The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The impossibility of atheism II > Comments

The impossibility of atheism II : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 27/2/2009

Are we to damn Christianity because cruel things were perpetrated in its name of which Christ would have been ashamed?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. All
If Pericles and Fractelle did a law degree, then they should go back and do a history degree too, and they would find the Christianity is the template for the government of Australia /UK Union up to and including Menzies in 1949, and Atlee in the UK. Jingostic Nationalism replaced Christianity.

Christianity is incorporated into the Australian Constitution and also that of the US is by the making of either the President or the Queen representative of Almighty God and then having all Judges and Magistrates swear allegiance. The English in the Coronation Oath 1688 ( Imp) incorporated the four Gospels, but not the Epistles into their existing Constitution, after James II a closet Roman Catholic did a runner. The army told him they would not fight for a Roman Catholic King.

He word Queen or Her Majesty appears forty times in the Australian Constitution, and the Oath of Allegiance as Schedule taken by all Federal Judges and Magistrates, means that if they refuse a jury trial when requested, they are breaking their word. Jury trial was the way that Christianity separated administrative power from judicial power, and s 79 Constitution judges plural makes juries mandatory.

Menzies was a power freak, and when he could not count on the High Court doing his bidding after the Communist Party case, he closed its doors by giving a Registrar power to refuse to let a normal person file in its original jurisdiction. That was 1952. Commonwealth is a word from the KJV Bible, where it is found in Ephesians 2:12.

In the BS Bibles used in the US, the translation is citizen, and these are misleading and deceptive. As for Sharia Law, there is no mercy in it at all, and might is right. The Allah of the Qu’ran is not obliged to keep his promises as the Christian God does, and as a consequence a man is not bound by his word, only by writing. It is totally antithetic to the Christian law where Almighty God has promised law and justice in mercy, in all the judgments given by the Queen
Posted by Peter the Believer, Sunday, 15 March 2009 11:31:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is getting marginally tiresome, PtB. You manage to avoid every direct question, responding only with the vaguest of generalities. This one is classic...

>>Christianity is the template for the government of Australia /UK Union up to and including Menzies in 1949, and Atlee in the UK.<<

"Template", PtB?

I assume that you are confusing the Queen's position as head of the Church of England, with the Pope's situation as head of the Roman Catholic church.

The Pope's position is all-encompassing: "...by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church [the Pope] has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise." ( extract from "Catechism of the Catholic Church" 2nd Edition)

The Queen has no parallel authority to speak for God. Therefore your linkage between the UK sovereign's relationship with Australia and God's position in the Constitution, falls apart at the seams.

>>Christianity is incorporated into the Australian Constitution and also that of the US is by the making of either the President or the Queen representative of Almighty God<<

She isn't God's representative, and nowhere is claimed to be so.

As a consequence, your insistence that "juries = Christ's justice" fails utterly.

>>Jury trial was the way that Christianity separated administrative power from judicial power<<

Sorry. Complete logical fallacy. Juries over the years have simply been one way to resolve a criminal accusation - there are many others - and have no connection with God at all.

>>...the Christian law where Almighty God has promised law and justice in mercy, in all the judgments given by the Queen<<

The Queen is not God's messenger. Nor does she give judgments, even by proxy.

>>If Pericles and Fractelle did a law degree, then they should go back and do a history degree too...<<

I can't speak for Fractelle, but I don't rely upon a degree in order to apply normal common sense to a situation.

It's a beautiful day, Fractelle. How about I mix some Pimms and we discuss PtB's neuroses, out on the terrace?
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 15 March 2009 12:43:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

Suspect you could be cobbling thingss together best left apart. According to Christianity, Jesus' substutitionary randsom, ushered a new era, making the the Law of Moses obsolete. Why? How? Before the crucifixion, the Laws represented the OT coventant. By way of the crucifixion, the OT Law became obsolete.

Between the first and three centuries various Jesus groups were established and these stepped back from the old Jewish laws, for the reasons stated. By the time of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), dogma led to the establishment Church laws. These were/are not secular laws. Rather, these acted to unify the Holy Roman Church out of the ashes of declining Roman Empire (476).

The Vicar of Christ holds secular and theistic titles. Elizabth II the Second makes no such claim. The title Defender of the Faith, as you possibibly know, comes from the Pope, and was given to Henry VIII, recognizing his scholarship. The English Parliament adoped and conferred the title on Henry's descendents. Really very much not what was intended by the pontiff.

Elizabeth I did have input in framing the 39 Articles of the Church of England. Yet, the Catholic Church of England goes back to the thirteen centuries, and there were missionaries back to Roman times.

If the Spanish Amarda had succeeded in 1588, Catholocism may very well have quashed the separation of the English Church from her Mother. If so,the Catholic King of England would most certainly defer to the Pope on religious matters.

The above counterfactual aside, the other true histiories do not support your argument. Nor would any contemporary theology.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 23 March 2009 7:50:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Above, that is, Peter the Believer, not Peter Sellick. O.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 6:28:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy