Saturday, July 16, 2011

Obama meets the Dalai Lama

His Grace received three emails from The White House today (still nothing from 10 Downing Street - ever). The first informed him (live) that President Obama had just entered a meeting with the Dalai Lama at 11.33am. The second informed him that the meeting finished at 12.17pm, with the message: 'With that, we have a travel-photo lid and no deficit of hot sun and blue sky. Enjoy the day!'

They are very pleasant people at The White House Office of Communications.

The third email included the following statement:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

July 16, 2011

Statement from the Press Secretary on the President’s Meeting with His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama

The President met this morning at the White House with His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama. The President reiterated his strong support for the preservation of the unique religious, cultural, and linguistic traditions of Tibet and the Tibetan people throughout the world. He underscored the importance of the protection of human rights of Tibetans in China. The President commended the Dalai Lama’s commitment to nonviolence and dialogue with China and his pursuit of the “Middle Way” approach. Reiterating the U.S. policy that Tibet is a part of the People’s Republic of China and the United States does not support independence for Tibet, the President stressed that he encourages direct dialogue to resolve long-standing differences and that a dialogue that produces results would be positive for China and Tibetans. The President stressed the importance he attaches to building a U.S.-China cooperative partnership. The Dalai Lama stated that he is not seeking independence for Tibet and hopes that dialogue between his representatives and the Chinese government can soon resume.
His Grace is most appreciative of these communications, but would rather be sent a full transcript of the meeting instead of the 'Middle Way' dross churned out for public (and Chinese) consumption. What would the Wikileaks account say?


Blogger john in cheshire said...

The Dalai Lama is a better man than Mr Obama will ever be.

16 July 2011 at 21:43  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr AB Cranmer

My memory isn't what it used to be, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't you oppossed to Wikileaks? Curiosity as to what they might say could be misunderstood as enouragement!

The statement seems to me to be directed at China and puts the Dalai Lama firmly in his place.

16 July 2011 at 22:09  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Unusual to find a spoofer (if such it is) coming in so early, at no.2.

16 July 2011 at 22:23  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Or a windup at No.3.

16 July 2011 at 22:43  
Anonymous Danjo's banjo said...

Must admit that my first experience of the opposite number was with a Chinese woman and my second was with a Tibetan lady. My third was with an american.

And all three were sensual in their own way. Although I'd vote for the Tibetan anyday!

I hope that China develops into a sort of nice EU, but I can't hold my breath... although she did... for a long time!

Just thought I'd share that.

16 July 2011 at 23:22  
Anonymous Marine- at your service said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

16 July 2011 at 23:25  
Anonymous Holy Spoof said...

Mr J

I'll move where I will and influence whom I chose. What makes you think you an spot me at work?

16 July 2011 at 23:29  
Anonymous Unholy Spoof said...

Mr J

Same goes for me!

16 July 2011 at 23:29  
Anonymous MrJ said...

As to any Wholly or Unwholly Spoofer, whether or not apocryphal, MrJ would be agnostic.

16 July 2011 at 23:55  
Anonymous Holy Spoof said...

Mr J

Agnostic I can work with. Atheism, on the other hand, would be more difficult.

17 July 2011 at 00:26  
Anonymous Unholy Spoof said...

Not for me for - I prefer atheists!

17 July 2011 at 00:28  
Anonymous ?? Spoof said...

YOU I an work with Mr J!

17 July 2011 at 00:46  
Anonymous Falderal said...

Your Grace, Might I suggest that random drug testing might improve the calibre and coherence of commenting at your palace blog.

17 July 2011 at 01:39  
Anonymous Happy Chappy said...


You're suggesting a breach of my privay and human rights!

17 July 2011 at 02:04  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Voosh and its gone , se if anyone else has success with anything anti chinese communism ?
Happy chappy , dont wory there are ways round things

17 July 2011 at 02:19  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

I eat atheists for breakfast. Indeed I have not as yet met a smart and honest one at the same time.

Atheism is the mark of the most profound ignorance. For the great mass of atheists are simply lazy thinkers, or just plane lazy as a whole.

You cannot show an atheist the errors in his thinking because in many cases atheists don't really think at all, they are simply people who have chosen to walk a much easier path, known as profanity.

Maybe we ARE simply the long term product of a wholly terrestrial massively improbable act of lucky chance.

Infinitely lucky, highly evolved, life forms produced by the accidental coming together of completely lifeless inorganic chemicals.


