sure that's why this subject was chosen for the blog article. Roy Skelton's death -> Rainbow popping up in google searches -> Catholic faith school in a small corner of the globe. It's like a six degrees of separation thing. :)

11 June 2011 at 08:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I don't know for sure but I'd bet the drive behind the student's thing is Facebook. There are a number of viral links going around about teenager suicide following the high profile anti-bullying campaign in the USA. Teenagers of a certain age get passionate about some subjects as part of growing up.

The board of the school thinks these subjects need to be seen through a "Catholic lens" and treated accordingly. That seems fair enough to me in a faith school. But, of course, I think faith schools are an iniquitous thing, proselytising to vulnerable kids through the medium of schooling with a view to indoctrinating them and propagating the religion.

What would a normal school do in this situation? I mean, one can't have carte blanche otherwise there might be Hamas funding events and the like by people with an interest in it. I remember when I was a school the Deputy Head promoting Amnesty International during morning assembly and upsetting some people because of it.

If I were the school in question then I think I'd use the opportunity to encourage the kids to investigate the issue, debate it from both sides, and leave it be at the end, perhaps encouraging it to be pursued off site, i.e. treat it as skills exercise rather than a doctrinal one.

11 June 2011 at 08:43  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

It is rather strange though but not surprising that HG would probably have not blogged this topic if the children (teenagers no doubt) had been from a CoE school. Now that would have been surprising!

There is a whiff of the Daily Mail school of hypocrisy about some of His OPs at times - but none so bigoted as some of the more extreme and spittle flecked repostes from the usual suspects of course - but then what a dull life it would without them and their ilk.

Namaste

11 June 2011 at 09:20  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Your Grace,

I'm afraid I think you have lost your way with this post. Like the corrupting influences of the left in your Church, you have been pre-occupied with modern secular ethics, and ignored spiritual and scriptural teachings. At first, when I heard this, I was a little perturbed; but when I discovered the true story I realised that there was probably no contradiction. I am torn between the belief that you have had sparse sectarian posts in the last few weeks and were making up the numbers, or just didn't do the research.

I do find it amusing how self righteous some of the responses have been from the supposed Christians on this site. The misdirected quoting of various passages on loving sinners. Just like the State, you have fallen into the trap of believing that you cannot love the sinner without condoning what he does.

Perhaps this post should have been called 'Catholic school blocks a donation to a charity that encourages homosexuality and gives it to the poor and destitute'

DanJ0,

Whilst make a persuasive point in your last paragraph, but I would take your argument against faith schools more seriously if it didn't miss the point that all education indoctrinates children in one way or another. State schools passively discourage faith, faith schools passively encourage faith (you can believe me that faith is usually a background theme and is not shoved down ones throat).

While, as I say, your last paragraph is persuasive, I do think it may well be the wrong way to go about these things. The modern learning style of 'make up your own mind' has led to the erosion of morals and ethics that we share, as well as those we don't. The argument that one should be free to make up one's own mind is perfectly valid if one is perfectly informed and one does not wish to rationalise bad behaviour. However, this is never the case, and one point of view needs to be promoted for the sake of the common good. We have a generation growing up with a hugely inflated sense of self-importance; people throw around 'respect' as if they have a divine right to it and they expect people to be good to them before they are good in return. It not only stifles enterprise, creativity and ambition (as they believe they are good enough already) but it destroys the very moral basis for society. How can one feel part of something so cold and selfish?

When you ask people to make up their mind over something, they are far more inclined to fit it in with their own selfishness, than eliminating the latter in favour of the former. Like it or not, but the ethical basis for a lot of people's actions is the law. If an atheist has no law, then he has no solid ground for ethics. (What was the most common answer when MPs were chastised for their expenses? I didn't do anything illegal!)

11 June 2011 at 09:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Studies show that homosexuales are 50 to 100 times more likely to to molest a child than heterosexuales. Incidents of ephebophilia in the Church scandal were predominantly homosexual in nature. You are using the scandal in the Church as a vehicle to divert attention from problems connected with homosexual behaviour."

Er no.

Homosexuals have sex with CONSENTING adult Homosexuals.

Pedophiles have sex with NON CONSENTING children you muppet.

11 June 2011 at 10:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace is mistaken on this question.

"Gay-Straight Alliances" are an entryist strategy by homosexual groups to establish homosexual enclaves in schools. They have been vwery successful in many public schools in the US.
Children need to be deflected from homosexuality, not enculturated into it.
You are betraying some of your old anti-Catholic bigotry here.
Go back and learn some biblical theology.

Anonymous 3

11 June 2011 at 10:04  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

If an atheist has no law, then he has no solid ground ...

Surely one can't claim to have 'law'?
To abide by the rule of law is a prerequisite and characteristic of any civilised society.

No doubt L91 will claim something or other to do with the law being rooted in the 10 commandments or somesuch.

Even as an atheist and according to him/her I still don't feel inclined to covet my neighbours ass.

11 June 2011 at 10:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester: "Whilst [you] make a persuasive point in your last paragraph, but I would take your argument against faith schools more seriously if it didn't miss the point that all education indoctrinates children in one way or another. State schools passively discourage faith, faith schools passively encourage faith (you can believe me that faith is usually a background theme and is not shoved down ones throat)."

This is a bit like one of those debates about the media, news-reporting, and what makes something worth reporting. I agree to some extent that not promoting a specific religion in a school is an act in itself, and that selecting topics in the national curriculum necessarily includes and excludes things, but I think one can teach (say) history, and even theology, as an academic subject in itself.

What does a faith school provide beyond a non-faith school if not a normalising of a faith, a specific faith, rather than faiths in general. Families can promote their faith and indoctrinate their kids in their own time as they wish within reason but kids ought to be given religion free space and shown diversity in my opinion. Kids spend many hours a week in schools learning (in its most callous) to be useful citizens. A school's a social institution and it has State power.

11 June 2011 at 10:52  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Nice post Cranmer. However although coming from the Doc Guthrie side of the argument I am also impressed by DanJ0’s more measured response.

That said religion is always about indoctrinating the young and that is why Dawkins (praise be his name) refers to it as child abuse. Faith schools are therefore institutions for the indoctrination of the young. Of course they vary in the intensity of that indoctrination; there are plenty of CofE primary schools whose religious content barely exceeds singing a few carols and putting on a Christmas play. But non-religious State schools also often include prayers and other references to the supernatural, fortunately most children grow out of this stuff and form their own opinions, mine certainly did.

But at the other end of the spectrum are those nasty, hypocritical and divisive institutions who seek to really discriminate under the guise of their own faith like Catholic, Orthodox Jewish and Islamic schools and these should play no part in indoctrinating the young; their behaviour really is child abuse.

The problem is that once you allow one religion to “teach” our young where do you draw the line? In the secular society in which we live religion should play no part in education save for studying it as a historical, cultural and psychological phenomenon.

It is impossible for children to grow up free from the prejudices of their parents. But as a society we should make every effort to ensure that they are not corrupted or radicalised by myth-based beliefs that form a part of every religion and by many extreme political convictions. Our children deserve not only our love and respect but also the freedom to come to their own conclusions without the coercion that is so often associated with religion.

11 June 2011 at 10:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Just to head off possible retorts here to my last comment, I do not agree with promoting homosexuality in schools or trying to normalise homosexuality as a desirable or aspirational lifestyle (as some people believe happens I expect). But we should be normalising the idea of homosexuality, like we ought to about Catholicism, within a spectrum of other things as stuff that is out there without inculcating specific judgements.

11 June 2011 at 10:57  
Blogger len said...

I sometimes wonder why H G bothers at all!.It shows the courage and determination of H G to present these articles at all knowing the responses will be so predictable and biased.

The Message Christ entrusted to Christians was one of reconciliation between God and man.
Can you love the sinner without condoning what he does?.
Well, no- one would ever have got saved if God didn`t.

'But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.'(Romans 5:8)

The stinking hypocrisy of saved 'sinners' condemning others probably infuriates God more than anything else!

The Pharisees were the ONLY people Jesus condemned.It is depressing to see the same stereotyped responses time and time again.

11 June 2011 at 11:05  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Len said

It is depressing to see the same stereotyped responses time and time again

Surely Len nothing could be more stereotyped than continually quoting from Christian scripture? In using this single source in which to inform your “world” view you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. You are denying yourself a billion other possibilities. Does it never worry you that the trust you place in this belief maybe be totally misplaced and if not why?

11 June 2011 at 11:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Truly shocking. A Christian school that wants to protect young children from sinful sexual indoctrination.

