Friday, April 13, 2012

The state does have the right to interfere in the bedroom

This is a post by Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith, reproduced with permission from The Catholic Herald:

You might have missed this little snippet of news which concerns the European Court of Human Rights.

The Court has upheld the German law that makes incest illegal. The plaintiff, one Patrick Stuebing, had claimed that the law against incest infringed his rights to a family life. He had been living with his sister, by whom he had had four children, and in fact been imprisoned for incest.

The case is a sad one, in that Patrick and his sister had only met and became close as adults, not having been brought up together. In places were family break-up is common, or where siblings and half-siblings may not be brought up together as children, this is a danger: near relatives may meet as adults and fall in love.

Most people perhaps would rather not think about incest, something that has been condemned by most (but not all) societies. But this case ought to give everyone pause. There is no right to incest, it seems. Does this mean that rights, at least some rights, have limits? Does it mean that courts can make moral judgements? Does it mean that there are some actions that are wrong in all circumstances? Does it mean that the state has the right to interfere in the bedroom?

The answer to all these questions is “yes” as far as I can see. I know that it is commonly claimed that hard cases make bad law (and this is certainly a hard case), but the case of incest does bring us up sharp against the sure and certain knowledge that in matters of sexuality, not everything goes. Even a libertarian would have to admit that, surely? Or am I wrong about this?

We do not allow incest in this country, and that I think is right, both morally and legally. This fact points us to a bigger fact: in matters of sexual expression we are not free to do as we please. And, by the way, my objection to incest is moral, not biological; it is based on the intrinsic nature of the act, rather than on its consequences. Incest is wrong in itself, as it poses a threat to the family bond, and violates the nature of that bond. It is biologically bad news too – but that in itself is not a sufficient moral argument.

204 Comments:

Blogger alejandro said...

this would be some alien sex. haha send free text messages at textme4free.com

13 April 2012 at 20:29  
Blogger Andrew said...

So marriage isn't infinitely plastic. It seems it can't adapt to being defined as a loving and legitimate union between two consenting relatives. Or perhaps it can if the Swiss Green Party ever get their way: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/8198917/Switzerland-considers-repealing-incest-laws.html

13 April 2012 at 20:47  
Blogger Albert said...

this is certainly a hard case

But only because, beginning with artificial contraception, we separated sexuality from its natural meaning. So now we're stuck with feelings of disgust, given to us by evolution, but which can find no sure correlate in our thinking.

The days are coming when people will look back at this judgement as a disgraceful and irrational piece of discrimination - which, in a strange sense, it is.

Thank God for Pope Paul VI.

13 April 2012 at 21:36  
Blogger Bill said...

How about incestuous gay sex?

No blighted offspring can result so any objection can only be moral.

Is same-sex sex actually illegal between the closely related?

13 April 2012 at 21:50  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace,

This is end result of liberal bolshevism gone mad! I bet this will be the next crusade for the liberal left, until we are all brought down to that of animals. I shudder for our young folk.

13 April 2012 at 22:00  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

His Grace's once interesting blog is becoming little more than a forum for gay bashing. I find that sad.

13 April 2012 at 22:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. The Inspector commented tonight on another thread that if it was not for Christianity, he would be a forceful and ruthless man. Incest is where the Inspector can put aside any religious constraints with no problem whatsoever...

13 April 2012 at 22:56  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Your Grace,

A bittersweet moment for me - it appears following my modest trading win with the Mormons (Dave Cameron take note!) that the Imperial Court has decided to place me in charge of Draconis stipend (The Sovereign Wealth Fund of our entire Empire!)- that is Trillions of Fusion Dollars- or to put it another way 10% of the fund is 2.5 billion tonnes of pure Gold or 130 Quadrillion United States Dollars- about 35,000 times the entire national wealth of the UK in 2012!

This means that I am going to be based in both London[Mars] and New York[Asteroid in geo-stationary orbit over America] for a while and will have to sit amongst the journalists, Bankers, Lawyers, ,Insurers, Dealers, Brokers,interns, frat boys, politicians and Methodists of the human race!

AHHHHHH!!!

13 April 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

Would it have been immoral had they not known they were brother and sister?

13 April 2012 at 23:02  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Inspector,

Your Sky God prevents you from following the way of the warrior?! Why come with me and I shall show you how to fight, how to live and how to die! I shall instruct you on how to build a space empire and how to keep it!

13 April 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Mark In Mayenne looks like a Space Time wizard! This blog gets more strange by the day!

13 April 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Alpha. The Inspector appreciates your kind offer, but declines. You see, he has only enough brainpower to make sense of the real world...

13 April 2012 at 23:12  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Mark

Not subjectively sinful and not immoral, just tragic should the truth emerge.

The odds increase that such things will happen with anonymous sperm donations, extra marital sex, divorce and common law unions and even adoptions.

God is showing great patience with us!

13 April 2012 at 23:15  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Your Grace,

In all fairness to george lucas, the star wars picture you've posted is actually BEFORE Luke realises that is his sister his snogging.

13 April 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Alpha,

Perhaps your offer to Inspector is nothing to do with the fact you don't want to be in charge of all that money?

13 April 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Unconscious incest already takes place in the self contained ghettos of London . Thanks Jamaicans, for fathering children in the same casual manner that a dog has a shit. Still, it gives the scientists something to monitor when the insane offspring start wondering aimlessly about...

13 April 2012 at 23:22  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Jocelyn, it's more a case of trying to keep dialogue going in the face of being forced into a fait accompli (sp?) by the gay lobby.
Granted, anyone that does it by attacking individuals or inciting violence is out of order, but so are those that take generalised statements out of context and cry foul!

13 April 2012 at 23:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anna. Don’t knock the Inspector. You see, he was an adult with quite a few years behind him when you were making your mum sick in the morning...

13 April 2012 at 23:27  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 April 2012 at 23:36  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

Thanks Jamaicans, for fathering children in the same casual manner that a dog ... [ etc etc ].

Because, of course, no member of a white race would ever think to behave in such a manner.

carl

13 April 2012 at 23:37  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

I am sure that I can get some few ol' boys I know in the two great cities of the earth to invest the funds accordingly (either that or Merkosy will have it, to prop you the failing Euro-Empire).

13 April 2012 at 23:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Been patient with you for many months. Now, lets have it – are you black ?

13 April 2012 at 23:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Incest is a hard issue for the modern world of libertine sexuality. Moderns have spent years delegitimizing the whole idea of structural boundaries in service to the normalization of homosexuality and then along comes some guy who beds his adult and very consenting daughter. Sexual morality is supposed to be determined by consent. But then along comes a consensual relationship they want to restrict. How do they do this without retro-actively legitimizing all the arguments made against homosexuality?

It also sheds some light on the 'ick factor.' Exactly what kind of reaction are we supposed to have to the idea of a father knowing his daughter ala Woody Allen? Are we supposed to be 'adult' about such things and suspend any visceral reaction? Should we just 'get over it?'

carl

13 April 2012 at 23:47  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Inspector,

Who gives a toss if Carl Jacobs is black, green, brown or albino?

I think you will find that "Jacobs" is a Germanic surname which comes from "Jacobi".

13 April 2012 at 23:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

By heritage I am 50% German, 25% Swede, and the remainder some Irish and French Huguenot. I am practically Aryan. You may be patient with me or not as you see fit. If you make racist statements I am going to call you out on them. I assume black people read this weblog. I do it for their sake.

carl

13 April 2012 at 23:53  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

@Alpha.

I am sure that Goldman Sachs will happily take your trillons or whatever and take a good slice of it. Why not invest your portfolio by yourself? I do.

13 April 2012 at 23:55  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Inspector- you see, I was right about Carl Jacobs.

13 April 2012 at 23:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. You really have no idea the grief our black people cause us in the UK. The riots here last year were started when a black family had the temerity to ask why their son, a drug dealer known to carry a firearm, was shot. Any decent family would be beside themselves with loss and, most importantly, shame. You can fly the black pride flag, but if the truth were known, you wouldn’t get many decent people here walking behind you. Does the Inspector target all black people like that. No he does not, just the untouchables. Why are they untouchable ? Something to do with with heart bleeders like you and a generous legal aid system...

A bit of homework for you. Look up ‘Operation Trident’ and the meaning of the term ‘In Denial’

14 April 2012 at 00:06  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

The day I take advice from the spineless Lavendonians is the day that I die! By the Gods, your race does do nothing but debate and debate again! A telepathic super- consenus democracy, made rich by the mining of the gas giants of the galaxy, whose dollar contains no less than 1 pound of solid gold, who fly around in organic space ships and whose sovereign wealth fund is the most successful investment vehicle ever known, whose society is peerless in terms of economic indicies, wealth per capital, where ignorance, want and poverty are no more! Bsh! I would rather give it to the Chelonians than you timid swine!

14 April 2012 at 00:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "Incest is wrong in itself, as it poses a threat to the family bond, and violates the nature of that bond. It is biologically bad news too – but that in itself is not a sufficient moral argument."

That basically captures the argument for me too, if it means what I think it means. Family bonds being about roles, duties, trust, and so on. From that, I'd argue that parent/adult-offspring incestual relations are more immoral or unethical than sibling incestual relations.

14 April 2012 at 00:17  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 April 2012 at 00:20  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Of course,
Given that his Grace gives us sci-fi photos, it is only fitting that this forms part of the discussion!

So we can discuss the battle of the Betreka Nebula. Oh I remember that one, all brought about because of the incest of the upper echelons of the Byzantine Empire!

14 April 2012 at 00:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. They are both as immoral as each other. Don’t often find the word immoral from the shameless liberal you are. What’s up ?

14 April 2012 at 00:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "They are both as immoral as each other."

Well, not in my argument. Siblings are equals and the family bond is mostly one of trust and support. Parents have something more complex with their offspring. All the duties, responsibilities, expectations and so on which follow from that would be damaged by a subsequent sexual relationship.

"Don’t often find the word immoral from the shameless liberal you are. What’s up ?"

I try not to use it because it's not very meaningful unless one has the same reference points, and most people rarely do. I prefer the term 'unethical' because that implies rules of conduct which we may all understand or share even if we morally justify them in different ways.

14 April 2012 at 00:55  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Albert I do hope you are being deliberately provocative and do not actually believe the tripe you are sprouting

If you forsee a future where incest will become acceptable then you can't see the face for the whiskers.Why do you think it is a natural urge to copulate with your sibling.This site is becoming extremely bizarre with other another communicant becoming sexually aroused by a chicken!

These feelings of disgust you are experiencing for artificial use of contraception are distinctly your own. If you place bunches of parsley under your arms it is supposed to be act as a natural contraceptive . Is that OK with the Church?

I am sure you would not refuse some artificial medication prescribed by a doctor that was going to save your life.

14 April 2012 at 02:57  
Blogger len said...

I can actually see where Albert is going with this one. Once the boundaries are removed 'on ways to express your own personal sexual preferences' who knows what will be permissible in the future?.

14 April 2012 at 06:49  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

Youthpasta, good morning. I was to be clear referring to the comments rather than His Grace's own posts. Now we appear to be getting racism to boot.

14 April 2012 at 07:15  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Len, It is unthinkable that boundaries will be lifted entirely on sexual expression when it concerns incest and bestiality
in the future.

Of couse there are weird people in this world but they are in the minority. Peter Singer the renowned ethicist comes to mind, who think it's OK to have sex with your dog as long as the dog enjoys it and is not being coerced!(Gasp! and all this declared on national broadcast)

I still think that the majority of folk would be horrified at the thought of incest and bestiality and maybe even ssm.

SSM will not necessarily lead to bestiality or incest if that is what is suggested. I think this is an extreme reaction and displays little faith in the basic decency of people.

As you know I
will always be opposed to SSM and I hope it is never legalised and it must be a terrible diappointment
to authentic homosexuals who would repelled by the concept as indeed now by many heterosexuals who choose to live togeter rather than marrying.

I think that probably the majority of authentic homosexuals ( the ones with courage who did not get married because it was the easy option)leads authentic lives and do not want to get married anyway.

God gave authentic homosexuals to us for a purpose.To enrich and enhance our heterosexual lives on another level.Not to copy it.

Authentic homosexuals should celebrate their difference
They have wonderful lives and are a joy to have around, enhancing and enriching the drab of the accepted norm .

Any heterosexual non conformist will tell you that they
would always choose to be nonconformist than conformist(even with the downside) because they are not attracted to the way conformists live their lives...and certainly would not want to copy or adopt it.

14 April 2012 at 08:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Cressida,

Albert I do hope you are being deliberately provocative and do not actually believe the tripe you are sprouting

No I mean it exactly (though I did not say that contraception was disgusting - I was referring to our aversion to incest).

