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 > St Mary’s and St Michael’s > Comments

St Mary’s and St Michael’s : Comments

By Alan Austin, published 9/3/2009

Brisbane's Catholic Archbishop John Bathersby and Victoria’s Uniting Church Moderator Jason Kioa are facing similar challenges. Their responses could hardly be more different.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
The difference is is that the catholic (universal?) church, via the "Magisterium", is an inherently totalitarian organization that wants and intends to rule the entire world, and that given the opportunities to do so, will actively do whatever it can to accomplish this world-"rulership" drive.

And as a totalitarian institution it cant tolerate any real dissent, or even free thinking.

Isnt it completely obvious that McNabs bullet points are completely and undisputably true, as are his comments on the fictional character Abraham and his depiction of Moses as an advocate of genocide.

Isnt the "Old" Testament essentially a genocidal text altogether!
Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 9 March 2009 12:01:15 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
Ho Hum wrote: Isnt the "Old" Testament essentially a genocidal text altogether!

Dear Ho Hum,

No. A well known saying of Jesus:

MATTHEW 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Jesus was not saying anything new but was quoting the OT which he learned from his Jewish religious training. He cites one of the ten commandments in part of his statement and the OT in the other part of his statement.

LEVITICUS 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Note the specific command not to be vengeful. That statement could be interpreted as an injunction to love only the children of thy people. However, sixteen verses later, the Old Testament God makes the explicit command to love the stranger.

LEVITICUS 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God

It is common to think that the God of the Old Testament is a God of vengeance and the God of the Old Testament is a God of love. I did a computer search in the Bible for 'vengeance' and 'love' and found the following:

Books mentioning Books mentioning Total
love vengeance Books
Old Test 26 11 39
New Test 25 6 26
Total Bible 51 17 65

The two parts of the Bible in that respect are not too different. Love is emphasised more than vengeance in both parts.
Posted by david f, Monday, 9 March 2009 12:46:09 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
I have often commented on the legal nature of Christianity. In the times I write about I am basically talking about Catholic because the Roman church was the only version of Christianity around.
To me this article emphasis the difference in the legal structure of the two versions of Christianity. The Catholics rule with an iron fist and allow no dissent. The Protestants are becoming more liberal in personal interpretation of worship.
In both cases it has nothing to do with the Bible. It is about how the two systems deal with someone who wishes to think outside the strict rule of (church) law
Posted by Daviy, Monday, 9 March 2009 1:12:48 PM
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
so, with the old testament we're allowed to be vengeful 26/37 of the time, but with the new testament we're only allowed to be vengeful 6/31 of the time. when the numerator is 0, could someone give me a call?
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 9 March 2009 2:31:30 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
Bushbred wrote: so, with the old testament we're allowed to be vengeful 26/37 of the time, but with the new testament we're only allowed to be vengeful 6/31 of the time. when the numerator is 0, could someone give me a call?

Dear Bushbred:

The figures are 11/39 and 6/26. Sorry about the formatting.

For humans the numerator is 0. According to the Bible "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.
Posted by david f, Monday, 9 March 2009 3:01:14 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
I don't understand why it is okay that there is any vengeance mentioned at all. And even if the proportions quotes here are accurate, the vehemence with which they are propounded comes into it too, as does the fact that god reckons it's okay to wreak his own vengeance on his whim. The bible is a dreadful book, filled with vindictiveness. There are lots of instructions to be harsh with the slaves or to hand young girls and women over to be raped or to kill naughty children. The main concern of the god in the bible seems to be whether people worship other deities, and being jealous and vindictive if they do. Maybe it's time to jettison this book and move on.
Posted by Miranda Suzanne, Monday, 9 March 2009 3:29:29 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
I totally agree with you Miranda Suzanne. Its time to drop Bible and move on. That would of course include Christianity.

If people need to gather together to worship God or whatever there must be a more relevant form. The Gnostics used have simple meeting with no distinction between the sexes. As the worshipers went into there meetings they took a marble out of a bag and whoever picked the black marble chaired the meeting.

All the things mentioned in your post do not seem to have anything to do with God. Scrap the Bible. In fact scrap any idea of a 'holy' text. It only builds an atmosphere of authority and power.
To me the churches mentioned in the article present only a very small step towards an atmosphere of equality.

The New Testament inequality of men and women comes from Paul in Romans and is a carry over from the OT. The basic argument used by Paul is that men look better with short hair and women look better with long hair. Therefore men go before God with their heads uncovered and women with their heads covered. Thus God is above man, and man above woman. And this is the man who is responsible for 27 of the 33 books in the NT.

I wonder how a sex discrimination case against churches that use the Bible would go? It amazes me the power that Christianity has in our society. If that is people want to do that OK, but why should the rest of us be expected to comply?

Christianity in it present form should never have happened.
Posted by Daviy, Monday, 9 March 2009 6:43:50 PM
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
If you sign up to a club or an organisation you find out what it stands for and if you agree with its values and objectives you sign up to show support. If later you disagree with the objectives of the organisation and openly oppose its values then you surely have to expect accountability for your statements and actions. If after discussion you cannot agree the organisation has every right to terminate your membership. You can always start your own club/ organisation expressing the values you hold , however you have no right to hold the organisation you disagree with to continued vexatious behaviour.
I think the comments about vengeance and mathematic ratios miss the point entirely. If you say you are a Christian it follows you must believe its core doctrines. If you do not believe in the core doctrines how can you classify yourself as Christian? As someone else once said A cannot be Non A.
Posted by foxydude, Monday, 9 March 2009 8:57:32 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
foxydude,

i was just having a bit of fun with the mathematical ratios. but i do agree with miranda: the vengeance bits are distasteful, in whatever quantity.

more importantly, we're all judging, and are free to judge, the bible by external criteria. the fact that something is written in the bible does not give it special weight. it comes with no godly stamp of approval. the bible is not god's work, it's just a book.

i also don't think it's as simple as you say, clubs having rules and whatnot. the question is, what does "core doctrines" mean? i'm not christian, and it's not for me to say. but i do seem to get along better with "christians" who focus on the words of christ. then there are those who feel free to sling biblical quotes, as if in a game of theological pokemon. (i choose YOU, leviticus 15.19!). them i can do without.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 9 March 2009 9:55:30 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
Foxy Dude,

I paraphrase "If you sign up for something you should follow it's core doctrines"

Can you show me where the churches have followed their own core doctrines in regards to sexual abuse, honesty, following Jesus'teachings and hoarding of money?