11 June 2011 at 11:42  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

DanJ0

The issue of Homosexuality is a bellwether for much religious belief. Many condemn it because their holy books tell them to. Yet homosexuality has always existed and does so in other species. “Not like us” has also figured prominently in all human cultures. It is all too easy to ostracize those who are different and then blame them for any manner of ills. Homosexuality is condemned for being unnatural in that it cannot result in procreation; it is “dirty” in that it encourages “deviant” sexual practices, it is embarrassing for straight people to witness gay intimacy. Parents are concerned that their children may be “turned” gay, a ridiculous idea and imagine that they could not cope with a Gay in the family.

All these fears are of course unfounded once a straight person has actually made friends with a gay person. The stereotypes drop away and you see each other simply as people. I have a large number of friends all of whom are straight, that is with the exception of a couple of Gay guys, both now retired but who have been partners for more than twenty years. Their sexuality is simply not an issue.

I wish those who are virulently anti-Gay some of whom post here could set aside their prejudice and apply the tolerance that they always claim is part of their Christian beliefs.

And that means you Anon!

11 June 2011 at 11:47  
Blogger len said...

Graham Davis ,
I arrived at the point of being a Christian after years of being an Atheist.It was through a supernatural experience, I can offer no material proof as to the existence of God, only a deep conviction within my Spirit as to the reality of a living Christ.
I am a realist and am still coming to terms with the experience which came directly through my Spirit and not through the intellect.

11 June 2011 at 11:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone not think these school children will recognise hypocrisy when they see it? And when they leave school they'll leave the church and never return.

11 June 2011 at 11:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I bet George, Bungle and Zippy are annoyed.

11 June 2011 at 11:55  
Blogger len said...

The is a vast difference between convicting people of their sin and condemning them because of the sin.

The Holy Spirit convicts people of their sin.This is done through love and a desire to save them, to bring them to salvation,to bring them to Christ.

Satan condemns sinners to bring then under judgement.This is to to make them afraid of an 'angry God'and to resist the gospel of God`s grace.The very first sinners hid from God, and sinners have been doing so ever since.Christ is our mediator between God and man.God does not send any sinner to Hell, sinners will only go there by their refusal, or their inability, to accept Christ`s atonement for them.God through Christ is reaching out to Humanity,reconciling sinners to Himself.

It is perhaps a time for Christians to decide which 'camp' the are in, and which 'gospel' they are actually preaching, Love and Grace, or Judgement and condemnation.

11 June 2011 at 12:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous: Homosexuals have sex with CONSENTING adult Homosexuals.

and with 3 month old babies as the 2009 case of the LGTB leader and adoption campaigner illustrates.


Homosexuals comprise less than three percent of the population, yet are responsible for one-third of all child sex abuse cases. There is an overwhelming correlation between homosexual preference and pedophilia.

Anonymous 2

11 June 2011 at 12:09  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@Graham Davis

I'd suggest to you, dearest Sir, that when reduced to fundamentals, any form of education is about indoctrination of the young.

Except that it's called education when you agree with what's being taught, and indocrination when you don't.

The young have to learn from somewhere, and everyone who teaches them anything will to a greater or lesser extent impart their own world values.

I suggest that there's a law you can't ignore, almost by definition.

11 June 2011 at 12:18  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Your Grace - a terribly tiny point, but surely that's Ontario of which we're talking here?

Please ignore if it really is Onario....

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

Meanwhile many hundreds of Church of Scotland members rebel over homosexual priests. But let us bury that story with hypocritical intolerance towards a Roman Catholic school that seeks to protect vulnerable young children from the subtle mind games of adults.

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

len

Straight anwswer to some apparently difficult questions:

Is homosexuality behaviour permissible according to scripture, as some contend?

What should a loving christian response be to those who are considering or practicing homosexuality?

In todays secular world with so many moral challenges facing young people e.g. divorce, abortion, euthenasia, pre-marital sex, what stance should faith based schools and christian parents take towards organisations that 'normalise' such behaviours in the name of 'human rights' or 'personal freedom'?

Homosexual rights movements do not 'hide' from their sin, if sin it be, they defend and proclaim it as natural sexuality. We see the same approach towards a 'woman's right to choose' and towards 'assisted suicide'.

I am unclear just what your views are on these matters given your rush to support Mr AB Cranmer. Certainly you appear to be contradicting your earlier posts on these matters.

This post was a cynical and poorly presented swipe at Roman Catholicism by Mr AB Cranmer.

If a Christian Church cannot give leadership on matters of faith and morals, based on scripture, THEN it is time to pack up and leave.

11 June 2011 at 12:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis said ..."Parents are concerned that their children may be “turned” gay."

And rightly so. There is no homosexual gene. Studies suggests children raised by LGBT parents more likely to grow up gay or bisexual.

See the page of the Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

Anonymous 2

11 June 2011 at 12:37  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Old Grumpy said

Except that it's called education when you agree with what's being taught, and indocrination when you don't.

It is impossible to disagree with that statement.

That is why it is important that our influence on young minds is kept as neutral as possible so that as they mature they can make up their own minds. The problem with religion is that the young are indoctrinated before they are able to think.

The influence that I have had on my children is far less invasive. They did not learn atheist myths as none exist; they did not attend secular indoctrination classes as none exist. They had my influence along with their mother’s and others beside along with an absence of religious ideas.

This can in no way compare with the influence of religion has on the impressionable mind with its combination of group indoctrination instituted at church or mosque with its seductive rituals and all under the control of a powerful shaman who uses both hope and fear in order to capture those young minds.

11 June 2011 at 12:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 June 2011 at 12:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Homosexual rights movements do not 'hide' from their sin, if sin it be, they defend and proclaim it as natural sexuality."

Not just movements, individuals too. It's like being left-handed, one doesn't spend one's life trying to be right-handed or hiding from the world, one just buys a pair of left-handed scissors and can-opener and goes about one's business like everyone else. If some people think someone is 'odd' for writing with their left hand and want to make it a 'moral' issue then that's their problem.

11 June 2011 at 12:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis said...
"" You are denying yourself a billion other possibilities.

And you are denying yourself the truth.

Anonymous 2

11 June 2011 at 12:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJ0 said...It's like being left-handed, one doesn't spend one's life trying to be right-handed

But one ought to spend one's life fighting the inclination to sin.

Anonymous 2

11 June 2011 at 13:01  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Anonymous 2

Well said!

11 June 2011 at 13:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Children can be "pushed" situationally toward acting our homosexual feelings, just as prisoners can. A Christian school should be discouraging the adoption of an unhappy and conflicted lifestyle fraught with illness and substance abuse. Adolescents need help to live pure lives, not encouragement into sodomy.

His Grace should not be taking cheap shots at Catholics. He should be pointing the way of grace and truth.

Anonymous 3

11 June 2011 at 13:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"But one ought to spend one's life fighting the inclination to sin."

It is only a problem to those who think it is a problem ... and they are wrong. Time and effort is better spent fighting against those who seek to make problems out of nothing.

11 June 2011 at 13:46  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said...It is only a problem to those who think it [sin] is a problem ...

Jeffrey Dahmer, the serial killer who cannibalized more than 17 people, did not think sin was a problem either. According to Dahmer

“If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there was nothing….” (Dateline NBC, The Final Interview, Nov. 29, 1994).

Sin is a problem for all of us.

11 June 2011 at 13:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If one is fighting 'ones inclination to sin' then one is fighting a battle which is already lost.
This is the whole problem with 'works based 'religions Catholicism, and Islam, etc. All these religions urge self control, abstinence etc, which actually has the reverse effect and strengthens the sin nature!

Also to deny sin is a problem is just to bury ones head in the sand, and to deny all the appearances and the consequences of sin.
Your only hope with this denial of sin is to re-define what sin actually is.Everyone doing' what is right in their own eyes' syndrome.
There is only one person who never sinned and has the ability to conquer sin...Jesus Christ and it is the gift of His Spirit... dwelling within the believer which
conquers sin.
None can boast"look how good I am" because the believer cannot conquer sin unaided by the Spirit of Christ and the unbeliever isn`t even trying.

11 June 2011 at 14:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Yes Crux Sancto Patris Benedicti, anyone who isn't a Christian is a Jeffrey Dahmer just waiting to happen. Afterall, we're bound by nothing if we're not bound by religion aren't we?

If I think the sexual morality of mainstream Christianity regarding gay people is wrong then I'm licking my lips thinking about murdering and consuming the flesh of my neighbours.

Well, when I say Christian I of course mean Catholic. Or perhaps Protestant. But not both. Because people of both those persuasions used to burn other people alive for believing in the same god but with different details. And think they were doing their god's work.

11 June 2011 at 14:12  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Graham Davis said..."it is important that our influence on young minds is kept as neutral as possible so that as they mature they can make up their own minds."

i.e., let them construct their own knowledge and morality.

This is the discredited ideology of constructivism which has all but destroyed the UK education system.

11 June 2011 at 14:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anonymous: "Your only hope with this denial of sin is to re-define what sin actually is.Everyone doing' what is right in their own eyes' syndrome."

Hey Anonymous, you write in a very similar style to Len, with the same punctuation quirks and everything, and writing from the same religious position.

But anyway, we educate/indoctrinate children with our shared ethics and we have law to codify them in some cases. So no, it's not a free for all.

And more to the point, we can usually justify those ethics to each other irrespective of differences in morals.

11 June 2011 at 14:25  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

Was that you posting as anonymous? I agree with Danjo that it appears to be you. It was, wasn't it? Helps avoid awkward questions I quess!

Interesting position you are taking up:

"If one is fighting 'ones inclination to sin' then one is fighting a battle which is already lost.
This is the whole problem with 'works based 'religions Catholicism, and Islam, etc. All these religions urge self control, abstinence etc, which actually has the reverse effect and strengthens the sin nature!"

Is it "works based" to resist temptation? I think St Paul may disagree with you! Are you suggesting we overcome temptation by giving into it as Oscar Wilde proposed?

11 June 2011 at 14:36  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said...Crux Sancti Patris Benedicti, anyone who isn't a Christian is a Jeffrey Dahmer just waiting to happen. After all, we're bound by nothing if we're not bound by religion aren't we?

Actually, yes. Anyone who does not think that sin is a problem really is a Jeffrey Dahmer just waiting to happen. This is evidenced by the millions of women slaughtering their children by abortion, and by people (especially homosexuals) killing each other by ignoring or hiding the health risks associated with promiscuous behaviour, as well as by societies promotion of such behaviour. And, by the way, condoms do not suffice.

11 June 2011 at 14:39  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Oh, and len, remember we are talking here about the formation of the consciences of school children. Or is this not part of your theology either?

11 June 2011 at 14:42  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

DanJ0

They think that their own particular flavour of God (not one of the thousands of others that man has venerated) not only exists but has defined morality and thereby invented sin. Nonsense of course because he doesn’t exist but even if he did why should anyone accept his view on morality? They have woven a web that is so complete that they are trapped within it. No amount of reason will penetrate because their invention claims to answer all questions whereas in reality it stops dead at the very first one.

11 June 2011 at 14:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

GD: "They have woven a web that is so complete that they are trapped within it."

This particular web is self-supporting, self-sustaining, and self-correcting too. When I criticise it I've been fed back the line that the ideology has prophesised that it would be criticised and criticism proves that the ideology is correct to those Insiders with the eyes to see. It's quite sinister when you look at it with cold eyes.

11 June 2011 at 15:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Crux: "Actually, yes. Anyone who does not think that sin is a problem really is a Jeffrey Dahmer just waiting to happen."

The context was a homosexual orientation and I sought an analogy with being left-handed. No-one is saying that 'sin', meaning wrongful behaviour, is never a problem for other people. That would be beyond stupid.

It's just that 'wrongful behaviour' is often a contested thing. We tend to use a different yardstick in open society to determine what is 'wrong' than a several thousand year or so book and the interpretations of a self-interested political organisation.

Your arguments are flawed, I'm afraid. You seek to ride your religion in on the back of stuff that is manifestly wrong to most people, such as murder, and slip in things that are not so obviously wrong like abortion or homosexuality in the process.

11 June 2011 at 15:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Crux, I'm happy to argue that murder is wrong from a purely non-religious perspective if you like and justify having social rules against murder.

11 June 2011 at 15:21  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Graham Davis said... He doesn’t exist but even if he did why should anyone accept his view on morality?.

This is a metaphysical statement. I was under the impression that you did not agree that such statements could be proven.

11 June 2011 at 16:26  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said..."..things that are not so obviously wrong like abortion or homosexuality".

Danj0: An ethical system which fails to find abortion and promiscuity obviously wrong is deficient. Both kill.

11 June 2011 at 16:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Danj0: An ethical system which fails to find abortion and promiscuity obviously wrong is deficient. Both kill."

Way too reductionist for me, I'm afraid. Mere assertion, too. I can fire stuff back about the ethics of the Catholic Church too whch are obviously deficient. To me and others.

Can I just check: you know that despite HIV sometimes being called the 'gay disease' it's just a disease. That is, if one has gay sex with someone without HIV then one cannot get HIV through that sexual act? It sounds silly asking but you never know with the religious how far their world knowledge is off piste.

Also, and I hate to go into the ins and outs so to speak, you know that sex between gay people does not have to be penetrative? I don't do that myself, despite the names with which some of the religious here have sought to insult me, and I know lots of others who don't either.

11 June 2011 at 16:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And Crux, I'd argue about abortion but we did that back in January I think. Inevitably we didn't reach consensus. I did something similar with Albert and we didn't theer either. There was a Catholic assertion in both arguments that we couldn't get past, you see.

11 June 2011 at 16:55  
Blogger len said...

Anon 14:07 is me ,I don`t know how or why it came up as anon.
Operator error I guess.
Apologies to one and all

11 June 2011 at 17:16  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said... I'd argue about abortion but we did that back in January I think. Inevitably we didn't reach consensus. I did something similar with Albert and we didn't theer either. There was a Catholic assertion in both arguments. .

Dan: Here is my last post from January. I cannot find the "Catholic assertion" whatever that means..

The point at issue is whether the zygote has personhood. You say that personhood is what we choose it to be... People don't 'find' it in a laboratory, it's argued for. Yet, at the same time, you argue that personhood -in the sense of having "significant ethical value" is based on having "functional" neural hardware -something that you claim can perhaps be found in the laboratory. But you fail to explain why this ad hoc choice of condition for personhood should be used when there are numerous other possible criterion all of which are ethically less problematic. Using neurological structure as a criterion for personhood, it is possible to argue for partial birth abortion and infanticide --as the philosopher Singer has done. It is playing God to say that second trimester abortion is OK but not third -after all, even in "pioneer" quantum physics, time evolution of the wave function is continuous and reality wholistic.

11 June 2011 at 17:30  
Blogger len said...

Its not too surprising to see everyone firmly entrenched in their positions firing away at each other.
Every time truth pops its head up someone takes a shot at it.

All this confusion and discord stems back to the insane idea when man decided that he could decide for himself what was right and what was wrong ,morally speaking .
Instinct for animals, the holy Spirit for man , that was God`s original intention.
Imagine if instinct was suddenly removed from animals ....chaos and confusion would result.
Well ,that is exactly what happened when man rejected the Holy Spirit.The World descended into chaos and has been in chaos ever since!.

11 June 2011 at 17:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Operator error I guess. Apologies to one and all"

No apologies necessary as it was a mistake.

11 June 2011 at 17:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Dan: Here is my last post from January. I cannot find the "Catholic assertion" whatever that means.. "

The Catholic assertion is that the fused gamates at conception is a person ie. the zygote, the foetus at all its stages of development, and a baby are all essentially the same. As you no doubt know, others, including the BMA ethics board, have a gradualistic approach to the ethical status of those things. The Catholic assertion comes from its metaphysical background, despite occasionally being wrapped up in more secular clothes.

11 June 2011 at 17:48  
Anonymous Flossie said...

I hope that the 'Straight' side of the Gay/Straight Alliance, who are so eager to infiltrate schools and brainwash children, will also educate them on the negative side of 'gay' spelt out in 'Health Risks'.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

This is essential reading. Well done to the catholic school for protecting the children in their care.

11 June 2011 at 18:03  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Dan you say that "personhood is what we choose it to be"

The pernicious consequences of this kind of relativism are very well described in this article by Edward Fesser. As Fesser points out:
"... if man has no essence and no natural end – that is to say, if we reject classical essentialist metaphysics and the natural law system of morality that derives from it, as the founders of liberal modernity did – then there can be no objective, non-arbitrary way of determining what is good for us. And the flip side of this is that there is no existing moral conviction, no matter how widespread, ancient, and venerable, that might not be dismissed as an arbitrary prejudice, something to be freed from rather than deferred to and shored up.

11 June 2011 at 18:07  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

Confession is good for the soul but you're still ignoring the central issues. A reminder for you:

Is homosexuality behaviour permissible according to scripture, as some contend?

What should a loving christian response be to those who are considering or practicing homosexuality?

In todays secular world with so many moral challenges facing young people e.g. divorce, abortion, euthenasia, pre-marital sex, what stance should faith based schools and christian parents take towards organisations that 'normalise' such behaviours in the name of 'human rights' or 'personal freedom'?

