Monday, June 10, 2013

There is nothing compassionate about cost-cutting childcare


From Brother Ivo:

There is much to like about the rising star of the Republican Party, Susana Martinez.

The first female Hispanic to be elected to a State Governorship of New Mexico, she not only has sound values but also points to a future where the increasingly influential Hispanic constituency follows her in realising that the Democrats' progressive values are accelerating away from the core values of this religious family-orientated community. She switched parties and is now an important voice for fiscal conservative values coupled with social conservatism.

Before turning to politics she was a lawyer with particular interests in child protection, and when she entered the Governor's Office she took the opportunity to make a powerful statement about her priorities.

It is the custom in New Mexico for the space outside the Governor's office to be given over to art works or an exhibition that expresses something personally important to the incumbent. Former governors have used the space to highlight the State's cowboy culture, or concern for preserving the environment in a state with serious water-management problems and frequent wild-fires breaking out in the tinder-dry forests in summer. These are perfectly good uses of the space, but Governor Martinez chose to make her statement about children, and especially disadvantaged children whose lives have been disrupted by removal from their family.

On one side of the office there are photographs and narratives of foster parents and adopters with the children they have embraced, while on the other are photographs and written details of children awaiting permanent substitute families.

What is striking about the exhibition is the quality and care that has gone into presenting these adults and children. The photographs are attractive and highly professional. The explanations do not ignore problems but neither do they allow them to overshadow the underlying truth that these children are worth something and will overcome their early-life experiences - if given the opportunity. For a senior politician to choose this as her signature theme is heartwarming and challenging to our own Government.

In England, such 'matching' is conducted in a rather less confident fashion. We are paralysed by politically-correct notions that these needy children's right to privacy must be respected, and the preparation of the publicising material is somewhat hit-and-miss and decidedly low key.

David Cameron occasionally talks the talk about the value of marriage and children, but overall there is far greater evidence for his progressive prejudice than any similar prioritisation of the Governor's.

That progressive mindset is responsible for some of the worst outcomes for children in the post-war decades.

Readers will immediately think of abortion law reform, and they are right, of course. But that is so obvious that you must forgive Brother Ivo for not dwelling on that today. Take it as a given.

A less acknowledged harm derives from one of the earliest feminist campaigns to achieve 'equality'.

For many years Building Societies would only advance a mortgage based upon a multiple of a single wage, usually the husband's - a term used for historical accuracy. This was identified as offensive to equality, and the rule was soon changed in order that we might all sleep at night with a clean conscience that such iniquity was a thing of the past.

The consequence was obvious to anyone with a semblance of economic literacy. With multiples of two incomes competing for the same number of houses, the prices rocketed, and now we find that new entrants to the market find it immensely difficult to climb onto that housing ladder.

Who has suffered more in this process than our children?

Because two incomes are needed, mothers have to return to work, often from the child's earliest months, and the lower such mothers are on the income scale the more necessary it is. Motherhood is largely decried among the metropolitan elite as even those who can afford to stay and care for their children regard themselves as having better things to do.

Mothers find, however, that the part of the income not needed to pay the mortgage is largely spent on child care and these costs have also been driven up by government-meddling through the quasi-professionalisation of a simple core human activity - taking care of little ones.

If not worn out by the early-morning run to the child-minder, or the day at school, or the enrichment programming provided to meet government standards, the little ones will be assaulted by additional teaching for exam success, music lessons, and/or put onto the sports-team treadmill where on Sunday mornings the father will spend much of his quality time bellowing instructions from the side-lines with the force of Sir Alec Ferguson in the 93rd minute.

It is not hyperbole to suggest that our working parents have exchanged their roles as parents to those of children's entertainers. They have outsourced much of the religious and moral guidance along with the discipline, troubled that if they create discord by exercising their parental role, their offspring will no longer be their friend.

To such parents, Brother Ivo offers the simple, useful, if unfashionable phrase - 'This is not a democracy.'

Family life is essential to pass on core cultural values. Two groups manage this with some success: those immigrant families who prefer not to integrate; and the 'underclass' which manages to find ways of passing on inter-generational unemployment. Neither is particularly disposed to the values of the Government or the working population that supports them.

When it comes to that underclass, they make up a substantial portion of the children taken into care by the State, needing the fresh starts of the exhibition outside Governor Martinez's office.

Brother Ivo likes to give credit where it is due: Iain Duncan Smith has grasped the welfare dependency nettle in targeting problem families, appreciating that heavy investment is needed to change the habits of a lifetime. It is an expensive business challenging ingrained distorted vales.

Sadly Chris 'Ratner' Grayling has not learned that lesson. He is fast-tracking more and more children through the courts into the care of the State, which is demonstrably a very bad parent, judged by the number of former children from state care found among the imprisoned, the juvenile mothers, the deadbeat dads, the homeless and the drug-addicted. The children of these groups make the next generation of children needing public care.

Unlike IDS, however, Mr Grayling thinks the answer is cost-cutting and speed of process: he does not understand a key function of the courts in this area.

They used to keep the Social Services hard working and honest by putting their cases under scrutiny. Parents who were well-meaning but incompetent might be diverted for six months' appraisal in a residential unit which kept the children safe, monitored the parenting standards and addressed deficiencies. It gave children and families a real 'last chance' to stay together. The courts oversaw such processes, refusing to sign off Social Services care plans until they were well formulated.

Financial pressures on Social Services led them to stop paying for such assessments, but the courts began approving suitable cases to receive that kind of assessment to be paid for by the Legal Services Commission as part of the necessary preparation of the parental defence. No money was saved - it was a 'budget shift' which enables politicians to complain that lawyers have driven up the costs of Legal Aid. These, and other necessary services such as psychological and psychiatric reports, should have been part of the State's case to justify intervention against families.

'Fast-tracking' will see more children coming into public care: their problems will be less identified and analysed as money is saved at this point. Yet the problems will still exist: these children will be hard to place for adoption and if placed without their underlying emotional psychological issues being addressed, the new placements will break down.

Brother Ivo's purpose in writing of these matters is to highlight that such problems are complex, culturally challenging and in need of more depth of thinking than has been on display in recent years. He has learned that in such matters one can have fast, one can have cheap, one can have thorough. But one can never have all three.

He hopes someone will bring this to Chris Grayling's attention where vulnerable children are concerned. Fast-tracking them into public care where many will have multiple changes of carer (especially if they are of mixed race) and languish without the permanent placement promised to the courts, will simply create the next generation of vulnerable parents and the problems and costs will grow exponentially.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that a society should be judged by the way it treats its children. By this yardstick, ours would be poorly-judged at all levels, and the current cultural bias against children probably explains the disparity of reproductive rates between immigrant and the host community. That is a problem for another time. But it fortifies Brother Ivo's sense that the Prime Minister needs some children's pictures outside his office.

(Posted by Brother Ivo)

78 Comments:

Blogger Bob said...

Brother Ivo's purpose in writing of these matters is to highlight that such problems are complex, culturally challenging and in need of more depth of thinking than has been on display in recent years.

This is correct of course Brother Ivo. And the best way we can respond is by cultivating pure hearts, showing love, and by avoiding conflict and discord for the sake of it. Politicians are as guilty of that as anyone. Assigning blame and scoring points must be a secondary concern to showing these poor innocents true compassion.

10 June 2013 at 08:53  
Blogger John Thomas said...

"Family life is essential to pass on core cultural values" - I bet that truth will cause some deep resentment among the leftish (indeed all) political classes. The State owns children, thus the family has to go!
"a society should be judged by the way it treats its children" - indeed, ours just gets rid of many, before they're even born. Our society thus, is evil.

10 June 2013 at 09:45  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

"For many years Building Societies would only advance a mortgage based upon a multiple of a single wage, usually the husband's ... This was identified as offensive to equality, and the rule was soon changed ... The consequence was obvious to anyone with a semblance of economic literacy. With multiples of two incomes competing for the same number of houses, the prices rocketed, and now we find that new entrants to the market find it immensely difficult to climb onto that housing ladder."

AT LAST. Someone has got to the crux of the problem. As you point out, not only the economic but the social implications of this have been IMMENSE. I've been banging on about this for years. Well done Brother Ivo for bringing it to people's attention.