This is the fundamental flaw of fundamentalists.

Isn't there only one ministry "The Ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ" if you are a believer?

Why do most drop his name from their denominations? It makes them like Dick Smith without the Dick or the Smith!

Does the fact that they call themselves Christian organisations and a person calls themselves Christian mean that they are?

How many Christians really know the Bible?

In my thread Is the Bible inerrant, infallible or God's word?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572&page=0#57995

I directly quote the Bible to illustrate many of the problems religions face.

Is "honesty" a core belief of Christian religions?

Have the churches created the monsters they now face, because they have misled too many people, for too long?

How can a Christian organisation don't represent Christ honestly?

How can a Christian organisation believe the Bible is God's Word when it is so demonstrably not?

How can Christian clergy sleep when they fail to report crimes or suspected crimes within their organisations to the Police?

How can so called Christians oppress homosexuals based on false teachings from "Moses' Laws?

Core values is a very broad term... If Christianity is to be regarded as having core values shouldn't the clergy start by telling the truth, following the law and leading by example? See also this thread - what core values?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8616&page=1

How can allegedly Christian organisations prevent women from achieving the heights of their faith and spirituality by creating the unChristian glass ceiling?

Is the term "an unGodly mess" getting louder and louder, due to false teachings and incorrect doctrines through fibbing?

If the churches aren't following alleged Jesus' teachings are they really Christian churches?

If you choose to believe in God, fine, but shouldn't you know that your churches are actually telling the truth!
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 9 March 2009 9:56:24 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
We have had a lot of discussion about church law, and vengeance is mine saith the Lord. The English were the very first to really upset the Pope, with this law, taken from Halsbury’s Statutes of England published in 1960.
Magna Carta 1297 Statute
Clause 14: [14] A Freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault, but after the manner of the fault; and for a great fault after the greatness thereof, saving to him his contenement; and a Merchant likewise, saving to him his Merchandise; and any other's villain than ours shall be likewise amerced, saving his wainage, if he falls into our mercy. And none of the said amerciaments shall be assessed, but by the oath of honest and lawful men of the vicinage. Earls and Barons shall not be amerced but by their Peers, and after the manner of their offence. No man of the Church shall be amerced after the quantity of his spiritual Benefice, but after his Lay-tenement, and after the quantity of his offence.
Clause 29: [29] No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

Let us just get a few things right. Firstly this gave the Supreme Court ecclesiastical jurisdiction, over the churches in England and Australia. Secondly it established the Christian right to jury trial, I say derives from Matthew 18 verse 20, and thirdly, It gives vengeance to the Lord, because it vests the right to fix penalties in a jury not a Judge.
Since the Australian Courts Act 1828 required all Australian courts, to abide its provisions, and it was in force in 1900, and it was put outside the legislative capacity of a State parliament to repeal by S 108 Constitution, the Churches concerned should consider
Posted by Peter the Believer, Tuesday, 10 March 2009 3:19:51 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
It seems to me that the discussion has got off the topic a bit.

While a good percentage of rational people might agree with the philosophies of the two incumbents, most might also agree that the pulpits from which these philosophies are espoused may not really be the appropriate places when all the circumstances are considered.

St.Michael's was originally the Collins Street Independent Church, before Frank, who was then a member of the Scot's Presbyterian Church over the road, became the minister. It seems that even though St.Michael's is nominally part of the Uniting Church, most of its members still follow the Independent tradition. I can't offer a solution to Father Kennedy's problem, but it seems to me that St.Michael's, if it wants to retain the services of Dr.McNab, should seriously consider whether it stays within the Uniting Church. Perhaps they should also consider whether they should also change the name to something less representative of the Christian Church, whose teachings with regard to Christmas and Easter it apparently eschews.

I don't think that Father Kennedy's flock have the option of a similar course of action.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 10 March 2009 10:41:31 AM
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
Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." -PtB, Jesus demanding trial by jury?

Do churches proclaim "love one another"? Stop fighting!

Moses was not a model citizen! NUMBERS 31:13-19 Was Moses a witch doctor who performed magic to get approval and power Exodus 4:2-5 then had all competitors killed Exodus 22:17 so to remain in power. Egyptian magicians did the same tricks Exodus 7:8-13. Did God give them their powers?

Is someone allegedly calling the 10 commandments a negative document heresy?

If God truly exists then he/she/it is the most intelligent being to ever have existed is falsely teaching God's alleged word blasphemy?

What would returning Jesus say?

OMG you really didn't listen all that well did you? I spoke in parables to make it so so easy.

OMG how did you religious people and churches stuff my ministry?

He might say ... here I stand in sandals and a robe... and OMG look at you lot! What's with all these buildings? I said give all you own to the poor!

I said 'Do not judge others"!

Who told you to use these man made rules?

Why do you pick on homosexuals when you ignore the others of Moses' crazy laws?

Are you saying here that I, Jesus believe "a rapist should be allowed to pay the father of a rape victim 50 pieces of silver and gets the poor woman for life?" (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)?

or

Deuteronomy22:20-21 2 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house..."