Homosexual rights movements do not 'hide' from their sin, if sin it be, they defend and proclaim it as natural sexuality. We see the same approach towards a 'woman's right to choose' and towards 'assisted suicide'.

I am unclear just what your views are on these matters given your rush to support Mr AB Cranmer. Certainly you appear to be contradicting your earlier posts on these matters.

Straight answers would be good rather than obtuse 'theology'.

11 June 2011 at 18:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Crux: "The pernicious consequences of this kind of relativism"

It's not relativism, though I can see that you might want it to seem so.

11 June 2011 at 18:12  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Danj0 said "As you no doubt know, others, including the BMA ethics board, have a gradualistic approach to the ethical status of those things."

Upon which basis Peter Singer, a bioethicist from Princeton University, has argued in favor of a parent’s right to infanticide within 28 days of the baby’s birth.

Human development is a continuum, a process in which it is impossible to draw meaningful and obvious subdividing lines for the purpose of making moral judgements. Such trivial divisions as can be observed, are, from a scientific viewpoint, often arbitrary and, therefore, ethically inconsequential. For example, what reasonable person can point to a significant structural difference between a baby one second before birth and the same baby one second after birth?

11 June 2011 at 18:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So you say. However, I have no tolerance for running another abortion debate with you. I seem to do it with all the Catholic regulars here and the end is always the same: we end up back at the beginning with an assertion quietly based on the metaphysical and highly, highly speculative notion that their god pokes, for want of a better phrase, a 'spirit' into the zygote just after the gametes fuse. Hurrah.

11 June 2011 at 18:28  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said..." the BMA ethics board, have a gradualistic approach to the ethical status of ..."

I can well understand why UK doctors find a need to prescribe drinking water to prevent the death of elderly in hospitals.

11 June 2011 at 18:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Upon which basis Peter Singer, a bioethicist from Princeton University, has argued in favor of a parent’s right to infanticide within 28 days of the baby’s birth."

Singer is a preference-interests utilitarian and argues on that basis. He also argues for animal rights. As you may know, a true utilitarian of any type derives all his ethics from the single principle of utility. It has almost nothing to do with everyday ethics and your use of Singer is disingenuous I think.

11 June 2011 at 18:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Crux: "I can well understand why UK doctors find a need to prescribe drinking water to prevent the death of elderly in hospitals."

Christ on a bike, what on earth has that got to do with the ethics of abortion? What are you going to throw up next? Morrisons cancelling a BOGOF offer on Pampers nappies throws childcare into disarray?

11 June 2011 at 18:38  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said..."we end up back at the beginning with an assertion quietly based on the metaphysical"

I know of no reasonable ethical system which is not based on the metaphysical. Scientific theories logically
require a metaphysics. I encourage you to read the article by Fesser mentioned above.

11 June 2011 at 18:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Yes but the arguments are based on your metaphysical paradigm, the Catholic religious one, and I don't accept the very foundations of it therefore there's no point in our arguing with it.

11 June 2011 at 18:46  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Dan "what on earth has that got to do with the ethics of abortion?"

I was referring to the victims of BMA "ethic"s.

There is nothing so foolish that some philosopher has not said it, and there is nothing so evil that some bioethicist has not proposed it. — Anthony Daniels

11 June 2011 at 18:47  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Dan "what on earth has that got to do with the ethics of abortion?"

I was referring to the victims of BMA "ethic"s.

There is nothing so foolish that some philosopher has not said it, and there is nothing so evil that some bioethicist has not proposed it. — Anthony Daniels

11 June 2011 at 18:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perhaps I can explain by example. Peter Singer starts up a discussion about the rights of animals and we don't seem to get anywhere so we look at the foundations.

He starts with a single and ultimate moral principle: that things are good in as much as they increase collective pleasure or reduce collective pain. I start from the position that there is not a single, ultimate moral principle to be found and also that consequentialism is insufficient a basis to derive moral principles.

We then decide to have a beer instead of arguing about animal rights, infanticide, or whatever because we would be arguing at cross purposes.

11 June 2011 at 18:53  
Blogger Owl said...

Seems now all too familiar.

The secular state wishes to indoctrinate the children into the secular religion. The secular state and the secular religion are top heavy with socialists and homosexuals (see tie up of Fabian society and Stonewall).

All the arguments of Dan and Graham D. are straw men.

They do love winding up the more orthodox posters but that doesn't hide the agenda.

One of the things that we all know is that the faith schools offer a better education and most people want to get their children into one.

I went to a faith school and am nowhere near as indoctrinated into Catholicism as Graham Davis is into his secular religion.

The rainbow symbol no longer represents tolerance. It now represents the intolerance of a minority group and it is no wonder that many, including myself, have had enough of it.

We are not blind.

11 June 2011 at 18:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Crux: "I was referring to the victims of BMA "ethic"s."

You think the BMAEC regulates the water supply and monitors staff performance?

11 June 2011 at 18:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "They do love winding up the more orthodox posters but that doesn't hide the agenda."

What I don't do is lie like a cheap watch when in a corner of my own making, unlike you.

11 June 2011 at 18:59  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0: Fesser clams that: "If there are no ends set for us by our nature, then there can in principle be no objective, non-arbitrary way of determining what it is good for us to do, and thus what we ought to do. "

Do you have a way to determine what is good for us to do?

11 June 2011 at 19:00  
Blogger Owl said...

Dan,

Thank you for making my point.

Another straw man.

BTW. I don't lie and I remember what I said/wrote. You do not and you resort to insults simply because I see where you are coming from.

11 June 2011 at 19:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Crux: "Do you have a way to determine what is good for us to do?"

Yes, I throw runes.

11 June 2011 at 19:04  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said...
Crux: "I was referring to the victims of BMA "ethic"s."
You think the BMAEC regulates the water supply and monitors staff performance?


A fish rots from the head. The BMA set the tone for
medical ethics in Britain.

11 June 2011 at 19:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl, you are a moral pygmy and we both know it. You have a damned cheek popping into talk about morals knowing I'm posting here!

11 June 2011 at 19:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Crux: "A fish rots from the head. The BMA set the tone for medical ethics in Britain."

Well, it has a catchy ring to it but no, that'll be the PCTs and the like which are failing there.

11 June 2011 at 19:08  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said...
"Yes, I throw runes.

Now I understand why one of the colors in the rainbow flag stands for "magic"

11 June 2011 at 19:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Crux: "Now I understand why one of the colors in the rainbow flag stands for "magic""

Well, I'm not sure about that. I reckon you're thinking about Heimdall and his Rainbow Bridge. One of my gods, Odin, hung on the world tree, Yggdrasil, to be able to read the runes.

11 June 2011 at 19:13  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

"Well, I'm not sure about that.

Turquoise.

11 June 2011 at 19:21  
Blogger Owl said...

Dan,

Stop trying to be a bully. It doesn't work and makes you look stupid.

Ben Summerskill sounds very similar to yourself but at least he is honest in his statements even if I personally find them mostly a load of crap.

Crux's statements concerning the BMA are quite reasonable. It is known that the profession which supplied the most adherents to Nazi Germany were doctors. It is difficult to understand why this is so but we have to accept that the medical profession can throw ethics out the window very quickly as soon as a suitable bandwagon is available.

11 June 2011 at 19:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl, I have very little to say to you because by observation you appear to have no honesty or integrity.

Crux and I were never going to get very far after the Jeffrey Dahmer thing, to be fair. I should have just laugh at that point and wandered off but I can't help being sardonic at times.

11 June 2011 at 19:28  
Blogger Owl said...

Dan,

I am beginning to think that you can't help yourself.

Have you considered a chat with your doctor, or perhaps better, your local clergyman?

11 June 2011 at 19:45  
Anonymous Sibyl said...

You would have the church affirm acts and lifestyles, disoriented/confused identities, emotional states that are correlated with depression, disease, suicide and early death? Have you read the CDC reports? 44X the incidence of STDs including HIV and showing that even having hetero-sex in adolescence leads to increased incidence of depression, violence, suicide, divorce in later life?

That in areas where same-sex lifestyles and promiscuity are approved and more openly practiced, the incidence per capita of the negative consequences is even greater?

What GOD calls sin and evil, is always harmful. It's not love to approve what kills people.

These children are still searching for identity and it is vile to put labels on them, labels that were invented by sick people with unspeakably sinful agendas, who want to exploit them sexually, by lowering the age of consent like your Irish presidential candidate or the US safe schools Czar, Kevin Jennings.

The church needs to articulate the truth and God's view of human identity - that GOD is I AM, the only unchanging Identity.

God's Image, design and Scripture define human beings. Scripture says we humans are always changing throughout our lifetimes.