Now you've given no reason to suppose what I wrote was tripe, and neither have you given any reason to suppose incest is wrong. All you've done is say this:

Of couse there are weird people in this world but they are in the minority.

Do you mean to say that something is weird simply because it is a minority behaviour? Presumably not, but perhaps you do - but if you do, you will need to change your opinions on homosexuality.

In any case, is something wrong just because it is weird?

If you forsee a future where incest will become acceptable then you can't see the face for the whiskers.

Well you missed the link to the Green Party campaign in Switzerland. But in a way that's a side issue: if there are not rational grounds to think incest is wrong then this ruling is a form of unjust discrimination.

So tell us, what is so wrong with incest? I have a good reason to think it is wrong. Do you?

14 April 2012 at 10:04  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Incest, of course, is widely practiced in the Pakistani community.

That is why our inner city homes for disabled children are so full of genetically damaged kids.

http://bit.ly/IOjv7X

Could also explain why so many deranged Jihadists are of Pakistani origin.

Or is it just reading the rantings of Mohammed that fries the brain?

14 April 2012 at 10:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Nowhere Man. Always considered the Pakistani community committed pro-incest. By the ludicrous culture of not allowing their children to marry anyone who is not a cousin. Astonishingly limited gene pools produce grotesque children: Near barking or physically damaged, two sets of arms and legs being one extreme that’s out there. The British royal family has only comparatively recently abandoned that restriction, although the Inspector can think of a current few members of that ilk to whom it did happen soon enough !

14 April 2012 at 10:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

[AHEM] That should be 'to whom it did NOT happen soon enough'

14 April 2012 at 10:56  
Blogger Albert said...

I don't see that the problem of genetically damaged children is an objection to incest. As someone pointed out earlier, it's not an objection to homosexual incest, presumably it is not much of an objection is artificial contraception is used or if the couple chose to be sterilised.

So what is the objection to incest in this brave new world that seeks to remove irrational prejudices which block the path to freedom, equality and pleasure?

14 April 2012 at 11:18  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

cressida
I see you've changed your avitar to a what looks like a warrior queen. Be careful how you swing that sword!

The point being made about sexual liberty is that once you seperate sexuality from its intended purpose then any and all expressions are potentially legitimate - including chickens and parking meters.

The acceptance of artificial contraception breaks the relationship between unitive love and the transmission of life and that's why the Church forbids it. And even if the parsley doesn't work, in the eyes of the Church it would be your intention in using an artificial means that would be non-permissable.

Although the majority of people may feel a sense of disgust with incest and bestiality that in itself will be an insufficient objection tolegalisation in a state based on pluralistic liberalism. The test is demonstrable public or private harm - and where's the actual harm?

I agree people are basically decent and most have an inherent sense of morality. However, this is also socially constructed and permissiveness in the absence of clear moral boundaries and a respect for sexuality other than mere pleasure, will, in my opinion, corrupt.

I am intrigued by this comment of yours:

"God gave authentic homosexuals to us for a purpose. To enrich and enhance our heterosexual lives on another level."

Are you suggesting that in somme way God is giving humanity a positive message through the growth in homosexual practices? That it is intended to encourage non-conformity?

14 April 2012 at 11:40  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Albert I see that this time you are not drawing a distinction between artifical and non artificial contraception .Why not?

You rhetoric did not mention your aversion to incest. What has incest got to do with artificial contraception separating us from the natural meaning of sexuality? Why mention contraception at all?

Obviously I do not mean the term 'weird' in applying to minority groups otherwise I would not be offering a measure of support to persecuted authentic homosexuals.This is just nit picking on your part.What do you expect these people to do anyway? They cannot all become priests living celibate lives.

Which world do you live in where everything runs on rationality! Your own Church does not on many issues.Where does this expectation of rationality come from when someone like you is so much part of a belief system that is irrational . I think that denotes a degree of hypocrisy on your part.

I am not going to ask you why you think incest is wrong. It should suffice for you that the Church says it is.Why do you need to take it further. Don't you trust
your Church to be infallible in its teachings?

14 April 2012 at 11:41  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo, I believe that authentic homosexuals did not choose to be homosexual They suffered as children and teenagers because of it. It was no choice of their own.

They are part of God's creation.
Many of them are gifted artists and have enriched and enhanced our civilisation through art music and literature . Perhaps this was Gods purpose for them.

I used the example of non conformity to demonstrate that anyone who is a non conformist does not aspire to a conformist life style.

That is why I do not understand why there is a push for marriage among certain homosexuals .I can only think of it as a destructive act of revenge by attacking the basis of heterosexual society who have oppressed them throughout he ages.

They have a window of opportunity
and they are going to use it.

14 April 2012 at 11:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Cressida,

I see that this time you are not drawing a distinction between artifical and non artificial contraception

It's tacit.

This is just nit picking on your part.

Not at all. I'm asking you why you think incest is wrong and the only thing you have said is that weird people are in the minority - which in itself tells us nothing, but if turned into any kind of principle undercuts your support for homosexuality, as you pointed out.

What do you expect these people to do anyway? They cannot all become priests living celibate lives.

I believe homosexuality is an orientation, not a compulsion. If it is a compulsion then it is, arguably a form of illness. I don't think it is that and therefore I disagree that it is impossible to live a celibate life.

I think any suggestion that homosexuals are out of control is insulting to them. Now, of course, many homosexuals will disagree with me on the wrongness of gay sex and get on with gay sex. I defend their right absolutely to do so, I defend their right to do so without unjust discrimination or insults. But that does not alter the fact that their behaviour is chosen, and if chosen, it can be unchosen.

Which world do you live in where everything runs on rationality!

I never said it did. I am simply saying people should be consistent in their application of rights and the principles on which they base those rights. Otherwise, they are unjust. So again, I ask, what is your reason for being so opposed to incest?

Your own Church does not on many issues.Where does this expectation of rationality come from when someone like you is so much part of a belief system that is irrational

For example...

It should suffice for you that the Church says it is.Why do you need to take it further. Don't you trust
your Church to be infallible in its teachings?


Of course I do, but that does not mean that I should not find the reason behind things - how else would we ever gain knowledge, for example in matters of science?

That is why I do not understand why there is a push for marriage among certain homosexuals .I can only think of it as a destructive act of revenge by attacking the basis of heterosexual society who have oppressed them throughout he ages.

You may well be right, and what better way to expose this than to point out that they do not follow their own arguments where they lead?

14 April 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The acceptance of artificial contraception breaks the relationship between unitive love and the transmission of life and that's why the Church forbids it

Unfortunately, the world and his dog are too busy working to survive to worry about the higher levels of devotion. When a labourer has been working in the fields for ten hours, he just wants to ride his wife, not expand his family...

14 April 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Best to leave the dog out of this particular discussion. And I do hope there's more to making love with one's wife than you suggest.

cressida

Granted insights into the human condition come through human pain and suffering - existential and physical. And, I agree, God does reveal lessons to us through such 'outsiders'. However, this in itself is not a defence for acting on whatever impulses we might have.

14 April 2012 at 12:51  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

And there are 'good' and 'bad' homosexuals, just like there are 'good' and 'bad' heterosexuals. Being a conformist or non conformist, different or similar, in itself is no measure of integrity.

14 April 2012 at 12:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

When a labourer has been working in the fields for ten hours, he just wants to ride his wife, not expand his family...

Some do, but others just like to come home and beat their wives or gouge their eyes out.

This is why morality needs more than just "some people want to do X".

14 April 2012 at 12:56  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Albert all you can do to discredit my argument is to use the throw away term I used" weird"

They are numerous meanings for the term semantically and colloquially.Evil would be a better word . Bestiality is evil. Those who partake in it and promote it are Evil.

Not many people are Evil. Evil is in the minority group. Not all minority groups are Evil. Clear enough?

I am not going to tell you why I think incest is wrong

Clue: It has got something to do with monkeys and deformed children.

The real reason I could give would be beyond your comprehension. It requires an aesthetic and sensitive dimension you do not or are ever likely to possess. Pearls before swine.

14 April 2012 at 13:24  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

PS

If you had integrity Albert you last paragraph should have stated that some homosexuals do not follow....

I said certain homosexuals not all homosexuals. There is such deviousness and dishonesty in you communication. I am ashamed that you call yourself Catholic.

14 April 2012 at 13:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Okay Cressida, we'll drop the word "weird" - it's your word, you should be free to drop it.

I am not going to tell you why I think incest is wrong Clue: It has got something to do with monkeys and deformed children.

Yes, reproductive incest is wrong because it produces deformed children, but that says nothing about homosexual incest, contraceptive incest or incest between sterilised persons. But as far as I can see you are opposed to all of these.

It requires an aesthetic and sensitive dimension you do not or are ever likely to possess.

There are those who make similar arguments against gay sex. They normally get called bigots.

It seems to me that you can't really give a reason for your universal opposition to incest without undercutting your support for other practices you do accept. This is why you have resorted to be being personally insulting. Take this for example, you say:

I said certain homosexuals not all homosexuals. There is such deviousness and dishonesty in you communication. I am ashamed that you call yourself Catholic.

You are unjust. In view of the fact that I was referring to your own comment about some homosexuals which I had quoted, and the meaning "some homosexuals" not "all homosexuals" was necessarily contained in the grammar of the sentence. I never said, did not mean, and certainly do not believe "all homosexuals" are guilty of what you accused them of. There was no wider scope in my comment than there was in yours.

14 April 2012 at 13:41  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

'Bigot' denotes lack of all tolerance.I am not a bigot.

Acceptance does not necessarily mean approval. You are so one dimensional in your thinking(limited)

You are without compassion. It may not be impossible to lead a celibate life but it is cruel and heartless.Everyone has need of some physical intimacy and those that do not are easily identified by their arid withered humourless
demeanour.

I will continue this discussion and tell you why I think incest is wrong.My answer will result in a heated exchange which I cannot have at this time.

Incidentally I think your approach to life made evident by your posts is wrong as well. You need to connect with the spiritual.
God is love.

You need to make that connection and your mind will blossom. You will then view the world through the eyes of your Maker. I will talk to you again after April. I predict that we will find little to agree on .

14 April 2012 at 14:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Good grief Cressida! In every one of your posts to me you have misrepresented what I have said, you have eventually resorted to calling me words like "devious and dishonest" (among others). I have pointed out - without returning the insult - that these judgements are unfair and result from your misunderstanding of what I have said. Normally when people misrepresent others and then insult them for the misrepresentation, the word they use is "sorry".

I did not call you a bigot - I simply said that is what people get called when they make aesthetic judgments about homosexuality. Obviously I don't and therefore I was not calling you a bigot.

You are without compassion. It may not be impossible to lead a celibate life but it is cruel and heartless

You cannot mean that. Let's take the example of someone that no one wants to have sex with - is it cruel, heartless and without compassion to require them to be celibate?

What I think is cruel and unfair and lacking in compassion is judging people by different standards - that is what I am arguing against.

Incidentally I think your approach to life made evident by your posts is wrong as well. You need to connect with the spiritual.
God is love.


If you really thought that, and you were compassionate - wouldn't you be showing me compassion instead of insulting me? You judge me without knowing me - to make such a judgement in such circumstances is outrageously arrogant.

You have mistaken my desire for consistency, fairness and justice in moral judgements for coldness and lack of spirituality. I would say that consistency, fairness and justice are the very pre-requisites of compassion and spirituality.

Perhaps if you were a little less hasty in your judgements and uncharitable in your insults this would have been a happier and more productive discussion, in which we could both have learned something from the other.

14 April 2012 at 14:42  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

'some physical intimacy'. is not necessarily the sexual act. You are missreading me as well.You have to get over the attempt of winning every point.

How do you make judgements? everyone is biased to some degree by their own culture and standards. Yes I know i' m very curt with you but you make me exasperated by your inflexibility.
You should apologise to me for your initial arrogance by attempting to place yourself in a
position of ascendancy in the discussion.

Look Albert we are not going to be able to resolve this. Some people just dont get along.As fas I am concerned when you were gone this site was a lot of fun and light hearted..you have cast a pall over it. Lighten up. I have to go now.

14 April 2012 at 15:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo / Albert.

Labourer: The Catholic church says it’s alright to use the rhythm method, what ever that is. Is it safe tonight ?

Wife: How would I know ?

Labourer: Well, you’ve got the charts and the thermometer...

Wife: You know I can’t read or write and nor can you. Look your holiness, we’ve six children on half rations sleeping. Do you really want to risk another ? Those nice people at the mission station gave us some rubbers, gratis, so lets use them. As you know, we live in abject poverty and this is the nearest we get to any fucking enjoyment round here...