10 June 2013 at 10:34  
Blogger Bob said...

Again, all of Christianity's perceived troubles are stemming from the fact that it is unable to accept that change is inevitable. (Indeed, it is foolish to even try to resist change). This is why it clings to old dogmas and its believers suffer.

It doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, as long as you have love and compassion - and they can only come from within. Truly, if you have love and compassion then everything else will fall into place, and the issues Christians perceive as troublesome - gay marriage, decline of the Church etc, will be revealed as the illusions they are.

:)

Peace.

10 June 2013 at 10:49  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Excellent post Brother Ivo. Two points leap out at me. Firstly how including both sets of earnings fed into the price spirals for houses. This is the sort of simple but true point that gets squeezed out by political correctness. Having been involved with land supply and building rates all my life it is good to see this one brought out into the clear light of day.
Secondly, "family life is essential to pass on core cultural values". Yes, how true, and and one can see how effective the traditional Jewish system of family life has been with its emphasis on distinct roles for mothers and fathers. As this declines in the west chaos follows.
For how much longer must this madness, this downwards slide continue ?

10 June 2013 at 10:54  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hi Bob

I'm still thinking about your scorpion point. Want to tie it in sometime with other issues.

Re your post above, Nietzsche would have said that without God your belief in love and compassion is itself simply an old dogma: and a contemptible one at that.

Who's right: you or Nietzsche? His solution: whoever wins the war.

(Note: if God does exist, the parameters change).

10 June 2013 at 11:10  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Brother Ivo likes to give credit where it is due (Is that credit 'universal'): Iain Duncan Smith has grasped the welfare dependency nettle in targeting problem families (only? Seriously. Shouldn't statements be qualified rather than this vague.), appreciating that heavy investment is needed to change the habits of a lifetime. It is an expensive business challenging ingrained distorted vales (Hmm. Like attacking the genuinely vulnerable, needy, poor, aged and the disabled with a blunderbuss approach).

Unlike IDS, however, Mr Grayling thinks the answer is cost-cutting and speed of process (Hilarious comparison but you obviously have no knowledge of the welfare dependent classes Ernst has listed above and IDS's very 'measured microscopic analysis' to ensure it is not just for the sake of cost cutting but to eek out the perennial miscreants taking advantage, YES?): he does not understand a key function of the courts in this area (As IDS does not hence the vast number of cases from ATOS assessed interviews and denials of benefit that the courts are having to overrule as 'plainly ridiculous!).

Brother Ivo has quoted Dietrich Bonhoeffer but Ernst prefers these statements by him;

“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”

or

“We must learn to regard people less in the light of what they do or omit to do, and more in the light of what they suffer.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison

or

“grace at a low cost, is in the last resort simply a new law, which brings neither help nor freedom.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

or

“I can no longer condemn or hate a brother for whom I pray, no matter how much trouble he causes me.”

or perhaps

“Things do exist that are worth standing up for without compromise. To me it seems that peace and social justice are such things, as is Christ himself.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

or Ernst's favourite

“Absolute seriousness is never without a dash of humor.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

This Conservative party has decided to deride and divide the nation's perceived 'societies burdens' but lumping all in one category to be dealt with by the precision of a drone strike into a gathering of peoples rather than a forensic scalpel removal, just as the last Labour party did and they have even got certain Christians rejoicing and egging them on to further injustice because self righteous bitterness produces further self righteous bitterness and to do the right thing is just to expensive and time consuming.

Trust that certain Christians realise we will have eternity to contemplate what Bonhoeffer also said..

“If we look more closely, we see that any violent display of power, whether political or religious, produces an outburst of folly in a large part of mankind; indeed, this seems actually to be a psychological and sociological law: the power of some needs the folly of others. It is not that certain human capacities, intellectual capacities for instance, become stunted of destroyed, but rather that the upsurge of power makes such an overwhelming impression that men are deprived of their independent judgment, and...give up trying to assess the new state of affairs for themselves.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison

and

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak.
Not to act is to act.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Blofeld

10 June 2013 at 11:40  
Blogger LEN said...

'All you need is love' as the song goes.How ironic that even the Beatles could not get ' get on' amongst themselves.'Imagine' is purely' pie in the sky 'and eventually reality will hit home however good the intentions are.The hippie' love and peace 'movement disintegrated because the problem lies deep within the heart of man ...man has a sickness deep within him that only God can cure.Man reaches for the stars but his feet remain stuck in the clay from which he was created.Without 'the breath of God' within the creation man cannot rise above this condition.


'Love' is an attribute that can only come from God.Humans can profess love but what happens when those we love betray us?' love' quickly turns to hate.Love from a human point of view is transient and can change radically and rapidly.

We need to look to God to see the reality of what the God kind of love is.Gods Love gives because that is His Nature without expecting' a return'.

John 3:1
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

10 June 2013 at 11:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Len

Well said that christian man!

The best example we have when the world serenely asks us to join their fight is to remember how Our Saviour lived and how He dealt with the problems that He came across and to who He had compassion for as we should. He NEVER rejected the sick, vulnerable poor or disabled which should be 'shouting out' to us.

Never listen to politicians without careful examination of their precise world and meanings else they will let us down.

They are by and large 'Of This World and show it with their machinations'.

Ernst

10 June 2013 at 11:55  
Blogger Bob said...

@Explorer

Hi,

I'm not quite sure in what sense Nietzsche would've meant it as contemptible as it minimises the suffering of others, and in minimising the suffering of others we are minimising the suffering of ourselves. Kindness and compassion help us just as much as others when we practise them - this is what Buddhists mean when they say that it's the giver who should be thankful. (Admittedly, I am not an expert on Nietzsche).

And rather than dogma, the Dalai Lama himself said "Buddhism has to be followed through reason and not taken for granted based on faith". Every aspect of its thought should be rejected if it cannot be demonstrated to be true. This is what makes it unique. Take reincarnation for instance. I don't believe in that, but more importantly it doesn't matter, because it has no bearing on what it means to live a good life.

If God does exist, I don't see how that matters either. I can't accept that a being of pure love would condemn us for believing in doctrine X instead of doctrine Y. It's just not important - it's our deeds that matter. Everybody appreciates kindness and compassion.

:)

Peace.

10 June 2013 at 12:06  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hi Bob

Nietzsche said you should put on kid gloves when reading the New Testament, to avoid contamination. He said that centuries of Christian compassion had produced the European herd animal: sickly and contemptible.

Remember, I'm not endorsing Nietzsche. I'm not endorsing anybody who ended up playing the piano with his elbows after identifying himself as the Antichrist. I'm simply saying he's the most powerful exponent of the idea that everything is a matter of opinion.

In 'Zarathustra' he says that if you gaze too long into the abyss, the abyss will gaze into you. I think that's exactly what happened to him. (In addition to his syphilis). Nietzsche believed in suffering: for himself, and others.

If you don't know it, read Russell's imaginary account in 'A History of Western Philosophy' of a meeting between the Buddha and Nietzsche. It's very entertaining.

Regards.

10 June 2013 at 12:35  
Blogger Bob said...

@Explorer

I have just dug out my old copy and read that passage. It certainly is entertaining! I am reminded of the saying "It is pleasurable to scratch an itch, but more pleasurable still to have no itch".

:)

Peace.

10 June 2013 at 12:50  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Hi Bob

"If God does exist, I don't see how that matters either."

Surely the existence of God, or not, affects every other question in the created, or not, universe?

"I can't accept that a being of pure love would condemn us for believing in doctrine X instead of doctrine Y."

Perhaps doctrine X implies an acceptance of His pure love and doctrine Y a rejection.

"Everybody appreciates kindness and compassion."

No, not everyone and even if they did, you still have to show that "everyone's appreciation" is what should drive our deeds. To what end?

10 June 2013 at 12:58  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hi Bob (12:50)

Quite so. That's like Benjamin the Donkey in 'Animal Farm'. He has a tail to keep away the flies, but would rather not have the flies in the first place.

Scorpion, itch, flies: I'm building these into some future post.

All this, though, has taken us right away from Brother Ivo's topic, so I'm ending my contribution to the diversion right here.

Regards.