If we want to live in God's good Kingdom, under His laws, we are commanded to find our identities in our relationship to God our Father and Christ our Brother, to conform to His Word and His Son, the Living Word.

There are no exemptions and exclusions according to I Corinthians 6:9-20.

That is the Scriptural and traditional position of Christ's Church.

11 June 2011 at 19:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "Have you considered a chat with your doctor, or perhaps better, your local clergyman?"

You may lie without blushing but you're crap at insults. That amounts to little more than the laughable "gayboy" ones by the, ahem, rather more right wing Christians here. If anyone should be talking to their local clergyman then it's you ... in the confessional. We both know why.

11 June 2011 at 19:55  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Thank you Sibyl (19:49) for bringing that response.

Anonymous 2 (1.34 am) mentioned that "In Toronto public schools... by grade 3 children are encouraged to participate in raunchy "Pride" parades."

And Owl (18:56) has remarked that "The secular state and the secular religion are top heavy with socialists and homosexuals (see tie up of Fabian society and Stonewall)... The rainbow symbol no longer represents tolerance. It now represents the intolerance of a minority group..."

To my mind (pace len 00:02), these are sufficient answer to the vatic-like statement "...When you start banning children from expressing compassion and support for any persecuted minority group, it is time to leave the Church."

11 June 2011 at 20:55  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Crux SPB - and Mr. len: In view of my respect for the knowledge and insight you always bring to a discussion, I'd also like to express continuing admiration of your patience and courtesy in dealing with newcomers who presume to host His Grace's blog!

It's sad to have lost access to both rainbows and the word 'gay.' Those who've appropriated the terms are misogynists - by choice and practice - so my reaction strengthens to expostulation when they wax righteous about abortion. Then, bless me, if hubris doesn't turn them into decree-making atheists who (also by definition) recognise nothing sacred about life.

Huxley had it right, of course; the corollary tends towards removal of all choice about reproduction. We're moving ever nearer to turning the matter over to battery farms and test-tube babies. And, given the NHS standards discussed above, the survival rate would be pretty low.
Minimal education would then be necessary, and that under the total control of gender enforcers!

Regarding the nurturing of children, as His Grace's post seems to indicate, RCs aren't perceived to do anything right anyway. Of course, anyone who abuses children is wrong, whatever religion they profess; but now, if teachers refuse to abuse children mentally, they're wrong.

However, I am bound to testify: ... none of the traditionalists who raised me - RC or 'other' - ever exposed me to the "issues" that count as education today. I knew nothing of carnality until I was sufficiently grown to need a little knowledge -- and I never felt or imagined that I was missing a thing. Such an environment teaches that Mummy and Daddy care very much about each other, and about their children: caritas comes first.

Naturally, then, I think children need shelter; and the freedom to grow and develop without being forced to "express" things they aren't built to express. These are things that wouldn't enter their heads if perverts didn't enforce depravity.

Please note I use the word "pervert" in the etymological sense of someone who "turns wrongly" "overthrows, undermines, sets awry" - and therefore who "corrupts, depraves [distorts, disfigures]" (Chambers, and Cassell's Latin).

11 June 2011 at 20:57  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
Scripture defines sin.

However simply defining sin only identifies the sinner(which by the way is all of us)but can do nothing to change the sinner.

One is not a sinner because of the individual sins he or she commits but is a sinner is a sinner because he/she has a sin nature.So to tell someone they are a sinner may be a scripturally accurate statement and identifies the problem but offers no solution.
Jesus Christ and the Spiritual re-birth is the solution to the sinners problem and the important point is to stress this.

The Gospel is the 'good news'which is Jesus Christ has paid for your sins and redemption is a reality to all who repent and put their faith in Christ.

It certainly is not good news to tell people they are perverts and they are on the road to hell.

Jesus never shied away from meeting with those who were considered outcasts from society,and got into trouble from the Pharisees for doing so.
Did he condone their sin.No.
Did he offer them salvation.Yes.

11 June 2011 at 21:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

.....and when a church starts to support homos as a persecuted minority group, then it is time to leave that church (CofE,anglican etc.)

11 June 2011 at 22:02  
Blogger Danny said...

non mouse,

I think you have put into words what I have been trying say but I never quite got it right. Thank you.

Thank you for giving me back the real rainbow.

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

I sometimes wonder if Jesus would be allowed to enter into the Church today, or even if He would want to?

11 June 2011 at 22:27  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Just as the swastika needed reclaiming after its misuse, this is an obvious case in which we need to reclaim a symbol, rather than ban it.

Remembering also this symbols significance in finian and norse traditions.

For Christianity should make amends with our pagan cultural heritage, and seek some reconciliation for the persecutions they have wrought on others.

11 June 2011 at 23:27  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len said ...
"It certainly is not good news to tell people they are perverts and they are on the road to hell."

And you really think this is what Catholicism says?! This Catholic school were not. You just don't get it do you?

Yet more avoidance.

The question is how to prevent children from being lulled into believing certain behaviour Christians consider to be sin is okay. The groups we are talking about are certainly not social 'outcasts'.

Do you accept there is a personal responsibility on us all to seek to understand God and His ordinances and to do our best to live by these. Parents and the Church have a duty to inform children about God.

Do you consider sin and moral outrages against God to be toxic and contagious in a community?

Jesus DID tell sinners to sin no more. And He was clear about the consequences too:

"And if your hand, or your foot, scandalize you, cut it off, and cast it from you. It is better for you to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. And if your eye scandalize you, pluck it out, and cast it from you. It is better for you having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire."

12 June 2011 at 00:57  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len said ...

"It certainly is not good news to tell people they are perverts and they are on the road to hell."

And neither is it 'good news' to say their behaviour is fine and acceptable to God.

12 June 2011 at 01:10  
Anonymous non mouse said...

"It certainly is not good news to tell people they are perverts and they are on the road to hell." Quite so, Mr. len. As you've suggested before, we are helpful to point it out to them.

Of course, Christ also said: Suffer* little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 19:14; KJV).
And, furthermore:
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matt 18:6; KJV).

Today's problem then, might lie in accurately discerning who is doing the offending and how: especially when everybody's positioned all over our fractured matrix - yelling "Pervert" across every crack. This is childish, rather than child-like (cf: Matt 18:3).

In any case, I'd hate to lose another word to the destroyers - and we are clearly enjoined to ensure that perverts let our children alone. To that end, surely any church is right to cleanse its own house without interference from the Fabians etc. referenced by others above. [Mind you, I didn't even know that this rainbow carried the connotation it does].





Suffer* = let [them] alone.

12 June 2011 at 01:30  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Danny @ 22:07 --- If so, that's lovely. Thanks back at you :)

12 June 2011 at 01:33  
Blogger len said...

I think what we are experiencing today is a phenomenon called Christless Christianity.
In this version of Christianity Christ is neither wanted or needed.
This is why Jesus said "Will the Son of Man find faith when He comes back"?.
Meaning faith in Him.
The Church now has its Popes and programmes and the teachings of Christ have been lost amongst these,lip service is paid to them ,but no one has any intention of putting them into practice.
I believe Christ is no more'acceptable'to the organised Church now as He was then when the Pharisees opposed Him and sought to rid themselves of this' friend of sinners'.

"He was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."—Isaiah 53:12e

Jesus totally identified with sinners, to follow the logic of those posting here, this makes Jesus as bad as any of them!.
God did not stand back pointing His finger accusing, but got right in amongst sinners and took their sin on himself.

How the religious stand back and say"Thank God I am not like them".
Where is Jesus today?.Working through a Church programme?.
Jesus today is amongst the drug addicts, the prostitutes ,the lost the hopeless,reaching out to them in love.
That is why'his church' has none of his presence.

12 June 2011 at 08:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

@non mouse I'm amazed that someone with such pursed lips all the time and so racked with disapproval can even manage to speak.

12 June 2011 at 08:36  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len said ...

"Where is Jesus today?.Working through a Church programme?.
Jesus today is amongst the drug addicts, the prostitutes ,the lost the hopeless,reaching out to them in love.
That is why'his church' has none of his presence."

What utter tosh! Do you have any idea of the number of Christian outreach programmes to the excluded and the marginalised?

Is this the same len who accuses the Church of seeking salvation through action as opposed to faith? One of the cast of thousands who criticised Mother Teresa of Calcutta?

A basis Christian tenet is to see the suffering face of Christ in all.

Do go and research the hugh effort Christian organisations to minister to the weak and vulnerable before throwing out such ill-considered accusations.

12 June 2011 at 15:26  
Blogger len said...

Good works do not buy one salvation.

This is my point which you do seem to be able to understand Mr Dodo.