14 April 2012 at 15:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Cressida,

How do you make judgements?

On the basis of sufficient evidence and consistent reasoning.

You should apologise to me for your initial arrogance by attempting to place yourself in a
position of ascendancy in the discussion.


I don't know what you mean. My initial response was not directed at you and certainly made no person insults at you. I pointed out nothing more than that from the moment contraception is allowed all sorts of other things become allowed - as Robert Runcie pointed out, when he approved of homosexuality.

'some physical intimacy'. is not necessarily the sexual act.

If the "some physical intimacy" is not a sexual act then Catholic teaching on sexuality does not come into play does it? Thus it had no relevance to the discussion, so if the comment was relevant then I did not misread you.

Lighten up.

From the first you've attacked me without me attacking you. Then you've misrepresented me and finally you've got so upset that you've insulted me without me insulting you. And yet you tell me to 'lighten up'!

14 April 2012 at 16:09  
Blogger Oswin said...

Inspector: have you been reading the opinions (somewhat revised) of Pope John Paul I ?

It's very brave of you, considering what happened to him; God rest his gentle soul.

14 April 2012 at 16:14  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Incest is discouraged because (apart from other things) it is dangerous. Male homosexual practice is also dangerous, yet we are not allowed to condemn it. In the meantime smoking is now almost a capital offence. The world is going mad.

14 April 2012 at 16:16  
Blogger Oswin said...

Little Black Sambo: cigarettes now 'behind closed doors' - and that's before they get anywhere near a bedroom! Future historians will be the comedians of their age; that is if they are believed!

14 April 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Oswin. There are certain personal issues that the Inspector believes is not part of the RCC remit. Family planning is one. Who to vote for another. Even one’s sexual orientation. Whether you wash daily. It’s all personal. No compromise will ever be countenanced. God gave us free will. He also ensured that we will end up as dust. Just get on with it in between, and if you live like Jesus would have it, you might find yourself in paradise when your time is up...

As for issues like incest, leave that to mankind's law. You’ll get the odd incest practitioner on sites like this, but then again, we can safely be assured they will keep their mouth firmly shut in public...

14 April 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger Oswin said...

Inspector: yet again, very brave of you. You'll bring the wrath of whatsit upon your head, but I applaud you!

14 April 2012 at 16:48  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Please stop misquoting me Albert. You are being deliberately provocative or incredibly stupid.

I said 'some physical intimacy' does not necessarily mean the sexual act.This has a totally different meaning to your incorrect quote.I don't expect to have to give and English comprehension lesson in these forums.

The only consistency evident is your lack of reasoning and the transparent deviousness through your posts.

Claiming that I insulted homosexuals by saying that they have no control because I suggested that they needed physical intimacy. What a weak argument and also untrue. The truth is not one of your strenghts
I see.

Also you say you will defend a persons right to have gay sex. Explain how you defended them.


Because no one wants to have sex with you... you think I say that it is cruel and heartless that you remain celibate?
LOL you call this reasoning?

You are a fraud Albert.Posing very unconvincingly as a Catholic intellectual.

14 April 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger len said...

All this(heated at times) discussion illustrates the point that when men decided for themselves what was' right' and what was 'wrong' they embarked on a very 'hazardous course'.

What is acceptable (even desirable) to one is repugnant to another.Where does one 'draw the line' (wherever one feels like apparently)
Celibacy is unrealistic for anyone who has a pulse and emotions and drives if suppressed will break out in other directions with tragic results.
Priestly celibacy has hardly ever worked, far from 'being an example' to a sinning World celibacy has brought the whole religious system into disrepute.

14 April 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Cressida,

Please stop misquoting me Albert. You are being deliberately provocative or incredibly stupid.

The latter, I think, because I am now totally unclear on what you are talking about, especially here:

I said 'some physical intimacy' does not necessarily mean the sexual act.This has a totally different meaning to your incorrect quote.

What was incorrect in what I said?

Claiming that I insulted homosexuals by saying that they have no control because I suggested that they needed physical intimacy. What a weak argument and also untrue. The truth is not one of your strenghts
I see.


Let me see if I can clarify my position. You said that Everyone has need of some physical intimacy. "Physical intimacy" can mean either sex or not sex. I think many people would assume you meant sex - especially considering content of the debate (perhaps if you were a little clearer). Now if you meant that homosexuals are compulsive and out of control in their sex acts, then yes, I think that is very offensive.

But I was wrong, you didn't mean sex. I pointed out that in that case, the Catholic Church has no problem with it. So where's the untruth?

Also you say you will defend a persons right to have gay sex. Explain how you defended them.

Because I oppose the criminalisation of homosexual acts and I oppose unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Now if you are asking me when was the last time I opposed the criminalisation of homosexual acts then I've never done so because in my life-time gay sex has always been legal and, to my knowledge there have never been plans to change that. Nor am I aware in my own life of homosexuals being discriminated against on account of their sexuality. If however, either of these things changed, I would defend them.

Because no one wants to have sex with you

You are astonishingly unjust and irrational. What makes you think I'm celibate? You have no evidence of that. In fact, I'm happily married.

All this from someone who earlier tried to shut me down by talking about compassion and the love of God (all the while insulting me).

If simply counted the number of times on this page in which you have insulted me on account of your misunderstanding of what I had said, I would certainly be into double figures. If you keep on saying that I am being untruthful when I misunderstand you, then - particularly in view of your repeated insults - I think you are condemned out of your own mouth.

14 April 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

All this(heated at times) discussion

Well, I'm not heated in this, but I am genuinely perplexed!

14 April 2012 at 19:37  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

len

Goodness, what a nasty opinion of people! Bundles of drives waiting to break out.

So what are you saying about the unmarried? You have a very poor view of human nature, indeed. Many well balanced people have remained celibate through choice or through their situation - illness of a spouse, widowhood or being unable to marry. Some married couples elect for celibacy and I believe St Paul recognises this as a positive choice. Jesus in the Gospels refers to some choosing celibacy for the God too.

Do you really believe marriage is an institution intended to contain lust?

Are you now condoning sex outside of marriage or, to follow your logic, homosexual sex?

This is just another cheap shop at Catholicism, isn't it? And, as ever, not terribly well thought through.

14 April 2012 at 19:39  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Albert and cressida

I've read these exchanges several times and there appears to be a certain 'dynamic' going on between you - rationality v's romanticism; philosophy v's poetry; maybe?

Try to sort out your differences as the debate is valid and could be valuable!

You may need shorter posts making less complex statements to begin with.

14 April 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you Dodo - I think you are right about the different ways in which we are going about this.

However, I don't think I am going to carry on. Every time I try to get some clarity I get a load of insults. Every time I misunderstand Cressida or ask for some consistency, I get accused of being untruthful and devious- it's bizarre. It never seems to occur to Cressida that perhaps I genuinely misunderstood or (perish the thought) she was less than clear -always it must be that I am dishonest and devious.

I asked for consistency and I was told she didn't have time to give her reasons. Fair enough. (But oddly she has time to be endlessly, and unjustly, abusive.)

There's no possibility of having a debate in such a context - it reminds me of that scene in Alice in Wonderland in which they play croquet with flamingos and hedgehogs!

14 April 2012 at 20:27  
Blogger anna anglican said...

I'm still trying to figure out what it is Credessia and Albert are actually disputing. I am really confused !

14 April 2012 at 20:34  
Blogger anna anglican said...

And what is Credessia on about with the line "authentic homosexuals"? I know she doesn't like bi-sexuals for whatever reason, but what is an "authentic" homosexual?!

14 April 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger Albert said...

Anna,

The argument began with me picking up the original article's comment that this incest case is "a hard case". Why is it a hard case? Because, having permitted artificial contraception, it is then difficult to oppose any kind of sex act, which does not cause harm to others - Robert Runcie's comment that (for example) the CofE had really committed itself to support for homosexual relationships when it allowed contraception in the 1930s etc.

Now, I may be right or wrong on this. Cressida thinks I am wrong. She thinks there are good reasons universally to oppose incest. But she won't say what they are. That's it, in a nutshell (I think).

As for the authentic, vs inauthentic homosexual, I haven't the faintest idea what that is about.

But I await Cressida telling me that I've seriously misrepresented the conversation.

14 April 2012 at 20:46  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

I think Albert is attempting to establish some basic principles for considering whether actions (such as contraception, homosexuality, incest) are moral or not. Cressida on the other hand appears to be looking for an expression of compassionate understanding.

Was it E M Forster who said "only connect"?

The term 'authentic homosexual' is explained, I think. It seems to me cressida is referring to a person who has always been aware they have been drawn to same sex relationships and accepted this publically and suffered as a result. There are some people who engage in homosexual acts who may or may not be homosexual.

14 April 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert. Because, having permitted artificial contraception, it is then difficult to oppose any kind of sex act, which does not cause harm to others

What a long and impossible jump that is, what ! Do you REALLY believe that or are you quoting from the magisterium....

14 April 2012 at 21:07  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Albert

And don't forget the chicken. Why does everyone overlook the chicken?

Talking of chickens and sex:

A chicken and an egg are lying in bed. The chicken is leaning against
the headboard smoking a cigarette, with a satisfied smile on its face.

The egg, looking a bit pissed off, grabs the sheet, rolls over, and
says, "Well, I guess we finally answered THAT question.

14 April 2012 at 21:10  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

You just don't get it do you? It's the position in Catholic moral teaching that actually convinced me the Church was the authentic representative of Christ.

Have you taken the time to read Humanae Vitae and the squabbles since within the Church. You should read it.

And if you don't support the Magisterium on this authoritative teaching what others do you deny?

14 April 2012 at 21:14  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

What a long and impossible jump that is

May I just alter what I said:

Because, having permitted artificial contraception, it is then difficult to oppose some other kinds of sex act, which does not cause harm to others

It may be that there are other kinds of non-harmful sex acts that could be logically opposed even given artificial contraception (though I don't know what they are).

But Dodo is right: the Magisterium has spoken very clearly on this issue. Although there is a minor development of doctrine to take account of the rise of the pill in Humanae Vitae, the essential doctrine is that which has been held and taught throughout the ages - I do not see why any Catholic would oppose the Church here - especially not if they are fiercely opposed to gay sex.

14 April 2012 at 21:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo and Albert. The RCC has overstretched itself. Instead of being the medium through which adherents worship God, it takes upon itself to run your lives for you. This is NOT what Jesus would expect from the RCC in the Inspector’s far from humble opinion.

The Inspector is making fair progress with his nurse lady friend. Hopefully there will be marriage in good time. Let the Inspector tell you this. He will NOT be writing off to the Vatican for a book on ‘Prayers to be said before, during and after sex’. Do you catch this man’s drift ?

Bye the way, the Inspector will be a Taig until he dies. He’s just averse to virgin priests telling him how to run his life...

14 April 2012 at 21:34  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo,

You are quite right about the chicken. Funnily enough, I am reading Michael Haidt's Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. He'd find my "discussion" with Cressida - utterly fascinating and would make the point you made, only he'd talk about intuition vs reason.

Anyway, he uses both the incest example and the chicken example to show that people who think they are liberal minded utilitarians are not in fact. He points out how strongly people oppose both, but how hard it is for them (at least if they are liberals) to find a convincing argument to defend their position which is consistent with the rest of their beliefs (then how people become disbelieving and aggressive towards people who disagree with them). It's fascinating to be reading a psychological book which more or less describes an argument I am currently having! Anyway, the conclusion I draw from it is the impossibility of morality which is not based on a consistent natural law - but he'd accuse me of confirmation bias, I expect!

14 April 2012 at 21:35  
Blogger Albert said...

it takes upon itself to run your lives for you. This is NOT what Jesus would expect from the RCC in the Inspector’s far from humble opinion.

Jesus said, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Now of course, Len will say this does not refer to the papacy - but you can't make that move.

Anyway, the Church's position on contraception follows perfectly from the principles of natural law. You do not need to be a Catholic to see that - though it is possible to learn from the experience of the CofE (and Runcie's own logically impeccable interpretation of the situation).

14 April 2012 at 21:39  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Who brought chickens into this discussion? I can't see the reference above?

I always thought you Catholic gents were supposed to be mouth instruments of Rome (te he!).

On another matter -

I have decided to buy the Tower of London and the Freehold, my offer to the British is 10 billion fusion bucks (about 37,000 tonnes of gold bullion). Is that a fair asking price?

14 April 2012 at 21:40  
Blogger Albert said...

Alpha,

Who brought chickens into this discussion? I can't see the reference above?

I think it was Dodo on another thread.

I have decided to buy the Tower of London and the Freehold, my offer to the British is 10 billion fusion bucks (about 37,000 tonnes of gold bullion). Is that a fair asking price?

To have unlimited access to the cells of St Thomas More and St John Fisher would be priceless.

14 April 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha

Here's the post:

Excuse the crudity, but I think this sums up the modern, chic attitude:

"I have a dick and it gets hard then that's good. I walk down the street and if I see a girl and my dick gets hard that's good and if I see a boy that's good too and same with seeing a chicken. If my dick gets hard and I want to fuck it then that's good. ... It doesn't matter what you do whether its horrible or mainstream or boring, you know what turns you on. So why the big brouhaha?"
(Jimmy Urine of Mindless Self Indulgence)

Compare this to the more 'intellectual and 'scientific' opinion:

"It would encourage clearer thinking on these matters if persons were not characterized as hetereosexual or homosexual, but as individuals who have had certain amounts of heterosexual experience and certain amounts of homosexual experience.

Instead of using these terms as substantives which stand for persons, or even as adjectives to describe persons, they may better be used to describe the nature of the overt sexual relations, or of the stimuli to which an individual erotically responds."

(Alfred Kinsey)

This sums it up:

"Bisexuality means I am free and I am as likely to want to love a woman as I am likely to want to love a man, and what about that? Isn't that what freedom implies?"
(June Jordan)

Back to natural reason and God - misuse of freedom and indulgence in erotic love for hedonistic pleasure is bad for the individual and bad for a society. That's why God forbids it outside of a life long, permanent heterosexual marriage!

Inspector
There is a direct line running from (excuse the reference Oswin) from masturbation through to contraception, premarital sex, divorce and abortion.

They all share a focus on self rather than on God and His intended purposes for us and the place of the sexuality. It would be a strange Church indeed that did not provide a lead on this.

Good luck with the nurse. At your respective ages, I don't suppose the Billing's method will play much of a role. And the Pope and the Church agrees you can have fun, fun, fun. Just mind your back!

14 April 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert. A day in the life of the Inspector. He walks to the bus stop. There’s a nice lady’s arse there. Good grief, the sinning points start mounting for the day. Bloody unfair what ! He gets on the bus. A fellow lady passenger mentions she likes his black grey hair. She’s attractive, Inspector’s aroused. Damn, more sinning points. What absolute bullshit it all is, isn’t it.

We are born physically naked, and the Inspector believes our naked souls will be judged. It’s we ourselves, first to last. The RCC can do it’s best to influence us in the way we behave, as well as acting as a church to venerate God. But taking control of our sinning lives for our ‘best interests’, get out of here....

14 April 2012 at 22:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The Inspector’s nurse friend is a few years younger than your man. There’s still reproductive capability there without it turning out Downs. If it’s a boy, then it’s ‘Dodo Albert Dick the Prick’

14 April 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace.
The Scriptures tell us that 'the marriage bed is undefiled'.
Is this why gays want marriage, so that their dirty deeds can be considered righteous?
What next?

14 April 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector
Good lord, man! Just call him Anna Anglican and have done with it!

Good to hear their's still lead in the old pencil too. Just remember, as old ages, one often softens towards one loved ones and become less hard towards them and their ways. Some men are different, of course, and maintain a firm stance til the end.

Do pass on my best wishes.

14 April 2012 at 23:40  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

len

Here's a little joke you might appreciate:

A middle aged couple is watching TV when a TV Evangalist
comes on and promises to heal the sick.
"If only you would pray with him and place your left hand
on the afflicted area."
The man, who has dozed off, has his left hand on his crotch
and his wife looks over at him and says, "Gee honey he said
heal the sick, not raise the dead!"

You've got to admit it is funny. Carnal - but funny!

Oswin will, of course disapprove.

14 April 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

I'm going to get into trouble with our good host. I can sense it but for the greater good of men I will risk all.

Here's a list of reasons men can give when feeling down.

Choose wisely as their correct use is contingent upon particular circumstances:

"I cannot help it my love. Your beauty overwhelms me and renders me helpless as a child."

You are an angel from heaven. Making love to you would be akin to defiling a sacred thing."

"Forgive me. I love you too much to risk giving you this disease."

"How strange. I do not understand what is happening. This is the first time today this has happened to me."

"Listen, are you sure we are about to do the morally right thing?"

"Ouch, I have twisted my ankle and bruised my big toe."

"Ihave a bad head ache."

15 April 2012 at 00:02  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 23:45 :

Apropos the expression: ''there's a time and place...''. As in, you need to match BOTH together. It's a simple enough concept; why not give it a try?

15 April 2012 at 00:39  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin: but you would say that, wouldn't you?

We're all grown ups and Irish Catholics are well known for pushing the boundaries of acceptabilty. High spirited yousee. Being of Celtic descent, you really should know this. Then you have become Anglicanised with a touch of chapel to boot.

15 April 2012 at 01:19  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Apart from the obvious that has been discussed already, non productive incestuous relationships do not foster and encourage people to look outside of their own circle and culture to broaden their education and outlook on life and discover new ways of doing things to progress. So they end up stuck in time warp. It gives rise to insular and inward looking very boring people.

15 April 2012 at 01:43  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Marie1797

A very good point. If one extends that theme, it could be said that voluntary non productive relationships actually tend towards the same thing. A selfishness and insularity.

15 April 2012 at 01:56  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Dodo not quite as a couple who voluntarily choose not to have children can still have married outside of their milieu and family, and therefore benefit from the knowledge of another,whereas if they keep within their own family nothing changes or evolves. I see this from the incestuous bunches in the Welsh valleys who think England is a foreign country that might as well be as far away as America! They are not even interested in what is going on elsewhere as their own little lives take precedence. I can't cope here much longer!

15 April 2012 at 02:50  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

A question for Albert. Were you raised as a Catholic or are you a convert?

15 April 2012 at 02:59  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: not quite, my Mother was half-Welsh; her mother being an Anglican 'Geordie' and her father, a Welsh Methodist Minister. My Mother attended both Church and Chapel; as well as, during her youth, teaching Sunday School in both. I hardly think that constitutes ''being of Celtic descent'' - but yes, there is that wee ''touch of the chapel'' as you suggest.

The male line of my family is Angle; and, as dear Father used to say: ''we mate where we damn well please!'' Such a card!

I'm not at all sure you'll win much favour amongst Irish Catholics; I doubt that your characteristics are theirs. After all, ''pushing the boundaries of acceptability'' is a mere euphemism for 'unnaceptable behaviour'. That's YOU Dodo, not them.

15 April 2012 at 03:03  
Blogger Oswin said...

Marie @ 01:43 : so you've holidayed in Norfolk too eh? :o)

15 April 2012 at 03:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mr Integrity: "Is this why gays want marriage, so that their dirty deeds can be considered righteous?"

I suppose I'm the only one who'll get the strong whiff of homophobia in that. Imagine what a couple in a committed, loving relationship happily getting on with their lives is going to make of that little Jesus-snippet. This is why it's often hard to take religiousness about sexuality seriously, it appears to be a post hoc justification of something rather more emotional and earthy at times.

15 April 2012 at 06:40  
Blogger len said...

Albert,

Heated discussion.

What I see happening(you may or may not realise that you are doing this) is a form of 'intellectual bullying.'
You pursue you 'victim'corner him(or her)and virtually terrorise or intimidate them into 'accepting your 'argument'. All done with perfect manners of course.

Danjo recognised 'this trait and has accused you of it more than once!. You will of course deny this.

The 'other Catholics' gang up on people and either ridicule them or try the same tactics(in a much cruder way) to force their opinion on all and sundry.

This IMO is the 'spirit of religion' at its worst as it seems you will stop at nothing to force your views on others.Catholicism has a past history on exactly this subject!.

I have thought in the past that the divisions between Catholic and Protestants could' be healed'and a common ground found .I now know that is impossible because Catholicism is the enemy of the Church of Christ.
The reformers saw that Catholicism was unable or unwilling to change and that escape for them was the only way forward. For this the Catholic church tortured, murdered and martyred them in thousands.

There can be no compromise with the Truth or the World and this is exactly what Catholics have done.

15 April 2012 at 06:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Danjo recognised 'this trait and has accused you of it more than once!."

It's a one-on-one control and dominance thing, irrspective of the topic at hand or the strength/weakness of his position, and it gives me the right heeby jeebies as I have said a number of times.

Using net-wide forum etiquette, I try to ignore him and post around him now but simply not engaging is completely unacceptable to him, No Means No doesn't seem to apply, and making someone feel downright uncomfortable is a point score for him.

If one engages on a single point then it's always a commitment to a week-long enterprise fighting off an intrusive scatter-gun interrogation as he looks for something, anything, to gain dominance, and simply disengaging is not the end of it by a long stretch.

I've found that my debating with someone else, and not engaging with him when he pops up, means a constant monologue happening alongside anyway, using my name in every reply, where his claims and interpretations of every post of mine in the debate become more and more outrageous as he tries to goad a dialogue into being.

Like many forums, this is actually a pretty violent place but for most people it's just a series of scuffles as points and personalities bump together. The worst outcome is likely to be an intellectual or emotional bruise or two. However, what's going on here I think is the forum equivalent of those prima donna fights that sometimes happen in Academia.

15 April 2012 at 07:50  
Blogger Marcus Foxall said...

I agree with the general thrust of the priest's comments.
Still , could he tell us if Cain's wife was Cain's mother , or sister?

15 April 2012 at 08:23  
Blogger Albert said...

Cressida,

I'm a convert. What difference does it make?

Len,

I don't intend to be bullying and I apologise freely to anyone: you, Cressida, Dan etc. who thinks I have tried to bully them. I think I'm having a discussion - as you say, I trust with good manners. What tends to happen is that other people become rude. Why is it then me that is bullying them? Again and again Len, people like you and me are having our freedoms removed on principles people do not consistently apply to themselves. When I try to point it out to them, they become abusive. Is it really me who is bullying then?

Dan,

Of course you can ignore me and I don't for moment expect you to respond to me. But what you cannot expect is to be able to attack things I believe and then require me to be silent (as you have tried to do). It's a freedom of speech thing.

15 April 2012 at 10:01  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

...Deo Gratias!
for intuition and insight.

The difference,my dear Albert is like night and day.

15 April 2012 at 10:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Cressida, I don't really understand that last comment - but then I think that probably a lack of mutual understanding has been the problem all through!

Anyway, it seems that this has drawn to a close - if so, Deo gratias indeed!

15 April 2012 at 11:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What the hell is this ? Len and DanJ0 engaged in a group sob ! “Mum, those nasty Catholic boys have run off with our ball, again !”

Chin up lads, worse things happen at sea, what ! (...see next thread...). Take a tip from your blog superiors, pick yourself up, dust yourself down, and throw yourself back in there. Of course, DanJ0 is at a disadvantage. No moral fibre, you see. An anything goes liberal. Don’t envy his corner one bit. And Len with his ‘Christianity is mine and you can’t have any of it’ stance. What a couple of clowns, and now we have their tears too. Priceless...

15 April 2012 at 11:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see you're still sore about the growing list of epithets you're acquiring, Inspector. Perhaps Not Really Catholic Afterall should be added now too. Of course, it was pretty obvious anyway before you started opening up.

15 April 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cultural Catholic. Along for the ride and the company. ;)

15 April 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Len ,it has not gone unnoticed that on occasions when I get into strife on this blog,you always come to my aid. It is most appreciated and I do thank you.

15 April 2012 at 12:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. This is where the Inspector stands with the RCC. It’s us as individual humans and God, don’t you know. it was never meant to be anything other. He does not worship the RCC who then worships God on his behalf. So, the RCC isn’t master after all. Quite the opposite. It’s man’s servant. It can advise and teach but it can’t tell anyone what to do, including not using contraception.

Now, there are fellow Catholics who would hold a different line on contraception. They are quite free to organise themselves into a holy order. Let's call them the Society for Spiritual Coitus. They can make grand claims about the higher devotion of following certain rules when contemplating sex with your spouse. Elevating the sexual act to some form of three way celebration with God in the middle. Personally, the Inspector finds that idea somewhat repulsive. In a similar fashion, he does not say grace before consuming his lunchtime sandwich...

So, there you have it. The Roman Catholic church is not some monster after all. If you appreciate it, you ADHERE to it, you don’t follow it dog like. If you don’t appreciate it as you don’t, say so. The Inspector will respect that. He has absolutely no reason to care one way or the other...

15 April 2012 at 12:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Roman Catholic church is not some monster after all."