Surely the chances are very much in favor of the existence of a divine creative intelligence somewhere out there in the infinite vastness of time and space, having at least a major part in the play?

No, true intellectual atheism to my mind, cannot exist at all. Someone who believes themselves to be a true atheists is either someone in a politically indoctrinated state of denial, or a person who remains happy to stay in a constant state of ignorance inspired bliss. Good for them, I say.

The really sad thing about atheists is that they think that we, the spiritually inclined are the mad, or deluded ones.

Which is only ever more insulting as these assertions come from people who by definition genuinely believe themselves to be derived from a bunch of assorted, but unbelievably fortunate inorganic chemicals, as well as absolutely nothing else besides, before, during or afterwards.

I refuse to believe that any half intelligent human being existing anywhere on this entire planet, could possibly be content living with such a clearly SELF defeating, desperately low level of self-worth, confidence or purpose.

Only something so extremely clever, that our imaginations can only speculate as to the precise measurement of this perfectly cosmic sized intellect, can produce even the most microscopic forms of life from something that has never lived.

Until our scientists can prove otherwise, or that life from a small child's earth bound inorganic chemistry set is even theoretically possible, atheism will remain a small but extremely noisy, minority pastime.

17 July 2011 at 02:31  
Anonymous malvoisin said...

Strange that neither want independence for Tibet.

17 July 2011 at 07:14  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Good to see that the incoherent drifting that threatened to set in about midnight has been redressed within 2 -- 3 hours (2:31).

The world could be a better place if, in the picture for "Obama meets the Dalai Lama", what they were considering were based on what Atlas shrugged said.

17 July 2011 at 07:18  
Anonymous MrJ said...

PS to 07:18

Or were they simply discussing the topic of the moment: tactics about legislating for the US national debt ceiling, the bond market and the consequences for Tibet and Asia?

17 July 2011 at 07:54  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Buddhism has always struggled for existence, it had a day when it reached a zenith, but whether it be shinto in Japan, Dravidians in Shouthern India, or the Traditional Shaman of Tibet, wherever Gotama's message spread it has been at loggerheads with an older culture, or at best tried to assimilate

The best solution to Communism on the other hand, is being raised by David Frawley in his book Awaken Bharata in which he argues the Hindus need a strong Kshatriya Warrior Caste to rule and defend India from Totalitarianists.

I doubt Obama will be visiting David Frawley but he is the Man of the moment, in my humble opinion.

17 July 2011 at 08:15  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I would also like to add, when we talk of Communism today, we would do better to define it as the Communist-Capitalist Globalist Synthesis.



17 July 2011 at 09:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know about buddhism or any other religions being respectable or not, though I think all religions are tricky in a small or big way, but perhaps I can join (as a non-member), a non-imposing, non-conforming, respectable, independent church of england society (who don't bow down to
political correctness),
even though I don't believe in any god or jesus.


17 July 2011 at 09:30  
Blogger len said...


You look for Jesus and He will find you.

"From there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him
if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul."
(Deuteronomy 4:29)

17 July 2011 at 10:57  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Why is it that Christians don’t criticise the nihilistic philosophy that is Buddhism?

We turn on one another yet leave this strange ‘religion’ a mix of Hinduism, tantra and ancient paganism alone.

Given its growing influence within the West surely we should be resisting it?

The Dalai Lama is an ambassador for a religion that runs counter to Christianity.

17 July 2011 at 11:25  
Blogger len said...

The nearer the lie is to the truth the greater the danger it is!.

Satan doesn`t come up tap you on the shoulder and say" I am going to deceive you".

What he does is appear as an angel of light and give you a 'revelation'he will give you enough truth to convince you but enough of a lie to disqualify you.

It is these religions when truth and error are cunningly mixed and blended which are the greatest danger to the believer.

When Satan appeared mingling with the other Angels ONLY God recognised him.What chance do we humans have without the Holy Spirit to guide us?

17 July 2011 at 11:41  
Anonymous Sean Robsville said...

Your Grace,
I must take issue with Dodo's description of Buddhism as 'a mix of Hinduism, tantra and ancient paganism'.

Buddhism is a rational philosophy and applied psychology, as I explain here.

17 July 2011 at 12:31  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Reiterating the U.S. policy that Tibet is a part of the People’s Republic of China and the United States does not support independence for Tibet ... The Dalai Lama stated that he is not seeking independence for Tibet ...