If good works buy one salvation then all the Secular aid societies have bought their salvation then?.

Buying, earning, one`s salvation is a myth of religion, which you apparently 'buy into Dodo'.I suppose it is part of your Dogma and traditions.

Good works as I have said (many times) are a 'good and honourable thing' but if you consider they have bought you your salvation then what makes your religion any different from a Muslim a Hindu or a Buddhist?

13 June 2011 at 00:12  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

In defense of Mr. Dodo and only on this occasion, I think what he was attenmpting to express was something fairly simplistic and that is that Catholicism does not and will never accept the practice of homosexuality.

This is a well known fact.Presumably you would not expect to raise money for a homosexual cause in a Catholic or Islamic institution.

If someone could clarify this question for me I would be most grateful. Why are so many, who do not wish to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church,so keen to
remain in this institution which is by its very essence is totally inflexible on certain dogma.

13 June 2011 at 03:20  
Anonymous E J Thompson said...

Your Grace:

It may have escaped your attention but homosexuals are not a persecuted minority in Ontario, Canada, unlike say Saudi Arabia.

13 June 2011 at 05:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

All Christains must support St Joseph's Catholic Secondary School in Ontario.

It is vital that we prevent them from gaining access to our children.

13 June 2011 at 07:42  
Anonymous Jon said...

Your Grace,

Thank you from the very bottom of my heart. And Mr Len - 1 Corinthians 13 is one of my favourite biblical verses, and I believe, a profoundly simple statement of what ought to be the Church's mission.

Jon.

13 June 2011 at 13:04  
Anonymous Jon said...

Incidentally, Your Grace, I just thought I'd mention what Gay Straight Alliances are.

Many of your posters seem to take some kind of bizarre delight in quoting higher STD rates and mortality figures for gay people as if somehow early mortality were evidence of God's immediate judgement on people of whose lifestyle He has expressed disapproval. I really struggle to understand this, but I'm afraid I'm deeply angered when this advocacy of early mortality is applied to children.

Whilst I suppose Gay Straight Alliances are 'evangelical' in some senses (although the notion that they can make 'converts', is, of course, absurd), they exist primarily because of the far higher rates of suicide amongst and bullying of gay teens and to try to explain to some teachers and pupils that bullying of kids isn't acceptable at all. Ever.

I don't agree that a rainbow is somehow a sexual object and I'm sorry if some of your flock feel that it is being monopolized and their rights somehow suppressed. I love seeing them in the sky, as much as I like the welcome sight of a little rainbow sticker in a pub window. One is a promise of God's love, the other is a promise I won't get punched in the face because of who I'm with.

Humbly yours.

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

Sydneysider said ...
"Why are so many, who do not wish to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church,so keen to
remain in this institution which is by its very essence is totally inflexible on certain dogma."

Most Catholics I know accept the teachings of the Church. They do so because they accept the Church's position on homosexuality, abortion, divorce and euthenasia amongst other doctrines.

The one area of doubt for some is contraception and I think many question this and there may be an exercise of individual conscience by some on this one.

The Catholic Church does not change it beliefs to suit modern values and opinion and there is a consistency in it's teachings stretching back 2000 years. Its history isn't perfect and neither are all its priests but their is an authority and theological reasoning to its doctrines and dogmas.

13 June 2011 at 18:41  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len said ...
"Buying, earning, one`s salvation is a myth of religion, which you apparently 'buy into Dodo'.I suppose it is part of your Dogma and traditions."

Not at all - Christian love naturally leads to its expression through charitable action. That's my position!

As I've said the Christian sees the suffering face of Christ in all people who are marginalised and excluded. Not only do we care for them but we show the love of God by doing sothis and demonstrate. Societies have been changed by doing so!

How does this square with your misrepresentation of Catholicism?

13 June 2011 at 18:51  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len
I think Jesus gave a clear message on Christian ministry.

"For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat:
I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink:
I was a stranger, and you took me in:
Naked, and you covered me:
Sick, and you visited me:
I was in prison, and you came to me...
Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, YOU DID IT TO ME."

13 June 2011 at 20:44  
Blogger len said...

Paul asked the Galatian believers, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?” (Galatians 3:2) The reason he asked this was because they were being taken in by the false teaching of the Judaizers who said that you had to add works to faith. Furthermore, they were trying to grow in Christ by adding works to their faith. Any work of the flesh takes away from the grace of God, both then and today. If we were saved by works, then salvation would not be by God’s grace. Add works to faith and it is no longer God’s unmerited favor. Good works follow salvation, but they are not a means of salvation.

13 June 2011 at 21:07  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

Jesus made no such fine theological point!

I think we're probably talking at cross purposes. It's not part of my understanding of Catholicism that 'works of the law' secure salvation.

We are taught to know and love God, to endeavour to understand His laws, to try to walk within these laws and to love our neighbours as ourselves.

Not a complex message and rooted in scripture - though it is difficult to always stay true to. That's why Catholics believe in the necessity and efficacy of the sacraments to strengthen them.

The above does not rule out God's saving grace nor the necessity of the gift of faith. Unlike your understanding of Christianity it does give the Church in organised form a pivotal role in helping us pilgrims on earth.

Dispute this if you must but do not suggest Catholics just follow rules in an attempt to 'deserve' or 'earn' salvation. That is a twisted understanding of my faith.

13 June 2011 at 22:25  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

"What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he has faith, but has not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself."

13 June 2011 at 22:30  
Blogger len said...

I wondered when you would get round to that one Dodo.
What come first?

14 June 2011 at 08:30  
Blogger len said...

Mr Dodo,
Just to establish one point, to save us going round and round in circles.
Do you believe salvation is a gift from God?

14 June 2011 at 08:38  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

Of course!

No man merits salvation other than through the atoning death of Christ and union with Him.

However, and here is probably where we differ, I believe we have to cooperate with the Holy Spirit and whilst sufficient grace is available to us to do so, being sinful we are predisposed towards straying from the path. I don't accept the 'once and for all' model of transformation as being applicable to most people. Some great saints yes, not everyone. For me, life is a daily struggle. For others a cruise.

I also believe in a last judgement where how we have served God, in whatever way He has asked of us, and how we have loved others, determines the outcome.

Finally, I will add that I have a deep attachment to the Roman Catholic Church and accept it teachings but if I believed it had departed from the Gospel of Christ I would not hesitate to leave.

14 June 2011 at 10:05  
Blogger len said...

Well Mr Dodo,
The next step is to decide who you are following, Christ or the Catholic Church, because they are quite plainly saying different things,and teaching different 'Gospels'.
Rome's "gospel" is not good news at all. The Roman institution, calling itself "The Church", usurps Christ's mediatorial office, proclaiming herself as the "sacrament of salvation."

Roman Catholicism demands submission of the intellect and will to the doctrines taught by the Roman magisterium (the Pope and bishops). It is claimed that the Catholic Church derives its doctrines from the "sacred deposit" found in Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. However the faithful cannot verify these doctrines by referring to the original sources.
The choice is between the Bible and the Roman magisterium; the choice is between salvation by grace through faith in Christ, or through human merit and effort in the Roman religion.

14 June 2011 at 10:23  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Len,

You have been told time and again about faith and good works.

The Catholic Church does not teach that we are justified by good works. Your belief that it is by belief alone is more dangerous to Christians than many doctrines you despise of the Catholics. As if the Nicene Creed is the secret code-word to the clubhouse.

We are justified by Christ on the Cross. By God's infinite love and forgiveness alone. The fact that we have to do good works is just truth. We are not justified by them, but we still have to do them. They are not quantified, added up and weighed on a scale, but they must still be there. I don't need to quote scripture because you only have to pick one of nearly any of Jesus speeches to hear His thoughts on the matter. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked etc.

14 June 2011 at 13:39  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

And that, friend, is where we part company.

The Roman Catholic Church follows Christ as it's head and sees itself as His represenative (not replacement) on earth until He returns in glory. I believe I am following Christ by remaining in His Church.

You have oversimplified and misrepresented the 'choice' by inferring the Church does not follow scripture. What you actually mean is you disagree with it's interpretation, its institutions and its sacraments.

You have also not read my Catholic understanding of the process of salvation and insist on presenting a false dicotomy between 'faith' and 'works'. To a Catholic this is a selective mispresentation of scripture.

Read the Acts of the Apostles!

14 June 2011 at 13:43  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Lakester91,

A lot of Catholic practices are unscriptural.A blending of truth and error.
Paul defined it best when he warned about false teachers coming with "a different Jesus" and "another gospel" (II Corin. 11:3-4, 13-15; Gal. 1:6-9).