Are you all nuts?

When's the next coming of Jesus... I've heard the "tableturning", "I'm absolutely disgusted" lectures, & gnashing of teeth and slow burn in the pitfires of hell finale will be very special.

All those who are first coming last!
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 10 March 2009 12:25:54 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
Attending 'celebrations' at St Mary's with friends, I'm unimpressed and suggest the issues are more about the egos in 'control' at St Mary's than about faith? In joining an agnostics group and deciding I believe in God/Buddah (Fr Kennedy isn't sure which is his lord), I'd be unceremoniously thrown out of the group, what's the difference here? If I join the local footie-club and no longer like the rules, I cop it or leave, simple. The same applies to St Mary's. The author of the article should be writing on what he knows in the Uniting church, where rules are changed to suit the current fad. The Catholic Church is clear on homosexuality and a number of other issues raised, humans will err and can repent and change but to condone the practices as good and wholesome is to expect agnostics to change their 'rules' to allow for belief in God as a primary rite of membership.
As for the 'true believers' who appeared in media at St Mary's, I didn't hear ONE COMMENT from a regular or a Catholic. It seemed there were more representatives from the Gay and Lesbian MardiGras and similar groups who had very unChristian things to say about the Pope and the Church, so why were they there? The regular congregation is NOT 1500, so the rent-a-crowd was not representative of the regulars, many of whom did not attend in support of Fr Kennedy. He has a hide to put his 'flock' in such a position with their church to feed his ego! If he has such support, then raise the money from the rent-a-crowd to build his own church and make his own rules and see how much faith and support he can find in himself or his 'followers' then.
It's much easier to usurp buildings and the roof the Church has provided to shelter him, while kicking and screaming about injustice and truth. I guess God will judge all of us in the end, according to our real motives and our treatment of those who he has entrusted to our care.
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 10 March 2009 3:33:49 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
Miranda Suzanne wrote: I don't understand why it is okay that there is any vengeance mentioned at all. And even if the proportions quotes here are accurate, the vehemence with which they are propounded comes into it too, as does the fact that god reckons it's okay to wreak his own vengeance on his whim. The bible is a dreadful book, filled with vindictiveness. There are lots of instructions to be harsh with the slaves or to hand young girls and women over to be raped or to kill naughty children. The main concern of the god in the bible seems to be whether people worship other deities, and being jealous and vindictive if they do. Maybe it's time to jettison this book and move on.

Dear Miranda,

I agree with you. I was addressing the perception that the OT is bad and the NT good. The NT has a sadistic god who allows his son to suffer great torments. His son is a bigot who states that one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven only by subscribing to his mumbo jumbo.

I was responding to the statement: "Isnt the "Old" Testament essentially a genocidal text altogether!" That denies the relationship of the two parts of the Bible, and the subtext can be: Christians = good. Jews = bad.

This can further Christian antisemitism which has already resulted in the massacres during the Crusades and other examples of Christian love, the Inquisition and the Holocaust. That was the reason for my post.

I heartily agree with getting rid of both
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 10 March 2009 4:05:21 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
>> I can't offer a solution to Father Kennedy's problem, but it seems to me that St.Michael's,
>> if it wants to retain the services of Dr.McNab, should seriously consider whether it stays within the Uniting Church.

or, the uniting church might consider whether mcnab actually said anything that objectionable. what would UC lose by accepting mcnab, except a reduction in their stocks of snake oil?
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 10 March 2009 5:56:19 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
Sorry Meg & other Christians.. You seem to be sitting in judgement of the egos of those concerned and of the people who attend.

Technically - You as a Christian aren't entitled to make judgements(Matthew 7:1-5). I'm sorry I didn't make the rules!

If you follow Paul's teaching I Corinthians 14:34-35 a woman having an opinion is doubtful.

Luckily I don't subscribe to Paul's misogynistic view so vent away - does your Church subscribe?

Now I can understand the kerfuffle but are any churches really following Jesus' word?

I can think of any number of ways that your church is outside Christ's teachings in the Bible.

Here is one - the confessional - Was it created so that the priests could keep abreast of any rumours within their congregations? Sort of the Blabbermouth News? People own up to sins allegedly.

See in the Bible Jesus said in the Lord's Prayer no less - "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" he didn't add "but only via a priest"!

So we don't need to go through a man (priest) we can go direct to God!

However, the Catholic Encyclopaedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm says it was NEW LAW instituted by Christ and yet Jesus never mentions it as far as I know.

Furthermore Jesus said in John 3:16 "whosoever believeth" - He didn't say excluding gays - If a gay person believes in God then according to Jesus he will be saved.. unless you Christians know better than Jesus? Also a gay can go to the confessional if he worries it is a sin for total absolution.

These Churches don't bother me Do they have a "let's take over the world agenda"? Are church doctrines and teachings above the alleged word of Christ's teachings? If Jesus' primary teachings are to love one another then these Churches seem to be doing that to all comers..Maybe it's time to forgive those who your Church thinks) trespass against you.

I apologise if my attitude seems a bit like Jesus when he allegedly talked to the Pharisees. His annoyance showed as does mine.
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 10 March 2009 10:58:07 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
RE: O2's 'sitting in judgement of the egos of those concerned and of the people who attend.' On the contrary, my comment defended those who were from the regular congregation of St Mary's and not present to support the stand by Fr Kennedy and I asked why the 1500 rent-a-crowd (who don't normally attend there or any other Catholic church by the sound of their comments) couldn't buy their own premises so Fr Kennedy can run a show and make rules to suit them, gays or any other, but it's much 'easier to usurp buildings and the roof the Church has provided to shelter him, while kicking and screaming about injustice and truth.' Rather hypocritical of him, don't you think?
The Catholic Church is clear on homosexuality and a number of other issues raised, humans will err and can repent and change (i.e., stop doing the wrong thing) but to condone the practices as good and wholesome is to expect agnostics to change their 'rules' to allow for belief in God as a primary rite of membership. People with tendencies to homosexuality don't have to act on those tendencies, any more than other sexual perversions have to be acted on – it is the act that is to be rejected, not the person.
As for the 'true believers' who appeared in media at St Mary's, I didn't hear ONE COMMENT from a regular or a Catholic. It seemed there were more representatives from the Gay and Lesbian MardiGras and similar groups who had very unChristian things to say about the Pope and the Church, so why were they there? The regular congregation is NOT 1500, so the rent-a-crowd was not representative of the regulars, many of whom did not attend in support of Fr Kennedy.
I guess God will judge all of us in the end, according to our real motives and our treatment of those who he has entrusted to our care.
The obsessive dictating from agnostics and non-Catholics (including the author), to the Catholic church is laughable – fix your own backyard, why the meddling in other's?
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 11 March 2009 12:31:04 AM
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
Meg,

Have Christians now created an "Us and Them" method of justifying their stance? Is this Christian? I thought we were taught as youngsters that Christianity was an "inclusive" religion and that "God loves us all"?

He especially loves a sinner!

Could the rent-a-crowd (Is name calling unChristian?) be a similar crowd that Jesus attracted at his Sermon on the Mount? Matthew 5: 1-12.

Could it be that this was their first sojourn into Christianity after being shunned by the false teachings of churches for 1000's of years?

Could those amongst your alleged rent-a-crowd be the spiritually poor? Those who have mourned their faith being denied to them? They may have a great desire to do what God wants... etc.

Do harsh judgements of them inadvertantly trample on the words contained in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount? Should a professing Christian do this?

Should Christians think before they type?

To be a follower of Christ should you judge people as rent-a-crowd?

Should Christians judge their motives? (Matthew 7:1-5). Are Christians above Jesus' rules?

Are Christians following Matthew 5:9 and working for peace with your words?

Are Christians angry? Does Matthew 5:22 calm you?

Does Matthew 5:38-39 apply? Jesus was silent on homosexuality!

Meg, when you stand up and call yourself a Christian it comes with many obligations laid out simply in Jesus' teachings from your Bible.

Are you following Jesus' rules Meg or man-made rules?

Why did you go to "that" Church when you did Meg? ... Is it your usual Church or were you there for a sticky beak OR to be part of the other rent-a-crowd OR another reason?

If Christians have rushed to judgement in their humanly frail way have they inadvertently gotten in the way of "God's plan"?

Does any of the above apply to Christians in this matter or can we say hang Jesus' teachings on this one? Does the Church rules overrule Jesus' teachings?

The Bible says we are all sinners! Doesn't Matthew 7:4-5, if you claim to be Christian, apply every day?

I love reading my Bible!
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 11 March 2009 1:17:01 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
>> People with tendencies to homosexuality don't have to act on those tendencies, any more than other sexual perversions have to be acted on

may as well ask: meg1, do you care to define "sexual perversion"? can you say why homosexuality is a sexual perversion?

perversion or not, i'd definitely like you to address O2's post: what evidence is there that Jesus cared at all about homosexuality?
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 11 March 2009 9:27:19 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
The obsessive dictating from agnostics and non-Catholics (including the author), to the Catholic church is laughable – fix your own backyard, why the meddling in other's?
Very simply, homosexuality is a perversion of normal sexuality - no question the act is perverse, I have no desire to encourage or condone homosexuality as normal behaviour any more than I would paedophilia or internet or other pornography or prostitution, the list goes on. It seems the more we are expected to condone, the more prevalent it has become - see a pattern here?
The less respect we have for ourselves or each other, the more perverse society has become and the more violent are the crimes against men and women of all ages, respect for life at any stage or any age is declining.
I attended St Mary's to celebrate a special occasion with a friend, hypocrisy must be your middle name since you have accused me of going as a 'sticky beak' and have to stick your beak in my business and in a church you know little or nothing about to judge...curious, isn't it? The pot and the kettle and all that. I attended because I expected to be going to a Catholic Church for a specific occasion, just a you might for a friend if you had one. I have been to many different occasions in many different places of worship...to celebrate an occasion in someone's life...not to sticky beak, you really are perverse, aren't you?
No, I wasn't impressed at St Mary's then, it was more like a cluttered, bower bird's nest...who would have known if it was a second-hand store or a back shed...a buddha here, other paraphenalia all over...not impressed now either, now that they've hit the headlines. As for the rent-a-crowd, what else would you call people who do not normally attend church there, but come along once from the gay lobby or other group for a bit of media attention and to do some church bashing? Gee, rent-a-crowd, I wonder if they got a packed lunch too?
(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 12 March 2009 12:36:13 AM
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
(Cont...)
I have no objection to Fr Kennedy building his own barn somewhere for his 1500 believers, or how ever many turn up next week to pay the bills, but doing so under false pretenses as a "Catholic" without the beliefs, is akin to me hijacking an agnostic's hall and expecting them to pay for me to preach about Jesus to them...get the drift?
O2 if you love reading your bible, you'd know that hypocrisy isn't a virtue. Perhaps Bushbasher would like to pick up a guide to homosexuality, to enlighten on specific details, I have no intention and no desire to graphically describe such distasteful acts in these posts. You might also like to check out a few verses of the New Testament each day...the exercise may enlighten you on many issues you appear confused on.
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 12 March 2009 12:39:24 AM
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
meg1,

1) what is "normal sexuality"? is oral sex normal or perverse?

2) what does it matter if something is "perverse"? does that make it immoral? if so, why?
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 12 March 2009 1:26:50 AM
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
Meg, Glad to hear you weren't just "sticky beaking"!