We should all pause here for a moment and recognize why these things are true. China is an emerging world power. It becomes more powerful by the day. What would be the point of provoking China over Tibet? There is no one anywhere who is prepared to actually doing anything about Tibet because the cost would be prohibitive and the chance of success essentially zero. It's not like slapping the Serbs around, or kicking Gadhaffi in the teeth. The Chinese have the power to win. The Americans know it. The Tibetans know it. The Chinese know it. So who is going to make any noise about Tibetan independence? It would only be counter-productive. Realpolitick as the power of the West wanes.

In the meantime, the ICC and the War Crimes Commission, and all these other little manifestations of "International Law" are making the world a safer place by seeking to punish those too weak to protect themselves from such power as the West can still project. Doesn't seem so noble in that light, does it? Rather a manifestation of weakness than strength. Of cravenness and not courage.


17 July 2011 at 14:47  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Atlas shrugged @02:31 : mostly well-said Sir, but I draw the line at eating one. Perhaps, as with a Chinese meal, their insubstantial nature would prove less than satisfying? Besides, if we are as we eat, then don't go there! :o)

17 July 2011 at 15:23  
Blogger English Viking said...

Buddhism appears to me to be utter nonsense, and the POTUS should know better than to appear to accommodate such wacky cult.

Then again, he is a muslim.

17 July 2011 at 17:13  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Sean Robsville said...

2I must take issue with Dodo's description of Buddhism as 'a mix of Hinduism, tantra and ancient paganism'.
Buddhism is a rational philosophy and applied psychology, as I explain here."

Nonsense. I repeat, Tibetan Budhhism is a 'religion' mixing Hinhuism, surely demonic in origin, with tantra, a twisted belief system too, and magic based paganism.

The perniious ideas of Budhhism have influenced much of our psychology and are spawning various 'alternative therapies'.

It needs to be exposed for what it is.

17 July 2011 at 18:51  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

"Nonsense. I repeat, Tibetan Budhhism is a 'religion' mixing Hinhuism, surely demonic in origin, with tantra, a twisted belief system too, and magic based paganism.

The perniious ideas of Budhhism have influenced much of our psychology and are spawning various 'alternative therapies'.

It needs to be exposed for what it is."

This is curious.

Only a few days ago you were asking His Grace to censor comments which you felt were unfairly critical of your faith, and you have on numerous occasions objected to inter alia Mr Len who has been desirous to see Roman Catholicism 'exposed for what it is'.

How might His Grace's Hindu readers interpret your words? Might they find them offensive?

17 July 2011 at 20:02  
Anonymous MrJ said...

"It needs to be exposed for what it is." (18:51)

1) Yes, but it may not be any more (perhaps less) deserving of censure than other influential teachings.

2) If considered as a proposition of general application, it would seem that more than half the world has and does practice the opposite much of the time. And there must always be the questions: How great the need? Who is a fit and proper person to expose? Is the motive more akin to persecution, witchhunting, auto-da-fe', self-satisfaction? Pursuit of a soft target due to fear of a more pernicious opponent? Deflection from self-examination?

The perennial question is: What guidance does the Gospel speak to those who would be followers of the One who said "I am the way, the truth and the life..."?

PS: An interruption prevented this being posted before Abp Cranmer (20:02).

17 July 2011 at 20:35  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Archbishop Cranmer said...

"Mr Dodo ... Only a few days ago you were asking His Grace to censor comments which you felt were unfairly critical of your faith and you have on numerous occasions objected to inter alia Mr Len who has been desirous to see Roman Catholicism 'exposed for what it is'"

Just when was that, you'll have to remind me? You'd be forever removing posts if you followed such a request!

The only post I recall asking to be removed was last night and that was filled with obscene and threatening language and actually was directed at the Anglican Church.

I'm more than happy to answer Mr Len's attacks on my faith and do so - often. Hindu's, similarly, are quite entitled to reply to my criticisms of their religion, as are Buddhists.

As you say:
"Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure ..."

17 July 2011 at 20:53  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

Your perspicacity with Dodo knows no bounds.

Perhaps I am 'offensive'?

Perhaps I don't care if I am?

Hindus are little better than monkeys.

17 July 2011 at 20:58  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

English Viking said...
"Your Grace,
Your perspicacity with Dodo knows no bounds ... Hindus are little better than monkeys."