Grace plus works for salvation is like trying to mix oil and water; "and if, by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace," (Romans 11:6).

"Salvation is all me and no God" is 100% salvation by works.

"Salvation is 50% God and 50% me" is 100% salvation by works.

"Salvation is 99.9% God and .1% me" is 100% salvation by works.

14 June 2011 at 14:57  
Blogger len said...

The Bible clearly and consistently states that receiving Jesus Christ as Savior, by grace through faith, grants salvation (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10,13; Ephesians 2:8-9). The Roman Catholic Church rejects this. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc. Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, means that Catholicism is a false religion.

14 June 2011 at 15:32  
OpenID scottspeig said...

Wow, having finally got through the interesting discussion between Len and Dodo, I thought I'd weigh in with my opinion and voice.

As far as I was concerned at the beginning, Dodo was most certainly correct in the view that the money should not go to a charity that encourages, promotes and normalises homosexual behaviour since to do so would condone the sin that it homosexual practises.

Len, I was surprised at your stance (if I read it all correctly) as quite often agree with your comments. It surely would be the same if it was a charity encouraging, promoting and normalising promiscuity??

Also, in regards to Len talking about love, surely teaching children that promiscuity of all types is wrong and marriage being between "man and wife" is the teaching of scripture is a good thing? Giving money to charity (whatever the good cause) that goes against scriptural teaching is in my opinion poor stewardship. Far better to donate to charities trying to solve the problem from a scriptural viewpoint?

As for the conversation, it took a different route looking at the Roman Catholic Church and salvation and here I will add a third element for the RC church is by all means apostate since the "official" Roman Catholic view is that salvation is through faith & works whereas scripture teaches that salvation is through faith alone. The third route I take is that there are saved souls in the Catholic churches as all they require is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

As to the question of Len's Which comes first, faith or works, it is clearly faith. As written in James, "faith without works is dead" not that works is necessary, but that from faith, works will occur. If there are no works, the person claiming faith is a liar.

14 June 2011 at 15:44  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

"... the "official" Roman Catholic view is that salvation is through faith & works whereas scripture teaches that salvation is through faith alone."

It really isn't that clear cut now is it?

Can you advise me where the Roman Catholic Church states this as it's official teaching? It much more complex than len's summation and I'm sure he knows this too. A Catholic believes that once baptised the sacraments strenghten the soul for the daily spiritual warfare - the outcome of which is not fully known - and acts of love and kindness to those in need are an expression of Christian love.

'Sola Fide' is a construction of
Ms Luther and co and so far as I know is stated nowhere in the bible. (Didn't Luther insert 'alone' into scripture?) Indeed, St James directly contradicts it!

The relationship between faith and acts of love is all just a little bit more complicated that setting them in opposition to one another.
Interestingly your final comment acknowledges this and is closer to my understanding of Catholicism than the caricature presented by len.

The middle ages are long since gone len, do please stop constructing straw men to knock down!

14 June 2011 at 17:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jon said..."Many of your posters seem to take some kind of bizarre delight in quoting higher STD rates and mortality figures for gay people as if somehow early mortality were evidence of God's immediate judgement on people of whose lifestyle He has expressed disapproval. I really struggle to understand this."

You are struggling to understand your own straw man. The massively high STD rates and mortality figures merely reinforce the necessity of protected children from homosexual and other promiscuous lifestyles. It seems that there are many who would use any excuse to insert tolerance of immoral beviour, even into the kindergarten. Adoption should be reserved for those who are married (i.e. 1 man + 1 woman). Children do best in the traditional family. This is wise and good discrimination.

14 June 2011 at 18:07  
Anonymous Hexe said...

Funny, I thought that the Catholic bible is teaching that homosexuality is a sin and because of that, they don't do 'gay adoption', which is why TPTB have decreed it's OK to persecute them for their believes and expose their kids to acts they regards as gross, which end up in Catholic children collecting money for gay charities.

Why stop there -- Catholic children could collect for Marie Stopes, or, perhaps even Dignitas too? Or how about some money for deprived Satanist's children?

Yuck :)

...(and I'm an Atheist, but I cannot believe that a religious person would suggest to a fellow religious person to disregard their holy book. By all means convert, but don't pervert people's minds and turning their own kids against them is probably another sin in Christianity, and if it's not, it ought to be one.)

14 June 2011 at 18:10  
Blogger len said...

scottspeig,
Mr Dodo and myself have certainly been round the houses with this one!.
I was suggesting(perhaps not putting it terribly well)that Homosexuals could be reached out to with love without condoning their activities.We Christians should not treat 'sinners'as pariahs.
I cannot accept Catholic practices which have no scriptural basis.In Protestantism, the sacraments are outward symbols of obedience and commitment, and are generally not considered necessary for salvation. Catholic tradition maintains that salvation can only be obtained through the practice of the sacraments.
The justification of the necessity of the seven sacraments is defined by Catholic theologians. The doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is defined in the Bible itself. The Council of Trent was nothing more than a group of men attempting to reshape God in the image of man, and their conclusions cannot be considered accurate, as they are unbiblical.

14 June 2011 at 18:15  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len
"The Council of Trent was nothing more than a group of men attempting to reshape God in the image of man, and their conclusions cannot be considered accurate, as they are unbiblical."

You would say that wouldn't you as the Council condemned the heresies of 'sola scriptura' and 'sola fide'!

We probably need to just agree to disagree.

The Council of Trent oppossed, amongst other heresies, the doctrine of faith alone seeing faith as progressive requiring the active participation of man in responding to grace. The sacraments - outward signs of inward grace - were affirmed as means of strengthening Christians in their journey of faith and response to grace.

The Catholic faith is internally and theologically consistent. It is a body of doctrine built over 2000 years. Whilst it is in schism with its Eastern brothers and sisters, neither Church regards the other as heretical.

14 June 2011 at 23:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"As written in James, "faith without works is dead" not that works is necessary, but that from faith, works will occur. If there are no works, the person claiming faith is a liar."

Standing outside of Christianity looking in, that is exactly what I would expect if it were true. I would expect a marked improvement of outlook and behaviour as time progresses.

15 June 2011 at 06:05  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,
spot on.
If only Christians understood as well.

15 June 2011 at 07:45  
Blogger len said...

I think there is a misconception amongst the unsaved and the religious about the concept of being a 'good person'.
I hear of people who have died and people say they will be in Heaven because they were a 'good person.
But this is not what God says through scripture.Jesus says quite plainly you must be born again.This is a minimum requirement.So those people trying to earn a place in Heaven are working in vain.
One thing religion cannot do is produce life.Jesus the last Adam became a life giving Spirit.He imparts His spirit, His life, to us.We become one Spirit with Him.
This is salvation, this is the reason God came to Earth and suffered on the Cross.He died for us that we might live with Him.
An exchange took place through the Cross, Jesus took our sinful life and exchanged it for his resurrected life.
This is the mystery of salvation revealed in Christ Jesus and makes Biblical Christianity unique amongst all the 'religions.Our part in the salvation process is to have revelation of this gift from God,desire to change(repent)and accept this gift of salvation offered to all,by God through the Cross of Jesus Christ.

15 June 2011 at 09:12  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

Do you believe those 'born again' are predetermined by God before their physical birth?

Is salvation available to all people?

What level of cooperation is required between man and the Holy Spirit if one is to be 'born again'?

Do you believe people who have faith in Christ are capable of grievous sin that can endanger their salvation?

Do you believe that those with faith in Christ will demonstrate this in acts of love and charity towards those in need?

15 June 2011 at 11:24  
Blogger len said...

Mr Dodo,
I believe salvation is available for everyone ,but I also believe God knows in advance all who will come to salvation.God desires that all will be saved, but He knows that all will not accept His offer of salvation.

I believe total honesty is necessary to be able to come to salvation.A true assessment of one`s spiritual condition, and an acceptance of our total inability to save ourselves.While we still have some hope of saving ourselves God cannot act.Religion offers hope of saving oneself, by trying harder, being better, but God tells us this is futile.It is not the individual acts of sin that makes us sinners but the fact that we have a sin nature, it is part of us!.This can only be dealt with, by God in the spiritual re-birth.

I don`t believe Christ will ever reject one who is truly born again,but I believe if we reject Christ He will respect our decision.(But why would a born again believer reject One who has become his life?)It would be like throwing your life away.

Can a born again Christian sin?,the answer undoubtedly is yes.This is because we are not 'walking in the Spirit' but 'walking after the flesh'following our impulses not submitted to the Holy Spirit.We repent and carry on 'walking in the Light'.The Christian life is an outworking of the Holy Spirit within the natural man,with slips and stumbles but a forward progression.