It's a callous, wretched, self-serving monster which tries to mentally and culturally enslave people for its own ends.

15 April 2012 at 13:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. There is a certain zeal within the RCC that may manifest itself to others like that. We are talking of humans with a deep belief here. If you yourself are on the receiving end of said zeal personally, remind your co-respondents that you are following your own God given free will.

If you are on the receiving end when discussing matters of policy, for example gay marriage, expect both barrels in the face. That’s how it is...

15 April 2012 at 13:46  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ....
"It's (the Catholic Church) a callous, wretched, self-serving monster which tries to mentally and culturally enslave people for its own ends.2

Ummm ... that's sounds a bit familar. A touch of the snake in Eden to in fact.

Albert
I enjoy following your posts and appreciate the time and attention you pay to being clear and precise. Difficult on a blogging sight where people come with fixed opinion.

My suggestion, if you don't mind, is to converse more and not be so technical; not all of us are trained in logic and philosophy! DanJ0 likes to pretend he is and that's why he gets so irritated with you. As for len, well, logic is not his strength!

Can you imagine Saints Peter, Paul and John having a converstion about Christ if they were not guided by the Spirit? A mystical poet, a rational theologian and a grounded, simple man of faith. Some mix and a lesson for us, I think.

cressida de nova
Poetry, intuition, rationality and logic can "connect". It just tkes time and patience all around. len sides with you, not necessarily because he agrees or understands you, but because he despises Catholicism as evil.

15 April 2012 at 14:38  
Blogger Rick Warden said...

Sadly, As of January 1, 2012, bestiality is legal and permissible in the US military.

Also, a 'distinguished professor' Peter Singer at Princeton university teaches that bestiality and infanticide are morally acceptable.

In case you aren't aware, Princeton and other Ivy League institutions were founded in the New World by Puritans interested in mainly in training missionaries and pastors. My, how things change.

It seems it's just a matter of time before incest is widely accepted in society.

15 April 2012 at 15:12  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Rick

Insightful links and well worth a read, thank you.

DanJ0 et al, can you see where things are heading?

15 April 2012 at 15:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Inspector says bring on Bestiality, throw it into the ring for consideration along with every other social 'improvement’.

You see, it’s difficult to get over to a lot of people how society has spiralled downwards over the decades. The young people don’t know any better, and the older ones only remember their sunny days. Only when you point out that you could walk into town for a drink and walk home again with no drunken hooligans pissing up against the high street shops or fighting each other do they start to remember the better times.

So good. An activity which is greeted with overwhelming disgust and yet fits in nicely with where we have got to today might stir a few more memories. Who knows, it might turn this tide of filth...

15 April 2012 at 16:25  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

We now know why the chicken crosses the road, what!

15 April 2012 at 16:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Indeed Dodo. It will be the paedophiles sneaking in next. Consenting 7 year olds and all that. Time for a flame thrower to burn the corrupt growth away, maybe the corrupt people too, don’t you think ?

15 April 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "DanJ0 et al, can you see where things are heading?"

Erm, incest has been around for thousands of years and variously acceptable or not. Also, do remember that I've set out the form of my objections to it. Acceptance of homosexuality does not imply acceptance of incest.

15 April 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0
But what possible objection can you have? As I recall, you support sibling sex.

Take away morality based on the natural law and anything is permissible.

15 April 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

And what about the chicken?

15 April 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "But what possible objection can you have? As I recall, you support sibling sex."

Huh?

15 April 2012 at 18:20  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0: please don't make me trawl through old posts.

And the chicken?

15 April 2012 at 18:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, go back to making slimy old man overtones of a sexual nature to the younger females posters if you're this bored. I cannae be bothered trying to explain it and you'll be back to talking about sex with horses as soon as you get an opening. You've already started with the chicken stuff.

15 April 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0: avoidance? You know your position is built on sand.

15 April 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

Ok so a pair of consenting adults meet, fall in love, marry and die childless. The only person who happens to know that they are an estranged brother and sister, is God.

Have they sinned or not?

15 April 2012 at 18:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "DanJ0: avoidance? You know your position is built on sand."

Of course. Whenever I can't be bothered to engage with a tedious and annoying Catholic it's actually because I can't defend the position they desperately want to argue with me about.

15 April 2012 at 19:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, 14 April 2012 00:17 up there.

15 April 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...

" ... it's actually because I can't defend the position they desperately want to argue with me about."

Agreed. You know and we all know it has no defence.

15 April 2012 at 19:15  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Mark

Of course not! How can there be sin without awareness?

15 April 2012 at 19:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Agreed. You know and we all know it has no defence."

Masterful. Obviously that clever turning around of my sarcasm and your implication there means I must dash up to defend my honour now. Boy, you're certainly a wily character and no mistake. It'll be a fine debate too as no-one has ever differentiated between homosexuality and incest / zoophilia / paedophilia before in the whole history of the internet. I can blaze a trail and people will post links to this little corner of it whenever the topic comes up, citing the famous Dodo and DanJ0 clash where the thorny issue of sex with horses and priests with their nobs up chickens was finally resolved.

15 April 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

My, you do have an inflated ego.

This sums up your 'libertine liberalism':

"I have a dick and it gets hard then that's good. I walk down the street and if I see a girl and my dick gets hard that's good and if I see a boy that's good too and same with seeing a chicken. If my dick gets hard and I want to fuck it then that's good. ... It doesn't matter what you do whether its horrible or mainstream or boring, you know what turns you on. So why the big brouhaha?"
(Jimmy Urine of Mindless Self Indulgence)

Dress it up all you like with talk of physically expressing intimacy and surround it with concepts of harm to self, others and the common good. Yet, when it gets right down to it you have no coherent moral framework for sexual acts.

15 April 2012 at 21:19  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Dodo,

And you rebuked me for crude comments.... Pot, Kettle, Black?!

15 April 2012 at 21:32  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Inspector,

Very well, if you don't want to take me up on my offer what about Danjo or Anna Anglican? I promise I can take you to places where no-one has gone before...

15 April 2012 at 21:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Alpha. A historic chat up line from the 1970s when Star Trek the series was about. Let's just hope the ladies are retro friendly, what !

15 April 2012 at 22:00  
Blogger William said...

Well, I was into sadism, necrophilia and bestiality until I realised I was just flogging a dead horse.

Old but still good...

15 April 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Alpha,

How sweet of you to ask! But I'm afraid that's not a good chat up line and besides which both Danjo and myself are gay. In any case I'm too busy writing letters of support to Camila Vallejo.

15 April 2012 at 22:13  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

@Alpha,

I think I've to most places where no-one has gone before.

What the dickens was that rant against me for?

@Anna Anglican, I have to admit, that despite being a communist-socialists Camila Vallejo is one hot bit of totty- thus I'm not suprised she comes from chile!

15 April 2012 at 22:22  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

PS is Mark in Mayenne the caped crusader? What the dickens is he wearing? each to his own , i guess...

15 April 2012 at 22:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Lavendon, old chap. The popular music group ‘Chicory Tip’ was there before your man...

15 April 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

Mine was a quote in pursuit of truth, not a personal comment.

15 April 2012 at 23:17  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha
Guess that just leaves DanJ0. Mind though, he is a libertine-liberal and could undermine the moral fabric of the universe.

Perhaps you should remind Anna Anglican that you travel in time and her letter writing will not be interupted.

15 April 2012 at 23:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "'libertine liberalism'"

Libertine? You get libertine out of it? You see, when you write shite like that then there's no point anyone else actually stepping up anyway. You're a one-man boxing match in an arena you constructed for yourself, and you knock yourself out for the count almost immediately when the bell sounds. It's quite funny in a clown-act sort of way.

16 April 2012 at 06:10  
Blogger len said...

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

(Some trolls even call themselves 'Christian'.)

16 April 2012 at 07:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Just look at the kind of unprovoked anti-Catholic stuff you routinely produce and then re-read your paragraph. It seems to me that the real problem here is that many people are prepared to attack others, but then complain when they defend themselves on the terms chosen by the initial attacker.

If you attack someone, or their position, they can defend themselves. If you don't like the counter-attack, don't attack them. It's very simple.

This is not a justification of tit-for tat, it is necessary for the very possibility of discussion and freedom of thought.

16 April 2012 at 09:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. Of particular concern to the Inspector are the trolls who casually take a swipe at the RCC in general and Catholics individually. Indeed, you go on to say...

You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

You can actually picture these people at their computer contraptions with a smug smile on their face, as if they’ve achieved something. Sure you would agree. How small must their world be, what !

Inspector has lost count of the number of times he has wept himself to sleep after such encounters late of a night...

16 April 2012 at 09:44  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

len
Do get over yourself!

From 'sock puppet', to 'dirty old man' and now 'troll'. Do you think such accusations trouble me?

I attack people's views and opinions and occassionally throw in the 'low blow'. You, on the other hand, routinely spew out poison about the Church of Christ. In fact, that's all you ever really do. Deluded notions based on twisted history and a perverted reading of Revelation.

If a troll I be, then so be it.

16 April 2012 at 09:51  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

"I attack people's views and opinions and occassionally throw in the 'low blow'. You, on the other hand, routinely spew out poison about the Church of Christ. In fact, that's all you ever really do. Deluded notions based on twisted history and a perverted reading of Revelation."

Dear fella, what is this 'perverted reading' of The Book of Revelation that you refer to in regard to the RCC and what twisted episodes of historical fact have you corrected?

You appear not to have read Jerome's Latin Vulgate nor the Book of Relevation regarding the term rapture and it's history in translation from the greek word Harpazo and it's use within the Bible and it's explicit grammatical meaning!

From the Vulgate Bible, I Thessalonians:

4:17 deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus

The leading Greek Lexicon says that harpazo means "snatch, seize, i.e., take suddenly and vehemently." This is the same meaning of the Latin word rapio "to seize, snatch, tear away." It should not be surprising to anyone, that an English word was developed from the Latin which we use today known as "rapture." that came from Koine Greek.

The word that evolved into 'rapture' was 'rapiemur'. That's the first person plural, passsive, of the verb 'rapio, rapere', which is translated as we....shall....be caught up...'

If you complain that RCC is vilified as going through the tribulation as the head of an ecumenical religion, you do not therefore consider that the denominational churches and laodiceans will be going through it too. Your church will be the head of this future organisation exactly because throughout the centuries, pride and ambition have been deepest within the chest of this Church of the Lord's where a heart for the Lord should reside rather than it's own supremacy over the body of Christ!

Ernst

Ps

If it is the 2nd coming that you believe this refers to, how does He come with the saints in great power and glory which is visible from earth as a procession that takes 24 hours to arrive and creates great fear among the earth-dwellers but the Saints, by your reasoning, are still here on the earth whilst this is all occurring and that needs snatching up as a thief takes a spoil, within an 'atomos'.

Look forward to hearing your explanations, my lad.

16 April 2012 at 14:04  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

pps


Whilst Ernst agrees with you regarding Abortion, Homosexuality and other things, where does it say that the use of contraception or not having 20 children is wrong in Scripture?

Ernst

16 April 2012 at 14:40  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

Where in scripture does it say abortion is wrong? In fact, where in scripture does it say that something is only wrong if it says so in scripture?

16 April 2012 at 14:42  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert

Nice to see you back from your Lent-cation.

It's like playing Pokemon, is it not. 'I play you, Albert'. AS DODO lays down the card and LEAVES THE FIELD. *CHORTLES*

Philosophy? How very, err, Augustinian but Ernst will engage in your questioning!

The abortion question is about life and what constitutes life and the termination of this if it is not so.Correct?
Is a fetus a "real person" in the eyes of God? If so, where does that leave all of us in relation to Him?
1.If an unborn life is truly just a mere mass of fetal tissue to God, we should really want to know, should we not.
2.If He considers the life of the woman more important than her unborn child, we should want to know.
3.And if He does consider that unborn life a "real person", and just as important as the life of the mother that bears it, we most certainly should want to know.

After all, we are all held accountable to God not only for our own individual lives, but also as a generation and a nation.

The word "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is listedwithin the Ten Commandments is it not?
The word "kill" in this instance, specifically refers to committing a "murder"--a premeditated and deliberate act of taking someone's life. It is different than other forms of taking a life, which could be accidental, or in self-defense.

God has different laws regarding different sorts of death. But He continually opposes and speaks against murder, especially murder of the innocent.