10 June 2013 at 13:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

A woman who stays home to raise her children is currently at great risk to economic devastation because divorce laws do not protect her security in her marriage. What otherwise will happen to her should her husband decide she is too old or otherwise deserving of replacement? She must have some marketable skill. To address this problem of raising children you have to begin with the basics of family formation. It's not primarily about money. It's about an increasing adult expectation that children should have minimal impact on how adults choose to live their lives.

carl

10 June 2013 at 13:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Great Christian principles are at stake and it is important that we know what these are, how man try's to ignore for financial purposes these principles that underpin Our God's purposes regarding disability and suffering in his creation for his glory and for our good in developing 'Christian Character'.

What about the worth of children with disabilities. We should feel a direct responsibility for what we believe about such children and to categorically state that they also need our care but if we allow the State to define for us who is worthy and who isn't we become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal..

If children are as important to Christ that He mentions the terrible judgment against those that do wrong to them, how much more those with disabilities?. We miss that they are in both categories and not just the one.

God help us if we cannot see we are being used to change the character of our society by being told to judge the world through secular eyes rather than Christ's.

A few passages should suffice..

Proverbs 31:8:

Open your mouth for the mute,
for the rights of all who are destitute.

Exodus 4:11
Then the Lord said to him, “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?”

and

Leviticus 19:14
You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.

The Lord has stated

I create, intentionally, some who will live with a disability (Exodus 4:11).
I appoint some to protect those who are vulnerable because of their disability (Proverbs 31:8).
I remind you that what a blind person cannot see or a deaf person cannot hear, I will both see and hear. If you are tempted to abuse someone with a disability and ignore them as a burden on us, fear the one who will repay all wrongs done to them (Leviticus 19:14, Deuteronomy 32:35, Hebrews 10:30-31).

Psalm 78:5-8 He established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers to teach to their children, that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children, so that they should set their hope in God and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments; and that they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God.

We ignore 'The Works Of Our God' and the importance of speaking and acting in accordance with His Will and not the worlds at our peril!

Blofeld

10 June 2013 at 13:31  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Brother IVO

We have our differences in the past but I agree totally

Interesting statistic. Children of two parent families where the dad worked and the mum stayed at home were considered until recently to be around 20 times more likely to grow into functioning adults. (Functioning adults on a range of criteria from school, grades to crime, illness, rates of depression and suicide etc)

It is now know to be a huge underestimate. the true ratio seems to be in the order of 300 to 400 times (some studies have put it at 1000 times or more) more likely to grow to be functioning adults than those that grow up in care or in no functioning single parent families, especially those with no biological father at home.

Phil

10 June 2013 at 14:13  
Blogger Bob said...

@ William Lewis

It's a question without an answer, just like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" Thus no amount of speculation or discussion will bring us any closer to resolving it. This is what I mean when I say it doesn't matter.

To address your second point - I disagree. To accept God's pure love, assuming he exists, is to act with love towards others and consequently towards oneself. It does not depend on the acceptance of a particular doctrine.

Furthermore, assuming you are correct for a moment, a God of pure love would never "condemn" for not accepting him. Love is patient, love is kind... God would not create us flawed and then punish us for being flawed.

Thirdly, of course people appreciate it. Sometimes their pride and ego prevent them at the time, but upon reflection... One candle can light a thousand candles - love never diminishes by being shared. Consider the following:

When Bankei held his seclusion-weeks of meditation, pupils from many parts of Japan came to attend. During one of these gatherings a pupil was caught stealing. The matter was reported to Bankei with the request that the culprit be expelled. Bankei ignored the case.

Later the pupil was caught in a similar act, and again Bankei disregarded the matter. This angered the other pupils, who drew up a petition asking for the dismissal of the thief, stating that otherwise they would leave in a body.

When Bankei had read the petition he called everyone before him. “You are wise brothers,” he told them. “You know what is right and what is not right. You may go somewhere else to study if you wish, but this poor brother does not even know right from wrong. Who will teach him if I do not? I am going to keep him here even if all the rest of you leave.”

A torrent of tears cleansed the face of the brother who had stolen. All desire to steal had vanished.


Since we have gone off-topic I shall follow Explorer's lead and also end the diversion here.

:)

Peace.

10 June 2013 at 14:13  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Bob : "a God of pure love would never "condemn" for not accepting him."

God is not only loving but just.

A Just judge must punish even those he loves. However, if there were someone who were willing to take the punishment for us then both love & justice would be satisfied.

But who could possibly take the just punishment for the crimes of the entire world? Hmmmm ... if only there was someone willing to do that!

10 June 2013 at 15:46  
Blogger IanCad said...

Another superb post Brother Ivo. Of course, that's because I agree with it.

The feminist movement has done more to wreck the lives of children and women than any other group I know of.

God created women to be wives and mothers. He gave them a nature that fits them well for raising a family and teaching the young how to behave. In conjunction with the father's role as the head of the household this is the perfect plan. It was not intended that the mother should be absent from her family unless necessity called.

The sorry results of departing from the natural order is seen in the tragedies of fatherless children, working mothers and miserable career women who are now too old to bear.

Most of these ills can be laid at the feet of our wretched government policy. Primarily a bloated educational system that seems intent on creating more chiefs than indians.

The entire educational system must be revised.

Let's start by cutting its budget by at least a third and provide more financial support to those stuggling to raise children; whether parents or foster carers.

10 June 2013 at 15:59  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The Lord has stated
I create, intentionally, some who will live with a disability (Exodus 4:11).


So he admits he does this to CHILDREN deliberately? - child abuse never looks looks good in court. What a nasty piece of work.

10 June 2013 at 16:00  
Blogger Jon said...

Brother Ivo, I have a couple of quibbles with your piece.

First, matching is conducted in public to a certain extent in England and Wales. There are two magazines (Children Who Wait, and Be My Parent) in which social services can advertise (for want of a better word) kids in their care, especially focussing on harder to place cases (such as sibling groups, older children or children with particularly challenging backgrounds).

Whilst you can't buy the magazines in WHSmith, anyone who has expressed a serious interest in fostering and adoption has access to them.

I challenge anyone to read either and not be moved to tears by some of the stories - so from my perspective, having pictures of these kids in a legislators office is a great way of keeping them honest.

Secondly, consideration of second incomes wasn't the only driver behind House Price increases, arguably lower interest rates were more significant. Interest rates are massively influential on house price trends. Lower interest rates encouraged higher acceptable loan to value (because employment stress tests results are better with lower interest payments) which encouraged rising prices, which encouraged more relaxed LTV calculations as expectation set in of ever rising prices etc. etc.

The generation in their 50s and 60s now have been living off their children's futures. If the government is looking for a tax which would reduce perverse societal incentives, they could do worse than the equity in baby boomers' houses.

10 June 2013 at 16:12  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Blofeld/Dreadnaught:

Dreadnaught has put his finger on something that's been troubling me.

There isn't an instance, that I'm aware of, of Christ - while on Earth - refusing to heal. He doesn't say, "Your condition is blessed; live with it." He is indignant with suffering, and weeps at death.

On the other hand, there is the instance of the unhealed thorn in Paul's flesh.

I have my own tentative thoughts on this disparity, but I would welcome the opinion of others.

Sorry, Brother Ivo, if we're veering off topic again, but this seems a really important point that both contributors have raised.

10 June 2013 at 16:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Explorer

"Dreadnaught has put his finger on something that's been troubling me."
Dreadnaught is causing mischief as he has taken the saying out of context and espevcially to who it was stated to..Moses who had a specific disability!

10 And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.

The Lord does not kill in the womb others who by earth's measure are weak, no use except needing constant care or just plain imperfect (as evolution would have us view them) and in need of removal but He is Our Creator but also OUR HELPER!

“I have made mouths and I have made yours Moses! Go, whatever your problems, I will help you speak.” (Ex 4:11-12, Ernst doing a bit of paraphrasing)
Exodus 4:11-12 is a response to him and the bigger picture for us all.

Of course Dreadnaught does not see these impediments, whether born of this earth caused by Sin through Adam and Eve and then a part of our DNA pool but by evolutionary genetic mutations and that the suffering of humanity who have had these suffering disabilities by tragic accidents or other means such as Thalidomides due to mans need for unethical behaviour with their morning sickness pill, but are all God's fault and His uncaring concern for His creation.

Reality is that the world is the way it is and hoping that the world should be something else is like having a desire to change gravity. Gravity is gravity...Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could turn it off temporarily whilst falling down then switch it back on. Would save a multitude of lives over the thousands of years but we live here and not in an imaginary world that would need to be so different we would not recognise this. Feeling pain physically, should we only remove this? How would we know if we have hurt ourselves or been hurt by something else such as a scorpion or snakes or spiders, leading to poisoning, limbs going rotten and needing amputation etc.