<<fix your own backyard, why the meddling in other's>> Aren't you meddling Meg? You should look up hypocracy it's not a virtue...lol

Do you want everyone else to butt out so you can butt in? Do you understand what a democratic society with freedom of speech allows - Do you need re-programming?

Your opinion on homosexuality is a judgement Meg. "Do not Judge others" Matthew 7:1-5 It is against Jesus' teachings!

Meg do you think homosexuals choose their lifestyles? Can you tell me the day that you chose to be heterosexual - please explain your thought processes on that day?

Thank God for Meg she feels she can cast the first stone!

Did you look up any of the Bible quotes I gave you Meg? OR doesn't the Bible apply to you on this matter?

So many Christians call themselves Christian and then act in the most unChristian ways. What would Jesus do Meg?

<<As for the rent-a-crowd, what else would you call people who do not normally attend church there>> God's children, possibly seeking Jesus?

Do you know better than Jesus?

OMG Meg that didn't even cross your mind - did it? Were you so busy taking offense that you forgot all those years of indoctrination? Be careful Meg Matthew 7:21-23 might just apply to you!

Could your rent-a-crowd be "The Lost Sheep" in Luke 15:1-7 or "The Lost Coin" in Luke 15:8-10? Meg are you putting your Catholicism above your Christianity in your heart and in your words?

Can a person who calls themselves a Christian ignore these lessons just because they are angry? Matthew 5:21-23

Meg are you rattled? Do you really know your Bible?

Are you representing your Religion and God well here Meg?

Remember Mark 10:31: But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

And Meg's only visit to the Bible in her reply <<O2 if you love reading your bible, you'd know that hypocrisy isn't a virtue.>>

Dust off your Bible Meg - Are you qualified to speak on God's behalf?
Posted by Opinionated2, Thursday, 12 March 2009 11:41:08 AM
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
I'm a new member of this forum. Very interesting discussion. The UCA is compared to the Rc's only beginning its teenage years, and formed through the joining together of the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational Churches. And yes it does seem to involve itself in a lot of social justice issues and try to explore the hard questions facing believers and non believers.
The basis of union sets out for all people in the UCA the beliefs, expectations, etc. When this was written it didn't happen overnight, but it is a wonderful basis for us UCA people to work from. Just some info. for you
My question to you all is if the story of Jesus and God and all it entails was to but it bluntly just that a story, a load of rubbish why has it not disappeared into the ? you can believe or not, the choice is yours. For those that believe it helps them through out their life, is that so bad? who can say which party is right?
Posted by bearable, Friday, 13 March 2009 12:31:54 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
I wonder if you understand the concept of right-and-wrong and the consequences of either bushbasher? I wonder if you consider paedophilia to be a perversion? Is it immoral or not in your eyes?
Luckily I don't lose any sleep over your opinions o2...rofl. Your hypocrisy is astounding, you accuse me of meddling when you've completely lost all reason for posting on this thread (as usual), other than to berate Catholics and your view of their Bible studies, curious? Sounds like a tad judgemental and obsessed to me, not a lot of democracy in your posts, either. Apparently freedom-of-speech is ok for anyone who uses that 'freedom' to attack Catholicism, but God forbid that anyone has an opinion contrary to your own...
I would suggest that we ALL choose how we act and live daily, if you don't, then I'd suggest some self-discipline wouldn't go astray. Some people have tendencies to violence, feeding those tendencies by watching violence and bullying others, use of alcohol/drugs to dull down a sense of right and wrong or a sense of responsibility, will ensure that tendency to violence will grow and someone will be harmed. Does that exonerate the person with those tendencies? No more than someone who feeds their mind with other perverse behaviours through various media, etc.and then wonders why those perversions consume their lives.
I still have a free will, I can choose right from wrong and I accept that in order for society to function successfully for all to thrive and be safe, we need to abide by rules to stop those perversions from getting the better of some who will use others for their own unsavoury purposes.
Interesting hypocrisy that you consider I am casting the first stone by arguing Catholics should be allowed to believe in God and live according to their own 'rules' and should not have their property usurped any more than a group of agnostics should be forced to prostrate themselves before Budda and have their property hijacked. I guess you'd have the police in quick smart, if you were robbed...
(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 13 March 2009 2:04:29 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
(Cont...)
Your lack of logical argument and your transparent bigotry are aptly named...o2.
Don't judge others and presume all are as 'angry' at life as you are, nor as 'rattled' or have taken 'offense'...you are so far off the mark, rofl.
Your 'lost sheep' lost any credibility for your argument with their comments to media regarding their reasons for being at St Mary's and none related to anything vaguely resembling faith or belief...if you'd taken a similar round of interviews at the MardiGras the results would have been much the same...Pope bashing, Catholic bashing, bigotry and lack of taste or regard for others...apparently it's ok when it's directed at Catholics but not when they speak out and point out the hypocrisy.
I wonder how quickly you would trot out the 'bible-bashing' lable if I quoted you chapter and verse from the bible? More hypocrisy? You need to recognise that you bury your own credibility when you can't even see you're doing just what you are accusing others of...and you fail to accept the most basic equity for others.
Unlike you, I accept my humanity but I work towards improvement daily...and I try to keep the rules because I see the consequences for society on a daily basis, as a direct result of those who choose not to do so...
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 13 March 2009 2:06:41 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
meg1:

>>I wonder if you understand the concept of right-and-wrong and the consequences of either bushbasher?

yes, meg1, it may surprise you, but i do have some concept of right and wrong. in particular, i think it is valuable to think about WHY things are right and wrong. do you? or do you prefer to take things on authority?