Except he was mistaken and I have never, so far as I can recollect, asked for posts to be removed that attack my faith or me as a Catholic. An obscene and hateful post last night, directed at another blogger, an Anglican as it happens, needed to be removed and I expressed my opinion to this effect.

One other point I forgot to mention. Why is it unacceptable to 'offend' Buddhists and Hindus but acceptable to attack Islam on this site?

Also, I do not criticise Buddhists or Hindus as people but their belief systems. There is a big difference which perhaps you would do well to consider. In my opinion you comment above is racist and gratuitously offensive.

17 July 2011 at 23:33  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr J

Why not say what you mean in a direct way instead of insinuation?

17 July 2011 at 23:42  
Anonymous MrJ said...

23:42... ?

This looks like another incomprehensible comment based on a misreading.

17 July 2011 at 23:59  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


If I may pause from shooting at the RCC...

In my opinion you[r] comment above is racist and gratuitously offensive.

Perhaps 'racist' isn't the right word since Hindus are not necessarily Indian. But the comment is certainly bigoted. How much different was the attitude of the Apostle Paul towards the gentile pagans he evangelized.

OK, I am returning to the trench line now ...


18 July 2011 at 00:21  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr J

Oh really?

I am not seeking "persecution, witchhunting, auto-da-fe', or self-satisfaction." These 'religions' are not "a soft target" "due to fear of a more pernicious opponent" nor "deflection from self-examination."

To be clear, my motive is that I witness Christians attacking one another with great ferocity and yet, apart from Islam, they remain silent on two great belief systems – Buddhism and Hinduism.

These are millenia old, and incredibly influential. Many of their concepts are present in the neo-pagan ‘New Age’ movement.

Their ideas have certainly informed secular psychotherapy models, hypnotism, neuro-linguistic programming and a range of other ‘alternative’ therapies.

Instead of tearing Christianity apart and discrediting it in the process, we should perhaps think about exploring why these alternatives ‘religions’ have become so powerful and doing something about this.

18 July 2011 at 00:30  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


An temporary amnesty, perhaps, if not a cease fire?

18 July 2011 at 00:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

English Viking(17:13)

You made a very good point.
There is certainly many creepy similarities in asian buddhist culture/people and asian islamic culture/people in asia.
They have this kind of sinister arrogance that due to their wacky beliefs, they would fight endlessly for even the tiniest strip of land with their neighbours.


18 July 2011 at 01:30  
Anonymous Old Jim said...

Predictably this Papist is going to agree with Mr Dodo. It's understandable that Protestants would more easily get hot under the collar about the RCC than about hinduism and buddhism. To you, the thing has either always been Christianity counterfeited and adulterated with paganism, or at best semi-pelagian nonsense since Trent which endangers the souls of believers (although most of you'd probably grant and sometimes have that some of us Catholics as individuals are on the right track in spite of it)... In the same way, seeing the Christianity in some Protestant communities matched by shallow creeds of "tolerance of diverse opinions and lifestyles" (as is often the case in the anglican communion) or accompanied by what I consider rather nasty denials of the Universal Salvific Will of God or the freedom of the human will (as in Calvinist circles) to name just two obvious features often gets my goat... That's without touching ecclesiology or sacramental theology at all.
Nonetheless, most of us would (I hope) agree that we do share valid baptism, scripture, the moral law, the world-view most beneficent to and preparatory for the inspiration of God's Graces of Faith, Hope and Love, and a sincere wish for eternal life and the Beatific Vision; and perhaps that, with God, for whom all things are possible, such broken human tools might perhaps, sometimes, be enough.
So whilst we might well get angry at the intolerance and lack of understanding of us our separated brethren might betray, and feel despair mingled with scorn at the way we feel some of our most cherished doctrines are distorted and man's nearest chances for Grace are disfigured within their community's ranks, we should perhaps lend a thought and some time to doctrines that have as their faith a creed of relativism, of futile desire, of inability to do good, of mistrust of human reason; as their hope at its basest to gather rosebuds whilst they may, at it's greatest the yearning to return to nothing; as their love a narcissistic self-obsession or a love for an All that distinguishes not between human and inhuman, dignity and sin, being and non-being.
With God all things are possible, but how can these men respond to Him from within a creed so foreign to the Truth?
Len might be right that satan can more easily and more fully deceive with half-light than with dark (though we might disagree about which is which), but individual human beings ARE better off with some light than none, and of that we do occasionally need reminding.

Pax Christi.