Any 'good works'in the born again Christian are attributable to the Holy Spirit within the believer.Jesus said" I can do nothing of my own", he had total reliance on the Holy Spirit and we should do the same.

15 June 2011 at 13:57  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

Perhaps we are not that far apart afterall! Just a small question of Rome to resolve.

15 June 2011 at 14:14  
Blogger len said...

Mr Dodo,
I salute your optimism!.

15 June 2011 at 15:02  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

Faith can move mountains!

15 June 2011 at 15:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"While we still have some hope of saving ourselves God cannot act."

But why? It's not Free Will. If it were a matter of Free Will in choosing or not to make a leap of faith before seeing what happens from the other side then some people would be trying Hinduism or Islam first and potentially stopping there. Afterall, if one makes a leap of faith i.e. convincing oneself something is true then it's potentially a one way journey. Also, but why again, only in terms theology. What's stopping god allowing us a Satan-like choice of knowing it exists but choosing not to follow? Now that seems like proper Free Will.

15 June 2011 at 20:14  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Danjo

Good questions ... deep answers needed!

Satan's choice was irrevocable - man is given repeated chances. It's an issue of faith and being open to this.

For me the existance of God stares me in the face and the only question is really what can we know of Him? Has He revealed Himself and how? Then you have to make your own search.

No easy answer and I don't want a long winded exchange about science and faith etc.

15 June 2011 at 23:58  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

There is a strong feeling of deja vu going on here. It sounds like the mad old days of Sydneysider len and Mr Dodo/Recusant.

Returning to my point, and I'm pleased you brought up the matter of contraception.You know as well as I do that a question of conscience does not apply to either contraception,or sex before marriage and a significant number of Catholics do both.

Incidentally on what matter does a question of conscience apply?

I thought the attraction of Catholicism was that matters of conscience are all prearranged
organized to the endth degree so that one is not required to make personal decisions or think for oneself in these matters.



I don't and have never understood the hypocrisy and why they need to still front up to Mass,take the sacrament which is committing a grievous sin and make a mockery of their religion.

Maybe they have the same affection as you do but
do not have the moral fortitude to follow the rules or get out.

I am contantly amused at groups trying to pressure the Church for
modern change with regard to the acceptance of female priests and the practice of homosexuality.
These Catholics obviously have no understanding of Catholicism at all.

The priests are far too vague on these matters.Perhaps it's the numbers issue again (you know, fear of losing flock to the soft option alternative:)

16 June 2011 at 15:04  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Sydneysider

I don't detect too much liberalism in the Catholic Church or much appetite for modernisation. In my experience, Priests are pretty clear too about moral matters.

The Church teaches only natural forms of contraception are acceptable within a marriage to plan a family. Some Catholics do struggle with this one since there was some confusion following Vatican II. How each communicant resolve this with their confessors through the sacrament of reconciliation is for them.

One thing I would say is that you really present Catholicism as following a set of neatly laid out rules. I think it is understanding the reasons for behaving in certain ways and then doing so through love of God and neighbour.

16 June 2011 at 22:50  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Sydneyside

Been thinking more about the above and various discussions with len.

I think a distinguishing feature of Catholicism is that it accepts it has a duty to individuals and to societies to fight moral evil. It sees itself in having an assertive role in shaping the moral climate of societies and promoting social justice. It accepts that openness to Christ can be hindered by forces that affect the individual conscience and open one to evil.

Certain things are against God's laws. These are God's way for us to live that promote our spiritual wellbeing and this also promotes strong societies.

This is summed up by Pope Paul VI:

"Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law."

Moral law upholds God's plan for how we should behave to secure earthly and eternal happiness.

17 June 2011 at 00:03  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

With all due respect there are a number of statements you make that I must refute.

Before I do, I would just like to say that it is heartening to see someone like you and len who are
committed to their religious choices and derive such comfort and strength from them.

However,this is not a shared experience by many who have become disallusioned especially with all the hypocrisy that occurs at the big end.

I refute your claim about confusion
with regard to articial contraception.It is clear.It is not allowed.

The point of the confessional is an interesting one
and especially not understood by non Catholics.

Forgiveness is not
an automatic dispenser for sins.One has to sincerely resolve never to commit that same sin again eg if you are having premarital sex with your committed partner and are not married, and go to confession; to be forgiven
you have to resolved never to have premarital sex again.

The likelihood of this,especially in these times is nil.Thus the hypocrisy to which I refer.

The rules are certainly laid out even to the extent of the varying degrees of sin. There is little room for grey area

The Church is not interested in your understanding of the reasons for certain behaviour. If a good person like yourself thought about
why African nations are riddled
with aids,a chief reason being because they are denied
contraceptive devices by the Catholic Church you'd probably walk!

As I understand it one of the
saving graces of Catholicism is to develop a scrupulous conscience and a disinclination to lying to one's self in pursuit of truth.

You can lie to everyone
but you can't lie to God, which means you can lie but you must know that they are lies...a sort of discouragement of self delusion.
This is why all the interesting
Catholics are ex:)

17 June 2011 at 02:43  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

oops typos! 'disillusioned' and 'artificial'.Erm..is God whispering to me?

17 June 2011 at 05:51  
Blogger len said...

Mr Dodo,
How can Catholics fight evil when they are part of the system that incorporates it?
The problem with Catholicism is that the Catholic system has compromised with evil and become one with it. Once the serpent has swallowed its prey the prey becomes part of the serpent!.
Once one has compromised a little with evil it is but a small step which leads one into greater deceptions.
Once one has been lured into the satanic trap (which is accepting the 'bait' of little untruths) one is prepared then to accept the 'big lie'.
The blindness of Catholics readily accepting un- Biblical doctrines and tradition is evidences that they have already swallowed and digested the big lie.
It is apparently more difficult for Catholics to accept Biblical truth than the 'Heathen'.!

18 June 2011 at 10:29  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

deep sigh!

18 June 2011 at 15:22  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

Come come now len...this is a tad
over the top!Grass roots Catholics
are good people;just non analytical
and brain washed to a certain extent.They are not evil.

18 June 2011 at 15:36  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Sydneysider

Is that a defence of Catholicism?! I think I prefer the full frontal assault to the suggestion Catholics are non-thinking, brain washed people who mean well.

Are you a 'lapsed' Catholic by any chance? It's just that your earlier comments suggest some inside experience and disillusionment with its members and what you perceive to be hypocrisy in following the Church's teachings.

18 June 2011 at 16:56  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr Sydneysider,

The claim that religious people are brainwashed and simple I expect to come from an atheist, not a Christian.

With Len it is easy to shrug off his stuck record conspiracy theories, but this more subversive attack is below the belt.

I assume that despite gaining 4 science A levels and studying a science at University, I am still brainwashed and non-analytical?

What am I if not a grass-roots Catholic?

19 June 2011 at 14:38  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

Mr Dodo there is no hypocrisy in the Church's teachings. There is hypocrisy in implementing them seen in matters I have discussed previously. Another example with regard to special dispensation granted to enable previously married people to marry in the Church,e.g. Princess Michael. How does a Catholic marry an atheist (Clegg)with the Church's approval?
It seems you have to be royal or a vip.

And what of Tony Blair ,Rupert Murdoch and their respective church roles?
You jest!The church is too far removed from its original precepts.
It's a corporate business venture..
an enormously powerful one with little to do with souls and the essence of Christianity according to the New Testament.There are certain aspects of Catholic teaching I admire enormously but it is sadly not evident in many of the flock and certainly not in the shepherds.

As for brainwashing...remember what St Ignatius Loyola said
" Give me a child of seven etc "
You disappoint me on this aspect.
Everyone knows this one:)

I am not an atheist. I am suspicious of atheists. It would be hard to ignore the presence of God and be alive(imo)

I am a thinking Christian with reservations
about certain aspects of Christianity which I believe to have been possibly wrongly interpreted and put forth as universal truths.

I have never thought of myself as subversive. It is far too militant
for my personality.

Mr.Lakester91, as a scientist explain the resurrection and the ascension into heaven. After all this is the cornerstone of Christianity and without it..Jesus
cannot be part of the Trinity.

21 June 2011 at 05:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no room for homosexuals within the household of God. Homosexuality is the antithesis of procreation just as Satan is to God. It corrupts the universal teaching of Christ and his bride the Church, as seen in a husband and wife, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah. The kingdom of Christ is not of this "world" and as a result homosexuality will not ever be taught as acceptable within the one true Church. The Church is commanded to teach the law of Christ to its members and that it will do. The earth and all of its deceitfulness with pass but the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, will go on through eternity. It is better to obey God rather than man.

1Cor 6:9-11 NIV
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

23 July 2011 at 19:41  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older