>> I wonder if you consider paedophilia to be a perversion? Is it immoral or not in your eyes?

i can answer these (yes, and yes), but what do the answers matter? homosexuality between consenting adults has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia, just as heterosexuality between consenting adults has nothing to do with pedophilia.

you have given no argument for WHY homosexuality is morally wrong. you have given no evidence that jesus gave a fart about homosexuality. you write a lot: you say very little.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 13 March 2009 2:51:43 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
Oh Meg, that reply was embarassing.

All I did was call you to answer some simple questions based on the bible that you would stand up and say you follow. You answered zip!

Pedophilia is a disgusting perversion and a crime Meg, AND, not once in your long-winded defense, did you ask your Church and religion to put the priests and clergy suspected or known to have done such terrible crimes, into the hands of the police. WHY?

ALL churches and organisations SHOULD report ALL crimes to the POLICE!

I will state it again ... I'm not anti-Catholic whatsoever! Meg as a Christian "Do not bear false witness" Exodus 20:16

You allegedly follow the bible and all I'm doing is assessing your comments in relation to your bible. Have I misrepresented the bible?

You have not put one cogent defense from Jesus' teachings in any of your answers. Why?

I find many homosexuals over the top. To be honest, they sometimes annoy me, but, I also object to heterosexuals who are over the top. It is not someone's sexuality that annoys me it is their over-the-top behaviour!

Dr Elizabeth Stuart, a former convener of the Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement allegedly claimed "It has been estimated that at least 33 per cent of all priests in the RC Church in the United States are homosexual."

Some other estimates suggest it is more like 4-5%. What do you say about this Meg?

What do you say about this article Meg?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25083343-3102,00.html

I thought the Catholic Church had a strong position against homosexuality? Not one Catholic has commented on this article! Why?

Maybe you should go back to Jesus' life on Earth and see what he said and the way he questioned people. I never call people "Bible-Bashers" or any other names for that matter! You chose rent-a-crowd Ms hypocrisy! Why such a hard heart?

I accept equity for others - you just can't answer my simple questions! I answer yours..but then I am not in conflict with my belief system, you are in conflict with the Bible!
Posted by Opinionated2, Friday, 13 March 2009 4:38:58 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
One thing I will say in response to the article is that victims of sexual abuse also have a responsibility to go to the police. If I am ever assaulted, sexually or otherwise, I will be much more likely to go to the police than to the employer of the offender.

Don't get me wrong - I certainly think that, when the Church was informed of the incidents, they should have taken more decisive action. In the case of sexual abuse of a minor, the Church has a duty of care to report these things to the police. I'm not sure what the Church's responsibility is when the victim is an adult, but even without police action, disciplinary action should have been taken against the offender. Such action should include excommunication or sacking - after all, the priest is not following the teachings of the Church and is abusing his position within the Church to achieve immoral and unlawful objectives.

Does this mean that we should turn our backs on Catholicism? If so, then one could reasonably that each acknowledged but unpunished crime or misdemeanour in Australia's history should make us turn our backs on Australia. Children overboard? Stolen generations? In both cases, the principles of the organisation are sound - it is the flawed nature of its human members that lets the team down.
Posted by Otokonoko, Saturday, 14 March 2009 12:01:18 AM
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
>> the principles of the organisation are sound

otkonoko, to me the principles of the *catholic* organisation don't look sound. they look absolutely appalling.
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 14 March 2009 12:23:59 AM
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
TY Otokonoko,

I am not suggesting and have never suggested that people should give up their faith. Your analogy about Australia and say the stolen generation is reasonable but still very insufficient.

That so many people don't go directly to the police is troubling. However, as clergy have such a powerful position in communities & people's lives and, added to the pathetic responses generally from the church hierarchy, these poor souls are too scared to report. If we haven't been abused, I doubt whether any of us can imagine, how tough the decisions are, these people have to take are!

Who could blame them? They have been battered and bruised in the most disgusting and soul destroying way by someone they trusted the most. Then of course Churches are powerful organisations and can afford the best lawyers! Do church leaders go to their lawyers first and not the victims? Is this unChristian?

I doubt you can then go on to argue the principles of an organisation are sound if things are hidden as they have been. Especially, in a religious organisation that claims it is Christian and lectures so heavily on sin. What of the organisations sins?

As this is now public knowledge and if what this article alleges is correct why haven't the police acted? In Australia the police charge the alleged perpetrator PLUS can charge people who didn't take the correct action as being accessories after the fact.

Does the apology from the Bishops and the Archbishop constitute an admission of guilt under the law? Are they accessories after the fact? Did their lack of reporting inhibit what would have been a police investigation?

And what disciplinary action did the church really take? Did it allegedly demote the perpetrator? And how does someone stay archbishop or bishop if what this article alleges is true? Is this good enough?

Does the handling of this whole case seem morally irreprehensible?

If these are the standards that are being set by religious institutions, are those institutions entitled to the position they still hold within our society? Matthew 12:33-3
Posted by Opinionated2, Saturday, 14 March 2009 4:04:31 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
To understand right-from-wrong, it's necessary to grasp the WHY, bushbasher! I'd imagine that's self-evident.

RE: paedophilia as immoral...

'i can answer these (yes, and yes), but what do the answers matter?'

I'd consider it very important to understand the immorality of paedophilia and it should certainly matter...are you suggesting that any sexual activity in private is ok?

If those answers don't matter to you and you've little regard for contrary opinions, why are you so interested in my approval of your own sexual preferences or behaviour?

I won't be checking in your window or asking for your approval of my lifestyle either, the fact you need approval for yours is an indication you're uncomfortable with your choices.

O2, if you're embarassed being confronted with the truth, take the first step, change your mindset and allow others to express their opinions and hold beliefs contrary to your own...

Your judgementalism needs some work though...'All I did was call you to answer...that you would stand up and say you follow...You answered zip!'