18 July 2011 at 01:48  
Anonymous Old Jim said...

(or, to put the thing pithily, "That would be an ecumenical matter")

18 July 2011 at 01:53  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


An temporary amnesty, perhaps, if not a cease fire?

I certainly don't consider you an enemy, and for what my small opinion might be worth, you have in my short time on this blog always struck me as a generally reasonable commenter ... or as reasonable as a Papist can be ;) (Little joke there). My implacable hostility is directed at the RCC, and not towards Catholics. It is an important distinction that I trust you will appreciate since you have expressed similar attitudes on this thread. I don't go out of my way to provoke arguments with RCs, but I don't go out of my way to avoid them either. Once removed from theology, I generally find myself arguing with conservative Catholics, and not against them. So, yes, I am happy to call a truce until the next time the manifest errors of Rome are exposed for examination. There are plenty of common enemies to fight in the meantime.


18 July 2011 at 05:45  
Anonymous Sean Robsville said...

In reply to Dodo at 00.30. The reason that Buddhist methodology has 'informed secular psychotherapy models, hypnotism, neuro-linguistic programming and a range of other ‘alternative’ therapies' is because it works and saves the NHS money.

As a great Bodhisattva once said, 'Judge the tree by its fruits'.

18 July 2011 at 08:14  
Anonymous MrJ said...

MrJ respectfully notes that his 23:59 has been confirmed by another's 00:30;

and that by the latter Mr Dodo the Dude (of that emblem) wishes to make known that he is not among those who are "seeking 'persecution, witchhunting, auto-da-fe', or self-satisfaction' "; or whose motive for censure of certain 'religions' amounts to pursuit of a soft target due to fear of a more pernicious opponent nor to deflection from self-examination.

Also notes the comments of Mr carl jacobs at 5:45 expressing an intent, to combat "the manifest errors of Rome [the next time these] are exposed for examination";

and of Mr Sean Robsville 8:14, who may or may not be implying that the Jesus written of in the New Testament is "a great Bodhisattva".

18 July 2011 at 09:50  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

I thought that the dalai had recently declared that he had given up politics,though ethnic cleansing on the scale of tibet should surely merit an apperance at the hague,if not a sudden heart attack in the cells,but china is to big to censor so the tibetans are expendable,if only they had oil ,they would all be eating in burgerkings by now.

18 July 2011 at 10:43  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Heartening comments.

There will be times we engage in dialogue about our differences and hopefully we can converse without insult or abuse. I've been guilty of this. As a relatively newcomer here I was thrown off course by some of the hostility towards my faith.

I will of course continue to defend the manifest truths of Rome and contest the manifest errors of Protestantism - in the nicest possible way!

Old Jim
Well said, sir.

Sean Robsville
Many things 'work' and save money for the NHS. From a Christian perspective, this doesn't make them acceptable. Evidentially, it is even doubtful if they do work and have lasting benefit.

Mr J
Representing Jesus as a "great Bodhisattva" is most certainly intended by the post you refer to and should, in my opinion, attrack censure from anyone holding to Biblical truths rather than merely being "noted". The very thought!

18 July 2011 at 11:25  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr AB Cranmer

Have you had time to check the accuracy of the following statement? Bearing in mind my comments on 17 July 2011 @ 20:53 have you considered the possibility of a retraction?

"Only a few days ago you were asking His Grace to censor comments which you felt were unfairly critical of your faith, and you have on numerous occasions objected to inter alia Mr Len who has been desirous to see Roman Catholicism 'exposed for what it is'".

18 July 2011 at 11:35  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Allowing as ever for others having another view, that comment upon another's looks to me characteristically smug, self-satisfied, self-opinionated and humourless (among other things).

18 July 2011 at 12:29  
Anonymous MrJ said...

This replaces 12:29 sent in error:

11:25 "Representing Jesus as a "great Bodhisattva" is most certainly intended by the post you refer to and should, in my opinion, attrack censure from anyone holding to Biblical truths rather than merely being "noted". The very thought!"

Allowing as ever for others having another view, that comment upon another's looks to me characteristically smug, self-satisfied, self-opinionated and humourless (among other things).

18 July 2011 at 12:32  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr J

Pot and kettle ... pot and kettle.

Now I guess it all really depends on whether you are a Christian or not and whether you believe it's your duty to challenge false 'God's' and to spread the Good News.