It all depends on your explanation of why the world is like it is and if this will continue ad infinitum or is something 'PERFECT' coming to replace this world of sadness and woes.

Disability is only for a season just as death is, there is no disability in heaven nor will death have any power over those who love God and trust in Him when all things are reconciled in Him!

Blofeld

10 June 2013 at 17:32  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Blowers

'...he has taken the saying out of context...

And you think I wasn't expecting that old chestnut? I'm surprised it took even so long to appear. This is hardly just a 'saying'; according to you good-self, its the actual text quoted in the OT. The subject is even further compounded in what you offer here, and is no doubt repeated in various re-hashes over and over throughout the Bible.

Now come on now MrB, my post is totally contextual to the OP.

Make all the excuses you like about biblical context, contextual interpretation etc etc - but after yesterdays debate (at least that part that centered on Creationism), it looks to me that religions have to have this 'catch al'l excuse, as a get out of jail free card. It's not just Christianity that's guilty of this double-think - Islam, (as I said I know JS about the Torah) is also founded on the same principle that bull-shit baffles brains and there are plenty of jobs for the boys for those prepared to bang the drum.

Look at the crap above from IanCad; the poor man is totally befuddled, judging by his personal assessment of the 'role' of women in society - he's in the same league with his logic as the followers of Mohammad the Blagger in this one.

'The Religious'seemingly, cant even agree amongst themselves on what to believe - and it's not surprising when their Texts are deliberately constructed to deliver 'mis-interptretation' and endless 'wriggle room.'

Why not ditch all this nonsense if the clear meaning is so impossible to be understood. Or if the message is so unclear now as to be able to deliver the exact opposite of what is intended - dump it. It will undoubtedly save lives.

I can, can you, imagine how a reference book on any scientific subject would be received or tolerated, if it was written and compiled in the way of 'holy books'.

Society may even have written some dodgy science or dodgy legislation lately, but at least that can be repealed or redirected.

10 June 2013 at 18:35  
Blogger Steropes said...

As someone else has said 'At last someone has pointed out that we have the highest prices of houses in the world compared with earnings largely caused by two peoples' salaries being counted by the building societies.' I have been trying, with total lack of success to find out if other countries do the same thing. Does Brother Ivo or anyone else know. It's non PC and critical of the sisterhood to even think about it. Of course children become a nuisance if they remove a wage earner and that's where the trouble starts -- which the building societies knew would happen before they were pressured in to make the change (in the seventies I think)

10 June 2013 at 18:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ivo. One understands the housing crisis is now so bad in areas of the country that a young couple should aim to have a couple of children in what cramped accommodation they have, then present themselves to social services. In other words, do what our valued immigrants do. Then, on being allocated cramped social housing, make an application to emigrate. Australia or New Zealand. Get well away from the former children from state care found among the imprisoned, the juvenile mothers, the deadbeat dads, the homeless and the drug-addicted who will no doubt be living very close to you, and will most likely interact with you and your children’s lives negatively in the years to come.

That’s the Inspector’s considered opinion if you’re English and love children. Go to a country where that combination is valued. It certainly isn’t in England !





10 June 2013 at 18:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Greetings Bob

Just to let you know that the Inspector has warmed considerably to Buddhism since their people gave the muslims a bloody good hiding in the far east.

Every man born of woman has his tolerance limit. One is gratified to know this applies even to Buddhists !

Pip Pip !


10 June 2013 at 18:57  
Blogger LEN said...

I suspect 'dreadnought' knows full well what he is doing and why he attempts to present God(who I thought he didn`t believe in?)as a tyrant. Dawkin`s does the same.
It should be understood(as Dreadnaught probably knows) that pre- Christ God`s Judgements were harsh and they had to be to restrain sin.If God`s Law was not strict the human race would have destroyed itself before a Savior could could come to redeem humanity.
God could not condone sin before the Cross of Calvary and He judged sin in Righteousness.Sin was restrained.
(By the way Dreadnaught you have 'cherry picked' the sentences you used)
All Gods Judgement fell on Jesus Christ so God does not Judge anyone anymore..We judge ourselves by the way we respond to Jesus Christ without Christ ALL our actions thoughts and motives WILL be judged by a Righteous and a Holy God.Which is perhaps something to contemplate?.
God created man perfect it is when man decided to become his own 'god' that sin entered the World.
Is God responsible for sin sickness and disease and disabilities as dreadnought states.?
Only in the respect that God created man and God is responsible for His Creation ,but we are responsible for the fall and for all the human misery that ensued from that tragic act.
But it was God Himself who took all that sin misery and affliction upon Himself and opened the pathway to salvation for all who would accept him.

Jesus Christ healed ALL the sick who came to Him, raised the dead,and proved without a shadow of doubt that He was the Messiah...but people didn`t believe Him then and no one can 'say' Jesus Christ is the messiah' without God drawing Him to Christ.
IF we desire Truth above all else then God will show is the Truth which is a person the Lord Jesus Christ.

10 June 2013 at 19:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Len. God created man perfect...

No he didn’t. He created man with an average IQ of 100. If he was aiming for perfection, he could have tried the 120s. But he didn’t, did he ?

So all this sin in the world. You don’t think that God is partially to blame by any chance, do you ?

You pays your money and you take your chances on what you’ve got. No point sending yourself or anyone else on a guilt trip over it...





10 June 2013 at 19:20  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Dreadnaught (18:35)

I remember back in the 80s watching a TV programme about whether porn encouraged violence towards women. One expert with a Phd said it didn't. Another expert with a Phd said it did.

I remember listening to a radio programme about the causes of pollution in the North Sea. Five scientists consulted: five different explanations.

And look at how different economic experts differ about the economy.

Disagreement though, in some circumstances, is not necessarily a bad thing.

a) It may keep important topics alive in people's minds.

b) It may mean the topic is complex.

I still maintain you raised an important point, and were quite right to do so.

10 June 2013 at 19:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

OIG

"That’s the Inspector’s considered opinion if you’re English and love children. Go to a country where that combination is valued. It certainly isn’t in England !"

Indeed that chap.

Ivo touches briefly on the problem with children in UK "By this yardstick, ours would be poorly-judged at all levels, and the current cultural bias against children probably explains the disparity of reproductive rates between immigrant and the host community. That is a problem for another time."

The problem is that in the countries that immigrants come from they have large families due to high mortality rates, no education, the many children will help on the farm, no contraception, no education, women have the purpose of bringing up children and trying to keep their death rate as low as possible. Many of the Developing countries that immigrate here are Hindu or Arab so large families encouraged. In Tribal African communities large families give status and sign of blessing. The problems that they may have met in their home countries regarding large families no longer apply, re NHS care, better nutrition etc but who is going to take the 'have smaller families' argument to the immigrants. Not these god awful politicians...A time bomb waiting to explode! How dare we ask questions..Are you getting this PRISM? * Chortles*

The problem is that very large families are a burden with regards to the limited resources here in the UK and the idea to go towards large families to counterbalance the immigrant birth rate is the height of madness.

We need stricter controls but how?

Blowers

10 June 2013 at 19:22  
Blogger David Wilson said...

If I remember correctly, back in the 70s when Building Societies were the dominant source of mortgages, typically you could borrow 3 times your salary. If two incomes were considered, it certainly was not 3 times joint income, but perhaps twice joint income, or at most 3 times one and one times the other. I doubt if that had much effect on house prices. There was a small bump in prices under labour in the late 70s, but nothing like the huge bump in prices starting in the middle 80's. What caused that? I would suggest two causes. Firstly, the entry of banks into the mortgage business. The resulting competition to lend resulted in making it easier to get a mortgage. The second was probably the effect of "right to buy".

More recently, I suspect that the high house price inflation which starting in the mid 90s at least partly resulted from the bonus culture in the City. When people are able to buy a house without a mortgage using one year's bonus - that is highly distorting. The excessive difference between house prices in London and the SE compared with the rest of the country remains.

I suspect that where husband and wife both work, in very many cases this because they both have to work in order to be able to afford to have a roof over their head. And, the destruction of British manufacturing and heavy industry in the 80s and 90s means than very often the wife has to be the breadwinner.

I do agree that the pressure on couples both to be in employment is detrimental to family life. However, to lay this solely at the door of the alleged pressure for equality in considering both incomes does not really fit the facts.

The answer to the problem is a good house price crash, to bring the average price back down to its long term average of three times average earnings. But few home-owners would like that, and no government would risk that as policy. Indeed the present government has encouraged lending to buyers, which is having the effect of keeping house prices high (and the lending is not going to businesses where it is really needed, but that is another story).

10 June 2013 at 19:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Indeed Blowers. At it’s most basic, the number of children you have in the poorer parts of the world dictate how well you eat when you are old. And we expect immigrants to ignore their inherent makeup and go on to 2.4 children on landing in the UK - Multicultural nonsense, what !

10 June 2013 at 19:32  
Blogger David Wilson said...

(If I might be allowed a double post)

"...the current cultural bias against children probably explains the disparity of reproductive rates between immigrant and the host community."

About 20 years ago I knew someone whose sociological research was into the low fecundity, particularly in Italy, which had the lowest in the world at the time - 1.3 children per adult woman. Italians can hardly be said to have a cultural bias against children. Indeed, they dote on them and this was proposed as precisely the reason for the low birth rate. A child in the modern world is expensive. So, if you want to give your children the best you can, you can only afford one, or perhaps two. Valuing one's own children highly can, curiously, lead to fewer children.

10 June 2013 at 19:35  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

LEN

...attempts to present God(who I thought he didn`t believe in?)

Ouch Len - Your right of course, I don't believe; but in order to debate God, He has to be accepted as legit if only in the mind of the opposition. I even defer to capitalise the word so as to be at least respectful of the Blog Host and his readers.

pre- Christ God`s Judgements were harsh

But if JC is Father Son and Holy Spirit would it not be better to stop Christians proffering those harsh OT texts and seriously consider ditching them as being of the time but past their sell-by date?


(By the way Dreadnaught you have 'cherry picked' the sentences you used)

Not me Len - old Blowers choices they were - are they not?

10 June 2013 at 19:37  
Blogger John Redlantern said...

Fathers that "below instructions from the sidelines" are few and far between in my experience.

10 June 2013 at 19:40  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

David

"I do agree that the pressure on couples both to be in employment is detrimental to family life"

No the tax (and benefit) system is detrimental to family life

My family would be tens of thousands of pounds better off if we lived in the UK and were not married.

Lucky for me it does not make a huge different. But if I lived in the UK on one wage I would be really annoyed at the financial and other pressure the Gov would put us under to split up.

It has been stated that some familes could be 30K or more better off overall if they split up and the dad became the boyfriend that stays over instead of the married father supporting the family with only one income.

Phil




10 June 2013 at 20:00  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

dreadnaught

"Christians proffering those harsh OT texts and seriously consider ditching them as being of the time but past their sell-by date"

Which texts would you ditch when you pubish the "nice bible"?

Phil

10 June 2013 at 20:03  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Phil

Nah - its your religion.

10 June 2013 at 22:00  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Liberals have tinkered with institutions that have worked for millennia - to the detriment of children and society as a whole.

Nature has a way of taking its revenge when natural laws are ignored or broken.

A simple look at the state of the nation confirms that.

10 June 2013 at 22:26  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother Jon,

I agree there are publications in the UK but I wonder if the " under the counter" approach prioritises " children's rights" a little too much. Plainly the children bear no responsibility for their predicament, so I wonder if bringing them out of the shadows might not be considered. I am deliberately provoking a rethink of how we do things. The upbeat presentation of such children with their positive qualities has something to commend it.

We do not encounter their stories unless we have already considered adoption or fostering, that is a weak link in the chain.

10 June 2013 at 22:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dreaders

You know perfectly well that there are no definitive answers regarding this fallen world of evil and suffering (to Christians) or an acceptable explanation how this joyous world of violence, slaughter and pain (to evolutionists) has any meaning to define human beings morally and emotionally and their sentience/qualia.
For Christians it is possible that God has reasons for permitting evil to exist that we simply cannot comprehend.

1.evil's existence is a mystery we cannot fathom and all have had evil thoughts if not accomplished deeds however small such as dropping another in the smelly at work for gain etc or just simply because we can.
2.God may be allowing evil to run its course in order to prove that evil is malignant and that suffering, which is the horrible by-product of evil, is further proof that anything contrary to God’s will is bad, harmful, painful, and leads to death.
3.The reason could be that God is permitting evil to occur so that on the day of judgment, the condemned will have no right to say that their sentence is totally unjust.
God is not stopping people from exercising their free will.
4. It is also quite possible that God uses suffering to accomplish good. Plainly stated, He produces patience through tribulation.
In this the Christian can have confidence in God knowing that His ways are above our ways.

For the atheist there is no evil (we have yet to hear from Dreaders what his ‘moral landscape’ is?)

That paragon of kindness and goodness, the charming atheist Richard Dawkins has made the following comment on the reality of good and evil...“Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference” River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life.

We all seem to know what Deaders is against but the mystery is..What exactly is he for and why?

William Provine, said: “When Darwin deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, he knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life” as quoted in Gingerich, Owen (1994), “Dare A Scientist Believe in Design?,”

We have even had a natuaralist scientist advocating the destruction of 90% of humanity by airborne ebola as reported by a fellow scientist at the Lamar university of science in 2006 to a standing ovation from fellow evolutionary scientist. see here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608026/posts

What dreaders will find hard is it’s tough to argue against the reality that love is better than hate or desire in a world where murder is a virtue and gratitude a vice if you are an atheist.
The real problem is not what is evil and suffering but what is Good and lovingkindness and why should it matter, for which the atheist has no valid answer!

For the Christian, suffering is the result of human sin. This world is not the way that God created it and because of that, all are vulnerable to the effects of sin in the world either in the womb or whilst on this earth. Why does one person suffer and another does not? Why do catastrophes happen to some and not to others? It is because sin is in the world. But there will come a day when the Lord will return and cleanse this world of all sin and all suffering.

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away," (Rev. 21:4).

10 June 2013 at 22:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Blowers. Just a thought from the Inspector. God cannot be hurt by sin. It is the sinner who is hurt and those around him. No sin, then happiness. What do you think of that !



10 June 2013 at 23:23  
Blogger Peter D said...

Ernsty

A remarkably clear statement from you concerning the mystery of evil.

I was always raised to believe that because of the Fall man can now achieve a higher state than would have been possible had Adam resisted temptation. Without the Fall man could not be united as a brother in Christ and become one with God. A different future would have unfolded for man.

As Saint Augustine wrote: “For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist.” As the Exsultet puts it: "O happy fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer."

Thomas Aquinas explained how the principle underlies the causal relation between original sin and the Divine Redeemer's Incarnation, thus concluding that a higher state is not inhibited by sin. Saint Ambrose also wrote of the fortunate ruin of Adam in the Garden of Eden in that his sin brought more good to humanity than if he had stayed perfectly innocent.

What a Magnificent God we have!

11 June 2013 at 00:11  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Blowers

We all seem to know what Deaders is against but the mystery is..What exactly is he for and why?

Do 'you' indeed? - You have chosen to elect yourself as some kind of spokesperson to try avoid dealing with my comments on your own - I genuinely thought you had more about you than simply to defer to such a cowardly resort.

You seem to be asking the 'crowd' to bail you out by inviting them to join you in some kind of diversionary ad hominem hue and cry - how unworthy of you.

Why don't you simply continue to address me directly and specifically on whatever it is about me that mystifies you.

You posted those texts as they stand - I didn't even know they existed. And now you have posted nothing less than a textual smoke screen bringing in Darwin again. What has this to do with Bro Ivo's original subject matter.

I have just watched the most stomach churning but illuminating TV programme on BBC4, about world wide child abuse committed by RC priests and the deliberate cover-up ordered by Ratzinger and the Vatican mafia.

As was said earlier - a society should be judged by how it treats its children - as far as I am concerned the same goes for the Roman Catholic church hierarchy. What a wholly discredited lot they are: yet the faithful still blindly venerate them while ignoring the suffering of their victims.

11 June 2013 at 00:23  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dreaders

You keep tarring we Christians with the muslims in outlook and book but the reason the Koran gives for fighting or killing “infidels” under Allah's will (unbelievers, non-Muslims) is that they refuse to convert to Islam.