Why would you think I'm answerable to you? For my beliefs-my thoughts-my anything? Perhaps you've a problem with delusions-of-grandeur...you're in control, are you?

You aren't just hypocritical, you also presume you know-it-all...your suggestion that I ask the Church to put clergy in the hands of the police, smacks of complete lack-of-any-grip-on-reality! I've no evidence to support such a request, do you? Why don't you present whatever evidence you have to police...I've none and I'll refrain from passing judgement, so-should-YOU!

When you're back-in-the-real-world, try a post that accepts the reality of Catholicism...and all the associated good work...acknowledge the % of good.

Quite a difference between 4-5% and 33%, anyone can claim statistics, much harder to prove them...this disparity alone proves the contradiction,inaccuracy and lack-of-credibility in your self-styled 'experts'.

RE: CM Article, interesting, you quote media 'gospel'...did you write the article? Why expect Catholics to write to CM? What would they know about the incidents (unless they're directly involved)? Why didn't the CM respect the victim's&family's wishes?Since when's CM society's confidante? How many journalists have been involved in sexual misconduct?

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 14 March 2009 9:19:35 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
(Cont...)

Where are all the articles on journalists misdemeanours for balance?

Your 'annoyance' and 'objection' to other's behaviour's laughable...My distaste at sexual perversion is unacceptable but you get-on-your-high-horse about 'over-the-top-behaviour'...get a grip...really!

You've little idea about reporting crimes, Otokonoko's right, crime's reported by the victim and those closest. How many well-intentioneds stepped in and reported 'a crime' to find the 'victim' denied it...the 'victim' has to acknowledge the problem and report it, they know the facts, not-you-or-I.

'The Church' would've reported heresay, not facts, under the circumstances...and incidentally, the Uniting-Anglican-all-other-churches-Scouts-Teachers-Jounalists-Medical-and-Legal-Profession-etc, etc,...all contain a small minority who've been guilty of paedophilia, your obsession with branding and demonising all-thingsCatholic only highlights your bigotry and bias.

'rent-a-crowd' is a descriptive term also used by the CM, hardly 'hard-heart'-ed...get a grip! Given media statements from the 'rent-a-crowd', an apt description indeed...if the cap fits...were you there too?

You incorrectly claim to answer my questions and claim that I'm in conflict with the Bible...I'm not a paedophile, nor am I homosexual, nor an adulterer...which of God's commandments do you claim I've broken? Those are God's laws...which am I in conflict with? Judge not, lest you be judged...

Let's examine the 'standards' we set before we cast the first stones at others...humans all, with human weaknesses,no superheroes, but plenty of courageous Christians amongst us who keep trying despite the bigotry of others.

Your description of the oppotunities for abuses of 'power' possible in Churches, also apply to media who can also abuse power and use innocent victims to get-a-good-story, despite the added, ongoing trauma caused. Again you rant about the Church 'lecturing on sin'...when? Where? Are you sticky-beaking in Catholic Churches now? Is that why you accused me, because it's what you do?

Why don't you and CM go to the police if you've info? Or is it gossip-mongering and more bigotry?

I'll leave you with your last words, more of your confused gibberish...'morally irreprehensible'...huh?
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 14 March 2009 9:31:08 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
>>To understand right-from-wrong, it's necessary to grasp the WHY, bushbasher! I'd imagine that's self-evident.

good. we agree. then i'd be delighted if you'd tell me WHY homosexuality is immoral.

>>I'd consider it very important to understand the immorality of paedophilia and it should certainly matter..

the abuse of childen has nothing to do with judging the morality of activities among consenting adults.

>> are you suggesting that any sexual activity in private is ok?

again, irrelevant.

meg1, this constantly changing the question is a silly game of yours. either you have a *reason* for why homosexuality is immoral, or you don't. if you have a reason, why not give it?

>> you've little regard for contrary opinions,

not true. i just have little regard for your opinion.

>> why are you so interested in my approval of your own sexual preferences or behaviour?

interesting that you should presume to know my sexual preferences, and that you presume i seek your approval.

from my point of view, i'm simply trying to find the source of your belief. i'm simply trying to find out WHY you regard homosexuality as immoral. i would like to know if it is anything other than thoughtless bigotry.
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 14 March 2009 11:44:21 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
Meg with every word you prove my case!

You aren't answerable to me... I just ask simple bible related questions that you can't answer. Your God is watching you! Matthew 12:36-37

I'm totally in control ...I am not a homophobic bigot, are you? Matthew 7

Was that a Pontius Pilot - washing of your hands Meg? Matthew 27:24

I said "ALL churches and organisations SHOULD report ALL crimes to the POLICE!" - Well should they?

If the article is wrong - Why did the Archbishop and Bishops apologise? What is the churches STRONG stance on homosexuality again Meg? Do you have double standards Meg?

Of course if you don't have knowledge of a crime you can't report one Meg (der)... Couldn't you write to Cardinal Pell imploring him that he instruct the Catholic Church to release their records to the Police? You must suspect the records exist!

<<How many journalists have been involved in sexual misconduct?>>

Not as many as the churches Meg... Is this the best you can do?

Dare to be informed? http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/bccrime.html

I didn't get on my high horse, I stated a fact - I am not particularly fond of over the top homosexuals and heterosexuals - I also don't like homophobic bigots especially those who call themselves Christian!

Is judging people and calling people names is unChristian Meg?

Have you broken the following of God's laws in this thread?

Do not judge others(Matthew 7:1-5)

Anger - Matthew 5:21-23

Matthew 5:9 Are you working for peace with your words?

Matthew 5:7 Are you merciful to others?

Matthew 5:39 Turn the other cheek

Matthew 7:19 You fail to do what you can to remove the trees (clergy) that in your religion do not bear good fruit. Why expect the victims to do it all?