Numbers 35:33-34

33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
34 Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.

or

Psalm 106:34-48

God speaks specifically against killing innocent children and babies. He says of His people:
34 They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them: 35 But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. 36 And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. 37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, 38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. 39 Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions. 40 Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance. 41 And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them. 42 Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand. 43 Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity. 44 Nevertheless he regarded their affliction, when he heard their cry: 45 And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies. 46 He made them also to be pitied of all those that carried them captives . 47 Save us, O LORD our God, and gather us from among the heathen, to give thanks unto thy holy name, and to triumph in thy praise. 48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say , Amen. Praise ye the LORD.

Jeremiah 1:5

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Job 31:15

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us within our mothers?

Psalm 139:13-14

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Isaiah 49:1

The Lord hath called me from the womb: from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.


Ernst

2b con'd

16 April 2012 at 17:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Proverbs 24:11

Rescue those being led away to death, hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say "But we knew nothing of this," does not He who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?

The argument of double standards that humans use to reason with their inconvenient problems, that the Lord so abhorrs, is that We might bring charges against a man who kills a pregnant woman with a double homicide, yet what if that woman was on her way to the abortion clinic to dispose of her baby anyway? Should we then only charge him with a single homicide? In United States of America there are 21 states that have legislation to delay a death sentence imposed against a pregnant woman who is guilty of a crime, until after she delivers her baby? If mankind in these 'liberalised' societies really believed what people such as Dr Evan Harris said about the unborn child being a mere blob of tissue, it would seem that no one should mind if that baby died along with the mother in the electric chair.

Trust this helps with your 'moral' dilemna regarding God saying nowt of use on the subject.

You state "In fact, where in scripture does it say that something is only wrong if it says so in scripture?" I ask, state a moral evil that God has NOT answered through His Moral and Divine Precepts?

ps

Any chance of you giving a biblical explanation to..where does it say that the use of contraception or not having 20 children is wrong in Scripture, from an RCC point of view, natch.?

16 April 2012 at 17:27  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

Exactly. Scripture doesn't say abortion is wrong. We have to infer it from reading carefully. If you could just read it off the page (like Thou shalt do no murder) you needn't have posted so many passages. The same principle applies to contraception. Thus, this question, begs the question:

I ask, state a moral evil that God has NOT answered through His Moral and Divine Precepts?

BTW, what makes you think the Church expects us to have 20 children?

Where does it say in the Bible which books you should have in the Bible?

16 April 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you for welcoming me back after Lent!

16 April 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert. “Go forth and multiply” is not sufficient base to discount contraception...

16 April 2012 at 18:54  
Blogger len said...

Interesting the response to my 'Trolls post' it was addressed to no one in particular but the Catholics responded.

Guilty consciences?.

16 April 2012 at 19:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Of course, what may be prima facie Trolling could well be the mere addressing of a provocative post from an absolute arsehole...

16 April 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Guilty consciences?

Speaking for myself, I didn't have a guilty conscience. I think the reason you got responses from Catholics is that you spend most of your time attacking us. Consequently, your post struck me as hypocritical.

16 April 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert attempts at any answers completely mystifies Ernst because...

Exactly. Scripture doesn't say abortion is wrong.(Where is this the case..What about Exodus 21:22-25..Does it mean murdering an innocent man with a nuclear device is not wrong but a knife or sword is acceptable because this means off afflicting it was not known?. The precept applies and stands but the means of transgressing is different in terms of technology and craft.) We have to infer it from reading carefully. If you could just read it off the page (like Thou shalt do no murder) you needn't have posted so many passages.(The exact strength of the word used in the 10 Commandments is specific and cannot be misinterpreted) The same principle applies to contraception (How on earth as this the case..A false analogy given and an invalid conclusion is drawn from a comparison between two apparently moralistic situations. A logical fallacy! You have failed to provide evidence to support your pithy avoidance of the question asked.. Are you Dodo's rabboni). Thus, this question, begs the question (petitio principii..??LOL):

I ask, state a moral evil that God has NOT answered through His Moral and Divine Precepts? (Answer-less, are you not)

BTW, what makes you think the Church expects us to have 20 children?(Your church is the one banning this and that..Over to you, old boy..Define the papal
paper by Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae in 1968 then explain why Contraception is worthy of such condemnation by the RCC. State on what Pope Gregory IX in the Decretals of 1230 based his declaration treated both contraception and abortion equally as "homicide.")

Where does it say in the Bible which books you should have in the Bible?.

Each book has been put into the canon on the general acceptance of believers that each contained inspired scripture that spoke of each other and using quotes from each other. Jesus used this same validation by quoting scripture from the Old Testament, He even destroyed the argument of the 2 Isiaihs controversy 1800 years before, if people had cared to look..'This Isaiah..This same Isaiah'.. in John 12:37-41 there are quotations from Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10, and both are attributed to the same Isaiah who saw the glory of the Lord (John 12:41). (Deuteronomy was His favourite book by the amount of references He quotes from it) in the same way that early Christians quoted the gospels epistles etc in letters and songs.

Goodness me, my poor man, you really are getting desperate if you have to write such nonsense.

Ernst

16 April 2012 at 19:58  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

Left the "field"? What a strange comment.

I'm more than happy for Albert to attempt to have a sensible discussion with you. Do stay focussed. Whenever I engage with you you twist and turn and post reams of scripture.

16 April 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

len said ...
"Interesting the response to my 'Trolls post' it was addressed to no one in particular but the Catholics responded."

Now you know that is an untruth you deluded little man.

16 April 2012 at 20:14  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

After watching that nonsense, The Big Question and being bombarded with the feminists ..'It's my body, its my body', I have a suggestion.

That all abortions be only allowed if the Patient must watch the termination occur live in 4 D as , after all, it is only a lump of snot, not a real person. Bit like watching your appendix being removed? Watching the foetus writhe would probably be too much, would it not!

Bet it would change a non feminists opinion but would they really do it or is it just a convenient excuse that the medical profession makes on their behalf to absolve them of their worry/sin that all only is a mere snot ball.

Ernst

16 April 2012 at 20:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo creasing Ernst up with chuckles.

"Whenever I engage with you you twist and turn and post reams of scripture." THAT is because I am a bible believing Christian and I take His Word with utter seriousness, my boy.
I,I 'twist and turn' You do make old ernsty chortle with your evasiveness.

Ernsty

16 April 2012 at 20:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Off round me daughters for the night.

Toodle pip chaps, see thee tomorrow.

Ernst

16 April 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Nature knows it's path.

If two opposite genders meet, their pheromones would tell them if they were too genetically matched. They would sense they were kissing a sibling.

If two emotionally disturbed people meet, then love from anyone and anywhere will do.

Hence Jesus' mission was to release the sick and asked you to do the same.

But no, you argue about who did what to whom. Anyone seen the lillies?

16 April 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

I agree that Exodus 21:22-25 is a good anti-abortion passage (I quoted it to Carl for the same reason a few months back). However, it does not actually talk about abortion. It might only apply if the woman wants the baby and has therefore lost something that she wants. Also, it does not make clear whether the serious injury is to her or the baby.

The exact strength of the word used in the 10 Commandments is specific and cannot be misinterpreted

But any discussion about abortion is going to get into whether the unborn child is really a person. I agree with you that it is. I agree that this is the proper sense of scripture. But it doesn't say it.

I ask, state a moral evil that God has NOT answered through His Moral and Divine Precepts?

Well, you are going to define "moral evil" only in biblical terms, so this is circular. But I take it you think that 'it is evil to say "contraception is evil"', well that isn't in the Bible, neither is the proposition "It is evil to teach as evil something that is not condemned in the Bible." Your whole position is thus self-contradictory.

Your church is the one banning this and that

You really don't know Catholic teaching on the matter do you?

the general acceptance of believers

Neither do you seem to know much about the history of the canon. Anyway, where does it say that the canon is to be defined by the general acceptance of believers

Jesus used this same validation by quoting scripture from the Old Testament

The canon of the OT was not agreed by the time of Jesus and there are some books which are never quoted by Jesus, or anyone in the NT. On other hand there are passages of the OT which the NT refers to with the reverence it reserves for scripture, which you do not accept.

That all abortions be only allowed if the Patient must watch the termination occur live in 4 D

A bit late then, isn't it? How about requiring those procuring an abortion to watch a 4D scan before agreeing to the procedure?

16 April 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

Toodle pip chaps, see thee tomorrow.

You will cause great pain to Dr Cranmer with that sentence: chaps is plural, but thee is singular.

16 April 2012 at 21:08  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty
'Hit and run' again, I see.

No answer to Albert and then a closing statement meaning nothing. And if you really understood scripture you wouldn't have to post endless random passages. You would answer the questions put and your "yes" would be "yes" and your "no" would be "no".

Why does Albert's biblical knowledge, theological and philosophical background scare you? Him an ex-protestant too.

16 April 2012 at 21:11  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Albert: sexist too!

16 April 2012 at 21:13  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert completely missed Ernst's DID pun!

'Ernst,

Toodle pip chaps, see thee tomorrow.

You will cause great pain to Dr Cranmer with that sentence: chaps is plural, but thee is singular.'INDEED but believe His Grace knows what I am jesting about!

*Chortles hilariously to self*

Ernst dear chaps.

17 April 2012 at 09:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A response..1/2;

"Ernst,

I agree that Exodus 21:22-25 is a good anti-abortion passage (I quoted it to Carl for the same reason a few months back). However, it does not actually talk about abortion. It might only apply if the woman wants the baby and has therefore lost something that she wants. Also, it does not make clear whether the serious injury is to her or the baby." Not correct, my man.
Consider the phrase “yet no lasting harm follows” Absolutely no grammatical indication exists in the text by which one could assume the recipient of the injury to be either the mother or the child to the exclusion of the other.
In order to allow Scripture to stand on its own and speak for itself, one must conclude that to understand “injury” to refer exclusively to the mother is to narrow the meaning without textual justification.
One is therefore forced to conclude that the absence of specificity was deliberate on the part of the inspired writer and that he intended for the reader to conclude that the prescription applied to both mother and child. The wording is, therefore, the most appropriate and economical if the writer intended to convey all possible scenarios without having to go into tedious elaboration (As Ernst has suggested in an earlier comment regarding that Murder by nuclear explosion was not in the Bible) — which would have included at least the following eight combinations:

1. non-lethal injury to the child but no injury to the mother;
2. non-lethal injury to the mother but no injury to the child;
3. non-lethal injury to both;
4. death to the child but no injury to the mother;
5. death to the child with non-lethal injury to the mother;
6. death to the mother with no injury
7. death to the mother with non-lethal injury to the child;
8. death to both mother and child.

Therefore what is required by this rendering of the text is that if there should be an injury either to the mother or to her children, the injury shall be avenged by a like injury to the assailant. If it involves the life (ne-pes’) of the premature baby, then the assailant shall pay for it with his life. There is no second-class status attached to the fetus under this rule to the child, old boy.

OT scholars have noted: “For the accidental assault, the offender must still pay some compensation, even though both mother and child survived…. Should the pregnant woman or her child die, the principle of 'talio' is invoked, demanding ‘life for life’ ”. In view of this understanding of the text, under Mosaic Law “the unborn child would be considered viable in utero and entitled to legal protection and benefits” !

Tertullian, in his Treatise on the Soul (in ch. 37)..“The embryo therefore becomes a human being in the womb from the moment that its form is completed (i.e., at conception). The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion, inasmuch as there exists already the rudiment of a human being, which has imputed to it even now the condition of life and death”.

Ernst

17 April 2012 at 11:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

2/2

If God dealt severely with the accidental death of a pre-born infant under Mosaic Law, how do you suppose He feels about the deliberate murder of the unborn by an abortion doctor in collusion with the mother? The Bible states explicitly how He feels: “Do not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked” (Exodus 23:7). As a matter of fact, one of the things that God hates is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17; cf. 2 Kings 8:12; 15:16; Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13). Abortion is a serious matter with God. We absolutely must base our views on God’s will and NOT the will, emotions or philosophy of men.

The exact strength of the word used in the 10 Commandments is specific and cannot be misinterpreted

But any discussion about abortion is going to get into whether the unborn child is really a person. I agree with you that it is. I agree that this is the proper sense of scripture. But it doesn't say it.

I ask, state a moral evil that God has NOT answered through His Moral and Divine Precepts?

Well, you are going to define "moral evil" only in biblical terms, so this is circular. But I take it you think that 'it is evil to say "contraception is evil"', well that isn't in the Bible, neither is the proposition "It is evil to teach as evil something that is not condemned in the Bible." Your whole position is thus self-contradictory.(Utter nonsense..What evil has man thought of and considered as a means of rebellion and defiance that The Lord Almighty has not known of him in advance? Preposterous philosophical reasoning.