18 July 2011 at 12:40  
Anonymous Toby the Jug said...


Mr J prefers to be an armchair critic preferring to make 'smart arse' remarks and tries to display his grasp of language and one sided historical knowledge.

He's really an empty vessel. Best to ignore him.

I see the blog administrator hasn't got the honesty to apologise or withdraw his slur on you. Speaks volumes that he jumps on you yet ignores the bigotry of others.

18 July 2011 at 15:34  
Anonymous MrJ said...

There seems to be a commenter with some talent for practising the technique of inventing occasions for comments which, taken together, are no better than a jumble of imagined slights and misdirected ditto, such as could be seen as coming from one intent on dishonouring the hospitality of HG's blog.

Drollery or trollery?

Self-parodying emblem to match?

And another who, given the name of this blogsite and what its owner declares it to be about, has a surprising disdain of tact, history and language, especially any that suggests that the official papal line may be at least in some error, and in some respects gross error.

18 July 2011 at 16:17  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr J

Surely you're not suggesting that only Anglicans with tact and a knowledge of history and language are welcome here? Or, is it specifically Roman Catholics who you would prefer not to post?

This requirement would disqualify several visitors!

To my knowledge, Mr Cranmer's visitors include Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, to name a few, as well atheists and agnostics, and also representatives from a broad range of Christian churches.

So do stop wittering, dear boy.

18 July 2011 at 16:49  
Anonymous MrJ said...

More of the same self-parody at 16:49, and disregarding 15:34 too.

18 July 2011 at 17:15  
Blogger len said...

I have an idea!.

There seems to be an ongoing debate/battle /conflict/grudge match/ between Catholics and Protestants. I will leave out other religions as things are complicated enough already!.

The idea is this, we rely ONLY on the Words of Jesus.We add nothing we take nothing away.Any disputes over interpretation will be interpreted by Scripture itself!.

18 July 2011 at 19:12  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


Yes, but who's 'interpretation' will be regarded as definitive and authoritative?

Where, for example, in the Words of Jesus does He describe the Trinity and Himself as One of the Three Persons? Where does Jesus clearly state He is both God and Man in equal measure? How are we to understand His Words to the Apostles and to Peter about His Church? And His Words at the Last Supper when He changed bread and wine into His Body and Blood?

See the problem?

18 July 2011 at 19:34  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr J

English Viking uses a favourite expression at times like this.

18 July 2011 at 19:37  
Blogger len said...

John MacArthur in his book Charismatic Chaos page 94, writes this:

The Reformers used the expression scriptura scripturam interpretatur, or ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ By this they meant that obscure passages in Scripture must be understood in light of clearer ones. If the Bible is God’s Word, it must be consistent with itself. No part of the Bible can contradict any other part. One divine Author, the Holy Spirit, inspired the whole Bible, so it has one marvelous, supernatural unity. The synthesis principle puts Scripture together with Scripture to arrive at a clear, consistent meaning. If we hold to an interpretation of one passage that does not square with something in another passage, one of the passages is being interpreted incorrectly, or possibly both of them. The Holy Spirit does not disagree with himself. And the passages with obvious meanings should interpret the more arcane [obscure] ones. One should never build a doctrine on a single obscure or unclear text.

18 July 2011 at 20:21  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


Of course ... but all scripture can be interpreted differently and quotes marshalled to support particular dogmas and doctrines. The understanding of being "born again" is a prime example. Another is the nature of the commission and authority given to Peter and the Apostles. More recently scripture is cited to justify homosexual relationships and marriage.

That's why it's such a dangerous exercise to leave this exclusively to individuals. Far better to benefit from and reference some 2000 years of steady theological study and debate and to accept Christ appointed shephards to guide us until His return..

Lets not reopen all of this ...

18 July 2011 at 22:29  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

Received at the White House, indeed!

The present Dalai Lama was born hundreds of miles outside Tibet. The Tibetans themselves migrated to what is now Tibet from further east in China, but huge numbers of them never did and never have done. The Dalai Lama comes from one such family.

Before 1959, Tibet was not an independent state ruled benignly by the Dalai Lama and given over almost entirely to the pursuit of spirituality. Tibet was certainly ruled by the Dalai Lama, by the lamas generally, and by the feudal landlord class from which the lamas were drawn. “Dalai” is a family name; only a member of the House of Dalai can become the Dalai Lama.