The reason Levitical law called for the death penalty, was for God’s punishment for sin (“The wages of sin is death” — Romans 6:3), not for refusing to be Jewish or Christian.

Another error you keep making is is judging Old Testament laws (written more than 3,000 years ago) through the filter of 21st century secular sensibilities. You cannot look at Levitical crimes and punishment the same way we would look at the British system of jurisprudence. They are different systems of different times and of different origins — one human, one divine.
The moral laws of the OT are universal and permanent in nature reflecting God’s unchanging moral character and ALWAYS applicable.

The ‘civil’ (or judicial law) you complain about are those Old Testament laws that governed Israel as a 'nation' state. Biblical Israel was a theocracy. It wasn’t some kind of secular republic such as America. It may be that the foundation of American morals are Biblical, but your legal system is secular, and has increasingly moved away from Biblical values as we have here..

Strict laws and harsh punishments were intended to preserve Israel as God’s own pure and holy people. Leviticus 20:14 gives the reason for the death penalty in cases of sexual immorality as, “so that no wickedness will be among you.”

These laws included Israel’s stewardship of the land, property laws, family laws, and the punishment for idolatry. While the moral principles contained in these laws continue to be relevant, the detailed application of these laws is no longer applicable.
The reason Israel’s ‘civil law’ no longer applies to us directly is that we no longer live under a nation state under God. The gospel has now been preached to all nations. Jews and Gentiles have now been brought together as ‘one new man’ in Christ (Ephesians 2:11-12).

Blofeld

11 June 2013 at 00:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

ps

You insult us by wrongly putting sharia law on an equal footing with Mosaic Law. They are distinct and the only commonality is the word 'Law'.

Regarding slavery, Exodus 21:16 says

He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."

Deuteronomy 24:7

"If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you."

In other words, slavery was not the same thing as the kind we saw in 19th century America where people went to Africa, kidnapped people and brought them home to sell them to the highest bidder.

Such would be a capital crime in the OT, according to these passages. Instead, persons who were slaves were either paying off a debt, or persons who attacked Israel and captured in battle.

Dreaders, You may have some problems with this but it is not the type of slavery we usually think of today or you accuse the OT of endorsing.

33:50 - "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty."

This verse clearly shows that Muslims believe that taking slaves in war was a God-given right. These slaves were considered 'booty' or the spoils of war. As the saying goes: to the victors go the spoils.

There are hundreds of Hadith that deal with slavery.
Whole chapters of Hadith are dedicated to dealing with the taxation, treatment, sale, and jurisprudence of slaves. In addition to this, numerous Hadith mention slaves, and their relation to their Muslim masters. Here is a selection of Hadith on slaves:

Vol. 7-#137 Narrated Abu al-Khudri: "We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's messenger about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.""

Here, Muslims had taken female slaves, and had sex with them. Muhammad approved of this. He only admonished them not to practice coitus interruptus.

11 June 2013 at 00:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

We all seem to know what Deaders is against but the mystery is..What exactly is he for and why?

Do 'you' indeed? *It would be delightful to understand your 'moral landscape, fancy giving us some crumbles, young man?) - You have chosen to elect yourself as some kind of spokesperson to try avoid dealing with my comments on your own (What might these 'comments specifically be..Ernst never shies away from answering questions but psychic abilities is not one of my gifts from the spirit)- I genuinely thought you had more about you than simply to defer to such a cowardly resort (Are you giving old Ernsty a white feather?).

You seem to be asking the 'crowd' to bail you out by inviting them to join you in some kind of diversionary ad hominem hue and cry - how unworthy of you.

Why don't you simply continue to address me directly and specifically on whatever it is about me that mystifies you.

You posted those texts as they stand - I didn't even know they existed *Dear fellow, you accuse GFod of many things yet appear to not know what specifically it is about Him that offends you as defined...The common charge against Dawkins by fellow atheists is that he knows about evolution but nothing specific about the God and book he challenges continually hence he slurs rather than informs?) And now you have posted nothing less than a textual smoke screen bringing in Darwin again. What has this to do with Bro Ivo's original subject matter. (It started that Brother Ivo welcomed the intervention of IDS yet criticised Grayling ...

"Brother Ivo likes to give credit where it is due: Iain Duncan Smith has grasped the welfare dependency nettle in targeting problem families, appreciating that heavy investment is needed to change the habits of a lifetime. It is an expensive business challenging ingrained distorted vales.

Sadly Chris 'Ratner' Grayling has not learned that lesson." and "Unlike IDS, however, Mr Grayling thinks the answer is cost-cutting and speed of process: he does not understand a key function of the courts in this area." I stated this was a false assertion!!!


I have just watched the most stomach churning but illuminating TV programme on BBC4, about world wide child abuse committed by RC priests and the deliberate cover-up ordered by Ratzinger and the Vatican mafia.

As was said earlier - a society should be judged by how it treats its children - (As far as I am aware Bonhoeffer actually said '“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”)
as far as I am concerned the same goes for the Roman Catholic church hierarchy. What a wholly discredited lot they are: yet the faithful still blindly venerate them while ignoring the suffering of their victims.*(This may shock you old sport but Blowers is NOT RC and would never condone such behaviour!!)

Blowers

11 June 2013 at 00:56  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

When Christian Churches are so happy to accommodate or tippy-toe around Islam or that Prince Charles wants to be known as defender of faithS and the Muslims (when it suits the purpose) accept Jesus as prophet of the same God as the Xtians and the Jews -its not me who is drawing parallels of direction or dipping the tar-brush.

It beats me why you hang on to the OT at all, with its creationist claims and violent content that you must find embarrassing to defend.

Any way I'm out for tonight. Thanks for your response. Good night.

11 June 2013 at 00:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

OIG

"Blowers. Just a thought from the Inspector. God cannot be hurt by sin. It is the sinner who is hurt and those around him (More importantly is that we can grieve God and we did hurt the Father as His Son was required to be nailed to wood for our SINS nearly 2000 years ago.). No sin, then happiness. What do you think of that !" (Can we ever entertain 'happy' , or even mild thoughts of our sin, when we see the painful sufferings which sin, not His but ours, brought on the Lord Jesus so that He exclaimed in Mark 14;' 34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. 35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.' ? You haven't thought it through, old boy)

Blowers

11 June 2013 at 01:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dreaders

"It beats me why you hang on to the OT at all ( It is the Word of God and not to be ignored or discredited because hard saying or tough things are said about it. Jesus is Jehovah who spoke to Moses but come in the flesh in the New Testament), with its creationist claims (I am not ashamed to be a creationist) and violent content that you must find embarrassing to defend (It was an embryonic nation called to be holy (Do we even comprehend what holy means) by nations around them that were so wicked the word a byword for wickedness and violence and cowardice.
"“After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, ‘The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.’ No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you” (Deuteronomy 9:4). God was not about to rid the land of wicked people, only to have them replaced by more wicked people, was He.)

Any way I'm out for tonight. Thanks for your response. Good night." Me too. Nighty night chaps.

Ernst

11 June 2013 at 01:20  
Blogger Dorset Rambler said...

Extra Sensory Blofield

"I have just watched the most stomach churning but illuminating TV programme on BBC4, about world wide child abuse committed by RC priests...yet the faithful still blindly venerate them while ignoring the suffering of their victims."

What makes you think we faithful do?

Some years ago some fellow parishioners and I became aware of the proclivities of a previous PP. It was a distressing time, to put it mildly, as we cast about hoping what we were doing was for the best.

We were shocked, distressed and felt out of our depth because we didn't know then what we know now. The whole horrible business certainly tried our faith.

So, please don't lump us all together.

I note that the BBC's hands are not wholly clean either, nor the C of E.

11 June 2013 at 05:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught, it seems, doesn't think too highly of God. Well, of course, he also denies that God exists, so his criticism is somewhat confused. Is he attacking the (non-existent) character of a (non-existent) God or the character of those who believe? I suspect he must be claiming the later. If so, he must launch his attack from within the context of Christian Theology. If he wants to claim that I believe in an evil and malicious God, then he must demonstrate that claim by first assuming the truth of the Christian world view. He must adopt our position and show that it inevitably leads to his conclusion. Otherwise, I am going to respond to his claim with the very first reaction I experienced.