Your church is the one banning this and that

You really don't know Catholic teaching on the matter do you?(Explicitly my man, but asking you to justify it from scripture appears, erm, beyond explanation.)

the general acceptance of believers

Neither do you seem to know much about the history of the canon. Anyway, where does it say that the canon is to be defined by the general acceptance of believers..Then you know nothing of what was discussed at the Councils that defined what should be included as Canon..The bishops declared the acceptance of the believers in the early church as their acceptance of what was inspired or not..You appear to be confusing the early council meeting and how the bishops were servants of the early church ( They followed Christ's principlal and example He left!) and did not 'lord it' over the Body of Christ, not with the forced magisterium over the laity of Rome..centuries later.

Jesus used this same validation by quoting scripture from the Old Testament

The canon of the OT was not agreed by the time of Jesus (The Septuagint was completed in 270 BC from Hebrew into Greek, nearly 3 centuries PRIOR to the Birth and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the LXX is quoted by the New Testament, particularly by Paul the Apostle and by the Apostolic Fathers.!!! Its subdivision is something else but all the Books were there.. The Apocrypha was only included as regarding a relevance to historical writings and WAS NOT recognised as inspired by Greek Jews or early Christians who had this compilation. These books had NO authority on scripture as they were uninspired) and there are some books which are never quoted by Jesus, or anyone in the NT (They are quoted by each other as books on a regular basis which endorses their authority as inspired..OT books quote each other and Jesus and the Apostles quote these. They are therefore validated!). On other hand there are passages of the OT which the NT refers to with the reverence it reserves for scripture, which you do not accept (Which exactly are these...you, not unsurprising, have not stated them , have you..poor scholarship indeed!)

Ernst

17 April 2012 at 11:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ernsty
'Hit and run' again, I see.( Hit and PUN, dear boy, Hit and pun!)

No answer to Albert (He has been fully answered as you are ALWAYS. That you care not for the answer is by the by!) and then a closing statement meaning nothing(Then you appear to have no comprehension of Q.E.D.). And if you really understood scripture you wouldn't have to post endless random passages. You would answer the questions put and your "yes" would be "yes" and your "no" would be "no".(Then why on earth did St Paul continually refer to scripture in all his discourses and conclusions with the Jews and Gentiles and in his epistles?. It is the HIGHEST authority and never contradicts itself)

Why does Albert's biblical knowledge, theological and philosophical background scare you? Him an ex-protestant too. (*Chuckles*) You really believe yourself to be Judge, Jury and comments Executioner on what is stated on here? The Mikado-do!

"See how the comments their gifts allot,
For A is philosophical — E is not.
Yet E is Biblical, I dare say,
Of much more Justification than A!

Ko-Ko, Pooh-Bah & Pitti-Sing:
Is E words worthy?

Katisha:
I should say
He says a great deal more biblical than A."

Oh how Ernst loves G & S!

Ernst, my boy.

17 April 2012 at 14:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

Firstly, do you have any idea how hard it is to read your posts? There's no indication of what is quoted and what is not.

Secondly, you have this patronising approach to those with whom you disagree (I am referring to various asides that litter your communiques) and yet, what you write is largely cut&paste from the internet (without acknowledging your sources).

Thirdly, I am quite certain your interpretation of Ex21 is correct, but I note that even if I accept your arguments, you are still inferring the conclusion and that's without us looking at passages which seem to indicate a difference in the status of mother and unborn child. But look, I've got no interest in trying to prove from the Bible that abortion is permitted or not condemned, all I said at the beginning is that the condemnation has to be inferred, and try as you might, you have not managed to refute that.

Utter nonsense..What evil has man thought of and considered as a means of rebellion and defiance that The Lord Almighty has not known of him in advance? Preposterous philosophical reasoning.

Are you saying that I am saying there are problems arising now that God had not thought of? No, I am saying that there are problems now which are not directly addressed in the Bible. I do not believe that all of God's thoughts are committed to paper:

How precious to me are thy thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!If I would count them, they are more than the sand.

You go on:
Explicitly my man, but asking you to justify it from scripture appears, erm, beyond explanation.

I can justify it from scripture, but not from scripture alone - but then you cannot justify scripture alone on scripture alone - you don't seem to be able to see it though.

You appear to be confusing the early council meeting and how the bishops were servants of the early church

I did not mention councils. I am merely observing that there were many who called themselves Christians who did not accept our canon. But in any case, "the general acceptance of believers" is not part of scripture, thus your position dissolves in its own acid again. We can only ever have the canon from tradition, thus sola scriptura can never be made to work. This is why at the Reformation all sorts of Protestants (not just Luther) got to work carving off the bits of the Bible they didn't like. Calvin had to appeal to tradition to stop them!

Obviously, the translation of the LXX is not the same as canonising, or you would have to include the Deutero-canonical books. But if it isn't then, you do not have an argument for the dating of the OT canon. As for the Deutero-canonical books in the NT, try reading Hebrews.

But look, I'm not going to carry on with this, because I find your posts so hard to read that it takes too much time.

17 April 2012 at 17:43  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Albert

Very wise.

18 April 2012 at 00:28  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert..your poor fella, let me explain..

"I do not believe that all of God's thoughts are committed to paper:" all the important things that affect our lives are declared upon in scripture.

"But look, I've got no interest in trying to prove from the Bible that abortion is permitted or not condemned, all I said at the beginning is that the condemnation has to be inferred, and try as you might, you have not managed to refute that.
" The law is clear but the only thing that needs inferring is the particular case brought before it as it is all encompassing. The event itself will show whether accidental or premeditated and whether a fine is applied or talio is invoked due to the nature of the crime.!

"I can justify it from scripture, but not from scripture alone - but then you cannot justify scripture alone on scripture alone - you don't seem to be able to see it though." You have in NO place even tried to show how it is based or on what when asked ..I presume your philosophical argument will not stand scrutiny?

"Deutero-canonical books" Ernst has answered this yet it is obviously not what you wish to hear..They are Not Inspired but only serve a purpose for historical and the customs of the time they were written.

The reason I give for removing them out of the body of scripture is for the sake of new believers who may be utterly confused by the obvious gnosticism within and who maybe led astray, believing they are conflicting with what the genuine gospel records say Christ said and more importantly, did.
The Gospel is not what Christ said to men but what he did at Calvary on the cross. He did not come to make bad men good but dead men alive!

"But look, I'm not going to carry on with this, because I find your posts so hard to read that it takes too much time....As for the Deutero-canonical books in the NT, try reading Hebrews."???? Such poor scholarship!

The real argument was NOT the order of the canon but that heretical books were being sent and passed off as apostolic authority. The bishops merely met to list what the early church believers already considered as scripture and on what basis they rejected the erroneous rubbish masquerading as inspired scripture.

Ernst

1/3

18 April 2012 at 13:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

2/3

Old Ernst presumes you are an avid fan of Mark Shea's book, By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition, where he conveniently forgets many things such as 'When the scripture does not exist, then he considers its absence to unspoken approval of 'tradition', which is incorrect, and he goes on to add to his error by comparing the doctrine of the Trinity with tradition when he, supposedly as a biblical student, should know that evangelicals/non catholics consider scripture resplendent with doctrines and quotes that refer to the Trinity.

Like nearly all RC's, he writes of an unbroken papal lineage that in fact, does not exist.!! Perhaps Mr Shea should study the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church, to better understand that Roman Catholicism's claim to tradition is both challenged by an equally historical church (Eastern Orthodox) and within the walls of the Rome where supposed tradition has been set aside as different popes have cancelled or reversed other predecessors interpretation or application of God's Word.

Laughable if it was not of such a serious nature with implications that have reverberated for well beyond a millennium!

There are errors he uses in pushing forward ideas that an extra-biblical tradition exists apart from Scripture such as you and Dodo believe. Lets see?

1. He tries to appeal to the Old Testament claiming certain traditions that were not written down immediately, but are appealed to sometime later in Israel's history such as when he claims that some traditions in the Old Testament were not written down until the New Testament period, such as Jude 1:9, as well as the reference in 2 Tim. 3:8-9. The error?, because all of these traditions he appeals to are recorded in Scripture (they are not extra-biblical)!.

2. Roman Catholics don't recognise that the doctrine of sola scriptura only applies to the period after revelation. They use Lk 1:3-4, as if it supports the Roman Catholic position, but in reality, it supports the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Luke 1:3-4

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed .

This verse states to us that we can know with certainty because this oral tradition is in-scriptured; it in no way implies an infallible tradition apart from Scripture.

Your proselyte, Mr Shea, suggests that the Protestant doctrine of the authority of Scripture is based upon circular reasoning, while the Roman Catholic doctrine of an infallible Church is linear. The non RC argument rests on Scriptures intrinsic value as God's Word. We appeal to the testimony of the church, theological correctness, the revelatory nature of the miraculous, historical accuracy, among other things, to support our position.

Mr Shea then tells us that the argument for the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church is a linear argument rather than a circular argument, by quoting the Church Fathers (it seems he believes that they believed in an infallible Church but offers NO PROOF).

He does what you and Dodo do, by trying to verify Church authority with Church authority.!!

Ernst

18 April 2012 at 13:34  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

To a conclusion, old boy!
3/3

How is this not circular as an argument? And if Scripture relies on Church authority, then Roman
Catholics cannot use Scripture to try and strengthen such claims either.

We are told that without the Catholic Church, we have no canon of Scripture.

Mr Shea states that "a lot" of Old Testament books are not quoted in the New Testament, suggesting that without the Roman Catholic Church, we have no reason to include them in our canon.

It appears that 3 books missing is "a lot." !!

All other 36 books are quoted in the New Testament (when we consider that some books were combined in the Hebrew canon).

Sorry to advise of this BUT, the Jews, of course, did not depend on a Roman Catholic Church Council to tell them what was God's Word. LOL.

The reasons for a books canonicity precede the decision of a church council, therefore, these reasons are sufficient cause for a books canonicity (this is equally true of our New Testament canon as well, old boy).

In Roman Catholicism, the first infallible council to define the canon did not come until the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Unfortunately most RC's don't consider this, and they presume the canonicity of the Apocrypha, even though the Church did not give it full canonical status before that time (a truth that even your New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts).

Roman Catholicism assumes that everyone must suffer from the same inadequacies when explaining each book that starts and ends the canon and all that are between it of The Inspired Word of God, when we do not.

I believe that Scripture is the 'only' infallible guide, not the only guide but has precedence. RC's refuse to accept that that you have a misconception in our understanding of the early church fathers.
Non RC's love and respect them and enjoy hearing what they speak of yet we simply recognise that they were/are capable of error, just like the Romans, Ephesians, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, etc were and needed to be addressed from scripture to correct any errant things promoted.

Dear fella, Ernst desperately struggles with your commenting which appears based on human philosophy that you indulge yourself with and that can only lead to intellectual cul de sac's but it appears to make you feel, without sound justification, that somehow reason itself has been fully vindicated whereas a few words from scripture will always suffice on the subject.

Always a joy to speak to you, even if you struggle terribly to keep up with my arguments.

Ernst

Mikado-do pronounced..

"Albert

Very wise" *Huge guffaws all round?*

18 April 2012 at 13:44  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

Give me a month or three to decypher all the above and I may reply - or not.

18 April 2012 at 19:59  
Blogger len said...

I think part of what Ernst is saying is that Catholics grant themselves the authority (which belongs to God alone) and then use that (hijacked ) authority to 'authenticate' themselves'.

Which is quite a 'cunning plan' by whoever thought up the Catholic faith because it makes them 'infallible'if you 'fall for it!.'

It also makes one 'a prisoner' of the Catholic Church unless God`s Truth sets you free.

19 April 2012 at 08:06  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I think part of what Ernst is saying is that Catholics grant themselves the authority (which belongs to God alone) and then use that (hijacked ) authority to 'authenticate' themselves'.

Thank you for the summary - I don't have time to read Ernst's post (sorry Ernst, but I did warn you). However, if your summary is correct then he is mistaken. Catholicism does not claim authority that belongs to God alone, rather it claims nothing more than the authority that scripture promises the Church would have: to be led, by the Holy Spirit, into all the truth. Now either Protestants claim that authority for themselves (in which case your own condemnation falls on your own head) or they deny the word of scripture. It's pretty clear that some go one way and others go the other way.

One thing jumped off the page at me from Ernst's post though - a reference to the Orthodox Church. The trouble is that whenever the Eastern Church separated from Rome in the first 1000 years, it always fell into what it now regards as heresy. Thus on purely historical grounds, the Catholic Church can alone claim to be the Church of the first millennium. So either one accept Catholicism, or one denies the promises made by Christ in scripture about the truth and the Church lasting until he comes.