Well over ninety per cent of the population was made up of serfs, the background from which the present rulers of Tibet are drawn. That system was unique in China, and existed only because successive Emperors of China had granted the Tibetan ruling clique exactly the “autonomy” for which it still campaigns from “exile”. Life expectancy in Tibet was half what it is today.

There has never been an independent state of Tibet. Likewise, the presence of large numbers of Han (ethnic Chinese in the ordinary sense) and other Chinese ethnic groups in Tibet is nothing remotely new. The one-child policy does not apply in Tibet, so the Han majority there is the ethnic Tibetans’ own fault, if they even see it as a problem. It is totally false to describe the Dalai Lama as “their spiritual leader”. Relatively few would view him as such. In particular, Google “Dorje Shugden” for, to put at its mildest, some balance to the media portrayal of the present Dalai Lama, who, moreover, has never condemned either the invasion of Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq.

Just as pre-Communist Russia always remained the country’s true character, so very pre-Communist China remains the country’s true character. That character reveres tradition and ritual, upholds government by moral rather than physical force, affirms the Golden Rule, is Agrarian and Distributist, is now thoroughly Classical and Patristic in taking Africa seriously, and has barely started an external war since China became China five thousand years ago. It is especially open to completion by, in, through and as classical, historic, mainstream Christianity.

China has already moved from Maoism to the equal repressiveness of unbridled capitalism. While economic, or any other, dependence on a foreign power remains totally unacceptable, a further shift, the reassertion of her own culture, is to be encouraged by every means of “soft” power. Which, in reality, is truly hard power.

18 July 2011 at 22:47  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Interesting and insightful comments from David Lindsay.

China's decent into its communist system, from which it is slowly emerging, owes much to its treatment at the hands of western imperial powers. In particular the opium wars. The early introduction of christianity by Congregationalists caused untold bloodshed too and greatly influenced Mao.

In my opinion, China is potentially a force for good in the world.

18 July 2011 at 23:20  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Christianity is spreading in China.
I wonder whether Arch. Cranmer would be so accomodating to English Buddhists?

19 July 2011 at 04:59  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


Yes, but who's 'interpretation' will be regarded as definitive and authoritative?

I would be a lot easier for you to make your case if the infallible interpreter of Scripture would ... you know ... actually provide some infallible interpretations of Scripture. As it stands, the Magisterium has infallibly interpreted about seven whole verses. Seven. Two of which you referenced in your examples above.

But come on. Where did the Lord Jesus claim to be God and Man in "equal measure?" (Whatever that means.) You mean besides John 8 and John 10? Or how about Revelation 1:17? Just to name three. However, I shouldn't have to restrict myself to the words of Christ because all of Scripture is equally the Word of God. The Pauline epistles are just as authoritative as the Gospels.

And do you really think I need the RCC to justify the doctrine of the Trinity? Really? Once again, I must ask. Why should I need the words of Christ to justify the doctrine of the Trinity when it is so clearly taught in the Scripture? Do you think that the statement of Jesus are more Theopneustos then the words of John or Paul?


19 July 2011 at 05:59  
Anonymous Old Jim said...

Manfarang appears to wonder if Archbishop Cranmer would be so accommodating to English Buddhists as this:


19 July 2011 at 06:04  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


Amnesty over, friend?

Much of your reply needs to be directed to Mr Len and not to me. Read the threads. It was he that suggested relying on the words of Jesus!

You cite scripture concerning the mystery of Christ's incarnation. You will know this remained contentious for centuries proving scripture is open to different interpretations.

The RCC position is that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person. The precise nature of this union is defies finite human comprehension, so the hypostatic union is referred to by the Church as a "mystical union."

The scripture you reference hardly says this!

19 July 2011 at 10:55  
Blogger len said...

I believe the words of Jesus Christ should be taken as 'Gospel'over the words of Paul (or anyone else for that matter.) Paul`s religion seem to have superseded the Gospel of Jesus Christ in many ways.

Some of Paul`s teachings appear to contradict the words of Jesus.

Regarding interpreting the Word of God;

Yeshua said ask and God will give you the Holy Spirit with the knowledge you ask for. He didn't reply to the disciple saying "Pray, then ask the priest what God's answer is" or "Pray only in the presence of a minister so the minister can give you God's answer" or "Pray, then study the Scriptures to see what the answer is." Yeshua was answering the question about how the disciples should pray: "Your prayer is a question and your Father will send the Holy Spirit to answer; your prayer is a knock at the door and your Father will send the Holy Spirit to open the door; your prayer is seeking and your Father will send the Holy Spirit to make sure you find."