Who the hell is Dreadnaught? Is he an authority? No. Does he have an arm like God? No. Does he separate good from evil? No. Does he cover the wicked with judgment? No. Did he set the universe on its foundation? No. He is a mist of vapor that is here today and gone tomorrow. Who then is He to sit in judgment upon God? Any man can shake his fist at heaven and accuse. He isn't the first. He won't be the last. But by what authority would he do so? There is no objective moral standard in Dreadnaught's world. He has no power to establish such a standard by force of will. Upon what may he stand to justify his condemnation? Himself?

You see, God is not a man. He does not think like a man. He does act like a man. He is not bound like a man. There is no law above Him. His nature defines the law. He cannot murder for he is always righteous in his judgments. He cannot steal for he owns everything. He cannot lie for He is the Truth. He cannot do evil because he is good. He is the sovereign God who decrees the end from the beginning. He is the sovereign Creator in whom there is no darkness. The fact that Dreadnaught sees darkness is not a reflection of God but rather on Dreadnaught's limited vision. He does not know what he does not see. Instead he presumes to judge from blindness and ignorance and rebellion.

In John 9, the disciples encounter a man born blind from birth. The disciples were confused. They thought of disability as punishment for sin, and so they asked "Who sinned? This man or his parents?" And Jesus said "Neither this man nor his parents, but that the glory of God might be displayed in him." And then Jesus open his eyes - both physically and spiritually. Yes, the man was born blind by deliberate divine intent. He lived a miserable wretched life specifically so that Jesus could heal the man and display the glory of God. For how could Jesus heal a man born blind unless there was a man born blind to begin with? This after all is the whole purpose of man - to display the glory of God. Creation isn't about us. It's about Him.

Thus was Goliath raised up as a great warrior - so that the boy David could kill him and display the glory of God. Thus was Pharaoh raised up - so that God might display His glory through the judgment of Egypt. Thus did Sennacherib's Army sweep across Israel and kill many until only Jerusalem remained - so that God could display his glory in Sennacherib's destruction. Everything that happens has a purpose, and ultimately that purpose is to display God's glory. That fact that men cannot comprehend that purpose does not change that very basic fact. Our blindness is not evidence. We may not see it, but it is surely there.

(cont)

11 June 2013 at 05:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

So what about Canaan? Didn't God decree genocide? Didn't He order the killing of infants? How can we look upon this violent malignant God and not be repulsed? Well, we go back to our first principles and remember that God is not a man. He cannot murder. He has the absolute right to execute judgment at any time. And His judgments are just. Wait. He can judge an infant? Yes, he can. And if He does so His judgment is just. There are no innocent men on this Earth. We are all guilty from the moment of our conception. That guilt and rebellion is inherent in our nature. It is only his grace and mercy that prevents Him from immediately executing judgment on all of us at this very moment. If he should do so the angels would declare His Holiness and Justice, and rightfully so. I am not embarrassed by the destruction of Canaan. I freely proclaim it. It is a picture of judgment that men would be wise to heed.

The "God is evil" argument is dependent upon an anthropomorphization that subjects God to the laws of men. It presume to judge without knowledge - without understanding how creatures play out prescribed roles in fulfilling the decrees of God to achieve the ends He desires. It presumes that God is primarily interested in creating heaven on earth in the here and now. But that comes in the next life. God is not a bread king interested in making men happy. He is a just and holy God who is interested in conforming those He has called to the image of His Son. He is the God who sold Joseph into slavery so that many might be saved. The brothers sold him out of jealousy. The slavers marketed him for avarice. Men intended it for evil, but God intended it for good. Not good for everyone. Good for the brothers even though they did evil. Not good for Pharaoh and Egypt who also did evil. And all of this for the Glory of God.

At the root of this claim is a profound misunderstanding of the nature of man. It does not recognize the evil nature of man. It does not recognize the profound guilt of man. It presumes instead that God owes us something - that He is in some sense obligated. He owes us nothing save perhaps judgment for our evil behavior. If God was only just we would all be in Hell facing His eternal wrath. And still man shakes his fist and says "I put in my ATM card, and you didn't give me any money. You didn't give me the comfort and happiness that I deserve. You are evil." men do not recognize what they truly deserve from God. The blind lead the blind and both fall in the ditch.

carl

11 June 2013 at 06:28  
Blogger LEN said...

A masterly summing up Carl.God is loving and merciful but He is also Righteous and cannot condone sin.

It seems difficult for man to reconcile these two attributes of God but until we can do that we will misunderstand God and either see Him as a 'soft touch' or 'a tyrant.'

God sees those who have identified with Jesus Christ on the Cross at Calvary as having been judged for their sins and having passed from death to life but those who refuse Christ as being held accountable for their sin.
This is the mercy of God that He (who was without sin) stood in our place and took our sin upon Himself on the Cross at Calvary.
God who was not responsible for the Fall of man provided a means for redemption for all those who would accept it.

11 June 2013 at 08:11  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

When my son was born, I made a deliberate decision not to put him in a state-sponsored orphanage (sorry, "professional childcare") so that I could go back to full time work. I worked and still do work, part time, three to four nights a week. This meant I was at home for him in the holidays, I was there to take him to school in the morning, I saw his first smile, his first steps, heard his first word. Now he's seven, his requirements from "Mummy" get progressively more complicated, and I'm very grateful that my mother also lives with us now and can manage some of it, and that my husband does take over in the late afternoons!

So here we are, a household of three generations with child rearing considered a job for three of us that we just about keep up with. That's the dynamic I grew up in as well.

What I find unutterably sad is the people who seem surprised by it - surprised that my mother lives with us and that she and my husband actually get on well, surprised that I didn't go back to full time work and actually wanted to be a mother. I nearly decked the well meaning Veterinary Medicines Inspectorate official who came to check my paperwork at work (yes, I'm a veterinary surgeon) and on hearing I was only working three nights a week, enquired "So what on earth do you do with the rest of your time?" I gave him a sickly smile and muttered something neutral so he wouldn't consider me uncooperative and find half a dozen paperwork errors he hadn't noticed the first time...

Motherhood and fatherhood (and grandparenthood) are grossly undervalued in this country, and a whole generation are paying the price for it. As will their children in turn.

11 June 2013 at 08:26  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Well put Carl, an excellent concise essay. It's because, in their arrogance, they assume that they, as mere mortal individuals can "understand" the mysteries, they rile at the God of Creation, angry at him. Peter Hitchins got this right in his book, whose title I forget now, but it's stored in my workshop. I find their anger amusing, when I'm in a detached but mischievous mood, but then I feel sorry for them in their hopeless arrogance.

11 June 2013 at 08:49  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Who the hell is Dreadnaught?
Is he an authority? No. Does he have an arm like God? No. Does he separate good from evil? No. Does he cover the wicked with judgment? No. Did he set the universe on its foundation? No

More than a whiff of desperation seeping in from the ranting Universal Soldier here. What an over-the-top attempt at silencing one small voice on a public blog.

Get over yourself man or get therapy.

11 June 2013 at 08:49  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Sister Tiberia,
Yes, it has been clear for some time that parenting and grand -parenting are very under rated skills in these anti-child times. Raising the next generation into healthy adults is about as important a task as anyone can undertake, and I believe that many people, of faith or no faith, know this intuitively. But this government can't see that, encouraging all mothers of young children to work even if it is not essential for their family income. However we must acknowledge that for many couples two incomes are sadly a necessity soon after the birth.

11 June 2013 at 08:58  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Carl/Albert//Carl, Bob, Avi

The 'open' theologian Gregory Boyd, cites the case of the little Jewish girl, Zhosi, with very bright eyes. An SS guard thought they would like nice in rings. He cut them out, with the mother watching. The mother went mad with grief, and the screaming child was then gassed.

Boyd, as I remember, cites three possibilities.

1. God does not exist. The theodicy issue disappears; this is just a question of behaviour.

2. Everything happens according to the will of God. In that case, this did. Ouch!

3. Some things that happen are not according to the will of God. This was one of them.

Boyd's argument is for a self-limiting omnipotence, but the issue will relate equally well to 'Romans' 2.

My question: would a witness to this event be justified in not seeing the evidence for God in the world? (I'm thinking also of 'Luke' 12: the servant who doesn't get the message.)

We could say this relates to fallen human nature. But what about Nature itself?

Avi talks of the balance of natural laws, and I saw recently an ecology programme about Yellowstone. The re-introduction of wolves benefited everything, including the vegetation.