I have no difficulty choosing between these possibilities.

19 April 2012 at 09:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Ernst,

The reasons for a books canonicity precede the decision of a church council, therefore, these reasons are sufficient cause for a books canonicity (this is equally true of our New Testament canon as well, old boy).

Ernst, you are confusing epistemology with reality here.

19 April 2012 at 09:54  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

Eh? Yeah, that would be because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

How, in a fallen world, is it to be decided which is to be formally adopted as sacred? By what authority is one book deemed authentic and another not so?

19 April 2012 at 16:56  
Blogger len said...

To justify the Catholic religion one MUST deliberately misinterpret Scripture.
That is the ONLY conclusion a honest truth seeker can come to.
To manipulate scripture for 'ones own benefit portrays the origins of this practice'.This may seem harsh to those who have adopted the Catholic religion in 'good faith'and I do feel genuinely sorry for those honest people who have come under this deception.

If a House is built on a false foundation stone the entire building will be condemned as unfit and those within it will be strongly advised to leave for their own safety.Times of' great shaking' are coming and it is wise to be in a House of a solid foundation.

'For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.' (1Corinthians 3:11)

This Truth will apply to anyone following any other religion, any other 'truth'.

20 April 2012 at 07:47  
Blogger Albert said...

To justify the Catholic religion one MUST deliberately misinterpret Scripture.

No, to justify your kind of Protestantism you MUST deliberately misinterpret Scripture or else not know scripture terribly well. I think you fall into the latter category which is why so often you claim something as scriptural only to have an express scripture produced to contradict you.

Times of' great shaking' are coming and it is wise to be in a House of a solid foundation. 'For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.' (1Corinthians 3:11)

Well then, we shall see whose "work is burned up". I am confident it will not be the Catholic Church because we rest on the promises of Christ. You rest on yourself despite every warning in scripture not to do so.

20 April 2012 at 10:27  
Blogger Longinquus Via of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Albert
Hear! Hear!

That's it. Tell len where he's wrong and point out the scriptural references. It helps others see through his confusion and the lies he copies from his websites. Long discussions with him are fruitless and frustrating.

20 April 2012 at 23:59  
Blogger len said...

One might ask(and indeed should ask) "Why does God allow religions which are based on the' works of man'to exist?.There are many of them!.
The answer is that God tests man and the 'agent' he uses to do this is Satan himself.Will we 'fall for Satanic deception or prefer the truth of God?.
Eve fell to satanic deception,Job was tested and remained true to God,many others were tested and succumbed even the Lord Jesus Christ was tested by the enemy of Mankind.
So false religions exist(some even flourish) permitted by God (man has free will) to test whether they will love God and God`s Truth or will they prefer Satanic deception.'Man made' religions appeal to the carnality within man and they approach God with 'strange fire'.(Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
Lev 10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

Nadab and Abihu disregarded the solemn and exacting instruction they had been given, and filled their censers with a fire that did not originate from the holy fire of the alter of burnt offering. They entered the tabernacle with a profane fire, a common fire, that afforded them no protection, and they instantly perished. This was such a serious violation, that they were not even to be mourned:)

God`s intention is to gather 'all things in Christ'who has been given authority over all. All the religions based on the 'works of men' are to be consumed by the fire.
Albert (by your own words) your confidence (indeed your faith) is placed in' the Church' not in Christ and the outcome of your encounter with the' fires of God'is unfortunately determined by this fact.
I can only hope you move onto the true foundation, the only foundation(which is Christ) before that time comes.

21 April 2012 at 08:00  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, you seem to be playing 'devils advocate'.Why does this not surprise me?.The' confusion' is all on your side. I stand 'on the Rock'which is Christ Himself and God is NOT the author of confusion.

21 April 2012 at 08:05  
Blogger Longinquus Via of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

len
You really do post bunkum. Same old stuff, just endlessly repeated. Your man made religion, based on your own supreme arrogance, is riddled with contradiction.

Pride and self belief is not the same as faith.

21 April 2012 at 09:48  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert, in response to Len..

I don't have time to read Ernst's post (sorry Ernst, but I did warn you). Sorry Albert, old fruit, Ernst doesn't give a hoot. His arguments stand or fall on what others make of them, not the other person in the discussion that disagrees..Bit like a court hearing, old boy.

"Catholicism does not claim authority that belongs to God alone, rather it claims nothing more than the authority that scripture promises the Church would have: to be led, by the Holy Spirit, into all the truth." It claims ITSELF is THE Church and none other may come to Christ except through IT. ONLY God Forgives Sin, Justifies and Sanctifies a sinner..Not a temporal organisation that has been headed by some of the true monsters of history.

Then on what basis was St Paul able to found and write to gentile churches then. Where does St Paul defer supremacy to St Peter and ask his permission to save those not put into his care and ministry.
Ernst sees no letters written by St Peter to the Romans or other gentile churches.

"The trouble is that whenever the Eastern Church separated from Rome in the first 1000 years, it always fell into what it now regards as heresy." As St Augustine used the Book of Romans to refute pelagianism yet refused to see the truth of Justification by Faith alone is monumental in his blindness to truth and his belief in add-on's that were drifting in, to justify the believer other than the atoning work of Christ or as some might call 'Christ PLUS for the faithful'! but if the teaching is not clear, it can point one in the direction of heresy as Augustine did by NOT preaching solely on the merits of the atonement of Christ, but rather supported the continual drift from the apostolic fathers (As unfortunately St Clement did in writing to the the Corinthians in his first letter..His warning against heresies was not clear and sharp, and so many were overtaken by false doctrines. Clement fully understood the Apostles teachings on Justification by Faith alone, he just did not understand the absolutely crucial nature of this doctrine, and how sinful men, by nature, desire to pervert it. CLARITY above all things!) towards salvation based on the merits of man.. Such a shame that the passage in the book of Romans that converted him from his fleshy failings was Romans 13, where he read: "Not in riots and drunken parties, not in eroticism and indecencies, not in strife and rivalry, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh in its lusts." rather than Romans 11:6: "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."

Would you like Augustine's quotes from On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants that define these , err, extra's.?
Think we call this heresy, old boy!

How many of those 'Extra's' from Rome's supremacy, that are classed as heresy, would you like old Ernst to list for you, to give balance to your trashing of the Eastern Orthodox Church and it's drift away from Christ also.?

Ernst

21 April 2012 at 19:26  
Blogger len said...

I can only think that the spiritual darkness that encloses those bound within religious systems must be considerably worse than the darkness blinding secular people.

People who have spirits of religion, legalism, etc. find it hard to accept the fact that their sins have been paid for on the cross, and that there is nothing that they can do but accept the gift that God has given them. Religion likes to 'earn' status with God, whereas relationship accepts the gift that Christ has given.

Luke 7:29-30, "And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him."

Matthew 21:32, "For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Catholicism and other religions make a' staircase of works'leading to salvation(perhaps?)and 'acceptance' by God. Of course this is a fruitless exercise.

The tragedy of religion is that God came down to us at Calvary and gave us a gift not one of us could ever earn....His Life.

21 April 2012 at 21:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Albert (by your own words) your confidence (indeed your faith) is placed in' the Church' not in Christ and the outcome of your encounter with the' fires of God'is unfortunately determined by this fact.

That's not what I said, this is why I said:

we shall see whose "work is burned up". I am confident it will not be the Catholic Church because we rest on the promises of Christ. You rest on yourself despite every warning in scripture not to do so.

You see that? I am confident it will not be the Catholic Church because we rest on the promises of Christ. Will you now please withdraw your erroneous comment?

People who have spirits of religion, legalism, etc.

It is your position that is legalistic - that is why you reduce (unsuccessfully) everything to a legal interpretation of scripture.

it hard to accept the fact that their sins have been paid for on the cross

We are quite happy with that, we just do not accept that forgiveness of sins is all that scripture says. It says we are made righteous by Christ, this is not an alien righteousness but that we are truly transformed (as I've quoted on another thread, but which you have not answered):

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

and again:

My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!

You see, we are not clothed with an alien righteousness or just with forgiveness, Christ is formed within us, therefore, the Lord himself says:

You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

and again,

"If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

This is the message of scripture, this is what we are called to believe. Do you really think we should deny the Bible to please you? As the apostles say

We must obey God rather than men.

22 April 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger len said...

Albert you seem a little confused, where did I say I rely on myself for salvation?.

What I am saying is exactly the reverse of that , how can you get things so wrong?.Or are you deliberately misunderstanding what I say?.

22 April 2012 at 16:41  
Blogger len said...

Albert,Your statement that catholisc' rest'on the promises of God is quite frankly amazing. 'Resting ' seems to me to be the last thing Catholics are permitted to do|!.

I realise you do not accept the authority of scripture and that is where your problem lies.

Many Catholics have Bibles in their hands( at last).The Catholic Church did all in their power to prevent Catholics and protestants having the Bible in common language that everyone could understand.

But ...........The Word of God is rendered void and ineffective by the presuppositions of the Catholic mind(witnessed by all and sundry on this blog)
For example the Catholic is not the slightest bothered by the dogmas of the immaculate conception, the Assumption, auricular confession, purgatory, and the veneration of statues are absent from the pages of the Bible.This bothers the Catholic not one bit!.
Catholics have been convinced that God`s revelation does not come in the Bible alone but also in 'sacred tradition'.Since no one can check the contents of oral tradition they have no way to verify whether a particular tradition is really based on the Word of God or not!.This is an'open doorway' into confusion and deception.

Catholics have to simply put their entire faith in the Magisterium!


Albert I see no further point in discussing THIS point with you as you can only refer back to the Magisterium and I do not recognise their authority to interpret scripture above and beyond the Word of God.

If you have any other questions regarding Catholicism versus the Word of God the I would gladly refer you to this very helpful site

.www.justforcatholics.org

My genuine desire is to know the truth about God and salvation and I hope this will help you and any others interested.

22 April 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

You are either a dullard, deluded or dishonest.

Which is it? Do you know? Or care?

22 April 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I think we can deal with this very simply. The pattern has repeated itself over and over again

1. You begin with an unprovoked attack on Catholics, even saying we are not Christians, because (you say) we do not believe what (you say) the Bible teaches.

2. We respond by showing (a) the passages you cite do not need to be interpreted in a non-Catholic sense (b) there are numerous passage which cannot be interpreted in your sense.

3. You reply, without tackling the scriptures we have given, by saying we are unscriptural. It's as it if step 2 in the discussion has never taken place.

It really isn't my interest in haranguing you, but if you attack my faith and say I am not biblical, then I am entitled to expect you to defend that. You never do, you just ignore any number of scriptural passages to return to the position you started from. I am afraid I have seen this happen too often - you are not biblical just because you are not Catholic.

22 April 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger len said...

Albert,

You(and others) either cannot grasp the Truth or will not accept it.
I find this really sad.

The 'Magisterium' forged the 'Donation of Constantine' document.....This is a proven fact!.This to me proves that Truth (Biblical or otherwise)is not important to the Magisterium!.

You rely on this unscrupulous organisation (The Magisterium) to' interpret scripture' for you ....fact.

The you add' traditions' to this 'unholy mix' oral 'traditions' which no one can validate because they are not in scripture!.

I give you this Catholics had devised a clever system which pretends to use scripture as' its authority'but denies the authority of scripture!!.
Catholicism makes the Word of God null and void and elevates 'tradition 'instead.

However you twist and turn the facts remain exactly that facts!.It is sad that you(and others cannot face the truth about your position because only the truth will set you(and other Catholics free).

If you (and others ) continue to present Catholicism 'as the truth'(when it quite obviously is not)then I will continue to OPPOSE your attack on Biblical Truth.

God`s Truth is contained within scripture and as the Lord said

"The scripture cannot be broken" - See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside.

23 April 2012 at 07:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

The 'Magisterium' forged the 'Donation of Constantine' document.....This is a proven fact!.This to me proves that Truth (Biblical or otherwise)is not important to the Magisterium!.

To me this proves that you do not read a word that I write!

"The scripture cannot be broken" - See Matthew 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside.

Exactly. Which is why your failure to answer the scriptures I have given you is a problem for your position.

23 April 2012 at 14:48  
Blogger len said...

Albert, I can either keep repeating what I have said hoping just by 'weight of numbers ' you will get it or I can point you to a very good web site which will answer all your points.
Might be better to do that than keep on I cannot even remember what His Graces original article was now. This is not our blog but his Graces and believe time has come to respect that!.

www.justforcatholics

(I would advise any Catholic to have a look at this site which contains some very useful) information .

23 April 2012 at 19:54  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older