19 July 2011 at 21:41  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


I'd be interested in your comments on the statement of Mr Len above.

19 July 2011 at 21:51  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


Amnesty over, friend?

No, I just find certain claims annoying. The constant bleat about the need for an 'infallible interpreter' crashes into the distinct lack of infallible interpretations. The RC ends up saying "We need the Magisterium for all those infallible interpretations that it has never gotten around to providing." This is good work if you can get it. You claim exclusive rights to interpretating Scripture, but then never provide any interpretations so your interpretations can never be be falsified.

Much of your reply needs to be directed to Mr Len and not to me. Read the threads. It was he that suggested relying on the words of Jesus!

OK, I deserved that. I didn't make the connection that you made. I now understand why you responded as you did.

Len wrote:

I believe the words of Jesus Christ should be taken as 'Gospel'over the words of Paul

This is simply wrong. The authority behind the words of Paul in the Book of Romans is exactly the same as the authority behind the words of Christ in the Book of Matthew. To say otherwise is to postulate a division in the Godhead that does not exist.


20 July 2011 at 00:18  
Blogger len said...

Why on Earth would the words of Paul take precedence over the Word of God?
This I believe is ONE of the problems with Christianity!
The Bible commands us in Deuteronomy 4:2 to not
“diminish” any of the words of prior Prophets. Thus, this prohibits adding prophets who contradict earlier prophets.
For example, because Jesus and Moses came before
Paul, the principle of priority applies so that Jesus’ and
Moses’ words are to be used to test the validity of Paul’s
words for inspiration.

20 July 2011 at 08:09  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Len and Carl

Point proven?

From my perspective, and I agree with Carl here, the entire canon of the Bible is the inspired Word of God written by the Holy Spirit. Individual books cannot therefore contradict themselves. They do need careful study and prayful interpretation and a grasp of the entire Bible.

Len, you give a particular and incorrect interpretation of the word "diminish". Didn't Jesus say He wouldn't be changing the Law?

Whilst the Catholic Church may not have definitively commented on much of Scripture, a reading of the Catechism of the Church and its associated dogmas and doctines, makes clear how it understands most of the Bible.

20 July 2011 at 13:24  
Blogger len said...

Only a true prophet
from God can add text to the
Bible. (Deut. 18:15.)
A key test is that no
prophet could be legitimate who tried to “diminish” (subtract)
any command previously given. (Deut. 4:2; 12:32 This was true even if they had “sign and wonders that
came to pass.” (Deut.13:1-5.) This is reiterated in Isaiah 8:20.
However, no Christian council or scholar has ever
systematically applied the Bible’s tests for false prophets to
any writing in our New Testament. This is especially true
when Paul’s teachings are in question. Of course, this is
partly because other than for Paul, there is no need to be concerned about canonicity. The apostles John and Peter along
with bishops Jude and James never say anything remotely
contradictory of Jesus. Yet, Paul is in a different category.
Paul makes statements at apparent odds with Jesus. For
example, Paul says the law is abolished while Jesus says this
will not happen until heaven and earth pass away. Matt. 5:18.

20 July 2011 at 18:10  
Blogger len said...

The Catholic church also has many 'additions' to the Bible not remotely related to scripture and contrary to the teachings of Christ.

20 July 2011 at 18:12  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


In effect you appear to be saying that the Epistles of Paul are not necessarily valid, be subjected to a rigorous theological scrutiny and, if found defective, be removed as canonical texts from the Bible.

Now that is a new one on me from a professing Christian!

I think you'll find various early Councils did consider the writing of Paul. Is your questioning of his epistles linked perhaps to the implications of his writings on your own theology?

20 July 2011 at 22:49  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


You are so wrong about Paul!

God chose Peter, the man of faith, and John, the poet, mystic and evangelist. Both were simple, uneducated men, called by Jesus. In His wisdom, after His death and resurrection, He chose Paul, the biblical scholar steeped in a detailed knowledge of Judaism. Why?

Paul brought the great completion of Judaism in Jesus Christ to light. Alongside Peter's faith and John's mystical insight, Paul's intellect, drive and passion for the Torah completed the Apostles.

Where would the Christian Church be today without the inspired writings of Saint Paul?

20 July 2011 at 23:15  
Blogger len said...

Where indeed!.

21 July 2011 at 18:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older