On the other hand, Bob has cited the nature of the scorpion. C S Lewis observed that the insect world looks like hell itself, visibly in action around us. So is Nature, too, in some sense 'fallen', and would then be justified in not finding the evidence for God? (It's a variant of the question Aquinas raised: if our nature is fallen, how reliable is our reason?)

11 June 2013 at 09:25  
Blogger LEN said...

I perfectly understand the position of atheists because that was my position once.
The' natural condition' of man is that of' a rebel' who resists God and does not like to acknowledge any higher power than himself. It takes a miracle for anyone to get 'saved'. And only God can give that revelation about Himself to those who genuinely want to know the truth above all else.
Many illusions will be shattered by a meeting with the Holy Spirit and many people cannot face that prospect feeling it safer to be in denial of the reality of a Creator God.

11 June 2013 at 09:26  
Blogger LEN said...

How strange that God should be accused of creating' evil, for being responsible all the sin and misery under this present'[evil] World System?'.

When man 'fell' man handed over all authority on this planet to Satan who became their ruler.Satan became the 'god' of this World and was able to pour out his death disease and destruction into this World..All who oppose God( the God of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob to avoid any confusion) come under the authority of Satan so they should quite rightfully blame Satan(and themselves) for all the evil in this World.

God`s ultimate plan is to redress this balance and to restore the Order that was lost when man fell.
Gods plan is to re place Satan as the ruler of this present system with the Jesus Christ as Lord and King.

Satan (with the aid of those in rebellion against God) has done all he can to resist this plan of God`s to restore His(Gods) Creation.

11 June 2013 at 09:41  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Len

I was an atheist for many years myself.

To contextualise, my question was a continuation of a point raised by Albert several threads back as to whether we are without excuse. 'Invincible ignorance' was the term he used.

My own point is slightly different: simply, that one who is an atheist through anger about suffering is not in the in the same moral position as one who would like to disbelieve in God in order to freely cheat on his business partner or his wife. ('Luke' 12 acknowledges differences of moral guilt).

Boyd, incidentally, makes exactly the points you do: his book is called 'God at War'.

Regards.

11 June 2013 at 09:57  
Blogger Steropes said...

Of course the change to a husband's and wife's earnings made a considerable difference to house prices: if one man, wife and baby wanted to buy a house on offer they would be outbid by a couple both on high salaries with no child. The housing market has gone through many changes over the last five decades -- from over supply to shortages. In the sixties when I bought my first, it was necessary to buy a repayment insurance which repaid at the end of term (with a profit). In later years interest only mortgages were granted which has caused more trouble

11 June 2013 at 10:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

Get over yourself man or get therapy.

Yes, I suppose I could need therapy. Or perhaps you could read the 40th Chapter of the Book of Job. Because I didn't invent that response. I paraphrased what God said to Job when Job asked the same kinds of questions you were asking.

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: “Dress for action like a man I will question you, and you make it known to me. Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be in the right? Have you an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?Adorn yourself with majesty and dignity; clothe yourself with glory and splendor. Pour out the overflowings of your anger, and look on everyone who is proud and abase him. Look on everyone who is proud and bring him low and tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below. Then will I also acknowledge to you that your own right hand can save you. Job 40:6-14

If you think my post was about silencing "one small voice on a public blog" then you have seriously missed the point. I couldn't care less whether you post or not. The point was to highlight the question that you can't answer:

Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Job 38:2

If you don't want to read Job, then read the Book of Habbakuk. Your questions are not new. They were answered in the Scripture long ago.

carl

11 June 2013 at 11:50  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I think that many people receive a sense of liberation, freedom from authority, when they move towards atheism. But it is a false freedom as they are then enslaved by their own limitations and exceedingly constrained, view and understanding of themselves and reality. It is necessarily constrained because of the limits to what the human brain can handle, which may be considerable in the brightest of us, but that is nevertheless exceedingly limited set against the vastness of the universe and the sum total (if there is one) of all knowledge. Only God literally knows all. So atheism is a foolish arrogance in my opinion. However agnosticism is more reasonable, as I can respect a person who genuinely is unsure as to whether God exists. This helps to explain why many atheists are very angry with those of us who "see" God, as we are outside their rebellion and denial, which they feel threatens them.

11 June 2013 at 11:58  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Carl Jacobs

I couldn't care less whether you post or not...

Did he set the universe on its foundation? No. He is a mist of vapor that is here today and gone tomorrow.

I'm happy with this statement and conclusion - I'm not one to rock the Ark.

11 June 2013 at 13:44  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dorset Rambler said..

The comment was Dreadnaught's "What a wholly discredited lot they are: yet the faithful still blindly venerate them while ignoring the suffering of their victims.*"

and I stated (This may shock you old sport but Blowers is NOT RC and would never condone such behaviour!!)

Do read the comment correctly, there's a nice person. ;-)

Blofeld

11 June 2013 at 14:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Blowers

Profound apologies Squire for sure.

11 June 2013 at 16:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Blowers. You haven't thought it through, old boy

You’re far too clever for this simple fellow, that man. There are some of us who seek the quiet way through life, and one was rather happy with “It is the sinner who is hurt by sin and those around him”. After all, we end up doing God’s will anyway by avoiding sin.

Although the Inspector accepts the concept of collective responsibility, he wasn’t around until fairly recently and so understandably will not dwell too heavily on the sins of men before him and rather hopes the Almighty will not hold that against him too severely on the grounds that there are pious bible types around such as yourself who are already doing this for Him on this earth in our lifetimes.

Amen, what !

{SNORT}



11 June 2013 at 17:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 June 2013 at 17:33  
Blogger LEN said...

Inspector,
'Blowers' is quite right.

God suffers because we suffer. At one stage God regretting creating man because He saw how evil man had become.God`s whole plan throughout History is to reverse the effects of the fall.God does suffer because of us.Jesus wept.Also imagine the pain of seeing ones son go through the horrors of Calvary.
We cannot look upon the effects of sin upon humanity without suffering imagine how much worse it is for a Holy God.
Jesus is the only true mediator between man and God because he suffered with us and for us.

11 June 2013 at 19:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Doubt it Len. The Almighty is more likely to be reeling from your sickly sweet description of Him...

11 June 2013 at 19:28  
Blogger LEN said...

The Almighty doesn`t have your aversion to emotion inspector.

God is not a stiff lipped English gentleman taught not to show emotion as it is 'bad form'?.

12 June 2013 at 09:47  
Blogger ukFred said...

Brother Ivo, thank you for bringing this subject to the fore. Almost 20 years ago, my family was subject to a child protection investigation when my younger daughter had an injury that an unqualified member of the hospital staff reported to social services as suspicious despite the consultant in charge of her care being satisfied that this was indeed an accidental injury. We were lied to by social workers, we were lied to be hospital staff, and we kicked up a fuss. Our child was allowed home from hospital, but one month later, I rang social services to confirm that their file was closed to find it had not been closed. The first stage of the complaints procedure was a whitewash. At the second stage, the councillor who chaired the panel stated that he was not prepared to find that his staff had not acted correctly and he was not prepared to find that the complaint investigation had not been thorough. When we went to the local government ombudsman we were offered, verbally, a family holiday if we dropped our demand for an apology. This offer could not be made in writing. It took one month short of 4 years to get our apology, grudging though it was. Social services need the courts to keep them under control. In fact, I think it was the late Patrick Hutber who said that to totally negate the meaning of a word, just put the adjective social in front of it, and the best example I have ever found has been worker.

12 June 2013 at 23:20  
Blogger ukFred said...

To all those who have commented about the use of both incomes in the calculation of mortgages, I would make this point. If you are in debt, you are a slave to your creditor. You need to earn a large amount each month to pay down the mortgage. That gives the government tax revenue and keeps you docile rather than willing to tell an unreasonable employer to stick his/her job where the sun don't shine. You're caught in a double whammy.

12 June 2013 at 23:24  
Blogger Steropes said...

ukFred shoul bring his report re social services to Christopher Booker who frequently writes on this very subject in his column in the Mail on Sunday. He certainly isn't the only one who has suffered in this way. Regarding his second comment re 'slave to creditors' this is just a fact of life; if one doesn't have a large inheritance one needs to work and the best investment has been buying a house. A monthly payment of say a £100 was a lot to find in 1970 but not a lot 25 years later.

13 June 2013 at 10:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older