Matthew 7:4-5 Fist remove the log from your own eye Meg!

I'm not anti-catholic "Do not bear false witness" Exodus 20:16

Meg are you really a Christian? Remember the verse Matthew 12:36-37
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 15 March 2009 12:46:32 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
'i just have little regard for your opinions'

...yet you continue to ask for my opinion, that's another contradiction. If you're serious, then don't ask for it...

Every thing you don't want to answer is labelled, 'irrelevant', so ditto to you...

Every one of your posts is irrelevant to the thread's issues...it's really a pointless exercise reading them.

Good Luck with finding peace with your 'choices'.

Ditto to your 'friend' o2, who's 'totally in control'...lol. How interesting but irrelevant to the topic...and I'm really not interested in your delusions of grandeur either...

Good Luck with that issue too...

I notice you're very touchy about journalists...and didn't answer if you're the writer of the article...interesting he only sees one issue and that's a story, too bad for the victims who didn't want the issue raised again so they could get on with their lives...typically, all that comes a poor second to too much of the grubby side of journalism under the guise of 'information'. There are a lot less journos than clergy of all religions too...I wonder what the ratio of paedophiles amongst journos is these days...

You protest too much your innocence...'I'm not anti-Catholic'. ROFL Not much and you're not a bigot either, ROFL, God is watching you too.

I'm pleased you acknowledge that he is watching me and that's ok by me...

You make some weird statements amongst that last garbled lot o2, what do you suggest the Church does with 'sinners'? Should they be hanged or fed to the lions? You really are painting yourself into a corner now...

As I'm not a victim of sexual abuse, I don't have any info for the police and don't make it up to give the police or the public a 'good' story either. As I stated, unless the Church had first hand info, they would be presenting 'here-say evidence', not info. Inadmissable in a court of law.

If you researched your stories and your posts past a few mis-interpreted quotes, you'd know that.

If the bible holds such interest for you, you should try to live it...post resurection!
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:40:01 AM
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
meg1, of course you were never obliged to answer any of my questions. yes, you might have declined a week ago, saving you the trouble of writing a dozen or so strident and obfuscatory and misdirecting and presumptuous posts. but, each to their own.

but of course, by pretending so long, and failing so dismally, to reply to my one simple question, you have made everything crystal clear. the fact of the matter is, you have absolutely no reason to regard homosexuality as immoral. it is indeed thoughtless bigotry on your part.

you have a fine example to follow in jesus. it is a shame you don't follow him a little more, and your priests a little less.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 18 March 2009 3:04:57 AM
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
How amusing bushbasher, even though contradictory, you insist that I, 'have a fine example to follow in jesus (Jesus). It is a shame you don't follow him a little more and your priests a little less.'

This thread was written about the St Mary's push to follow Fr Kennedy … which you have supported … how hypocritical of you! You tell me I should follow Jesus more and priests less and in the same breath argue that Fr Kennedy should 'pied piper' us all to your homosexual nirvana where all things are ok and acceptable. 'No rules' heaven...well, that is unless you all decide you want some rules...

Talk about 'thoughtless bigotry', you take the cake...

Threads are there to post your comments, you seem to think others have an obligation to bare their souls to you, yet you prickle right up when asked to spill on yourself...there's a clue, I'm not threatened by you, nor do I intend pandering to your bullying and bigotry. I answer relevant and reasonable questions, not bigoted harassment...you qualify for the latter every time.
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 18 March 2009 11:58:04 AM
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
Well, we do seem to have slipped off the original issue somewhat. (Author here) So may I please raise a specific question?
If we believe all Scripture is inspired and useful for teaching and correcting - and that this refers to the Old Testament - then how do we understand, learn from and obey the following:
Adherents of other faiths must be killed by stoning. Deut 17:5
Stubborn children must be killed by stoning. Deut 21:21
A girl raped by a stranger must marry the rapist and never be divorced. Deut 22:29
A couple who have sex during the woman’s period must be excommunicated. Lev. 20:18
This question – how we understand these commandments today – is a serious one to which there are acceptable answers. Plural. Dealing with this provides a basis for other questions, which may be valuable to pursue later.
I am genuinely interested in your responses. Meg1? Opinionated2? Bushbasher? Others?
Posted by Alan A, Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:43:49 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
meg, you're a treasure.

alan, i apologize for contributing to the derailment of your thread. i just have little tolerance for bigots, especially ones with god on their side.

i'll answer your question from my point of view, but i don't think it's the point of view you're seeking.

>> If we believe all Scripture is inspired and useful for teaching and correcting ...

well, i simply don't believe this. moreover, i am astonished that any thoughtful, rational person would believe this. isn't it obvious that the books of the bible are a human product, and are products of their times? isn't it obvious that certain aspects of the bible are "inspired" by fear and anger and vengeance?

if you want to take it as an axiom (or pretend to have proved) that all scripture has some godly inspiration, then i don't know how you escape the conclusion that your god is more than a little bit schizo.

but, in fact i don't believe you (alan) believe that all scripture is thus inspired. look at the nasty passages you chose for questioning. how did you choose those passages? you chose them exactly because they are morally repugnant. that is, it seems to me that you are yourself judging biblical passages by an externally derived morality.

and thank god you do (so to speak). alan, to say this is not to pick on you, it is to praise you. the alternative is to take barbaric biblical nonsense on faith. it is thus to encourage a tedious and distasteful bigotry, the likes of which the catholic and anglican churches still refuse to shake.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 18 March 2009 8:10:13 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
Thanks bushbasher, others agree I'm a treasure too... :)

I believe God's on everybody's side, it's nice you acknowledge He's on mine too. : )

Alan A, RE: your comment on the Old Testament being 'inspired and useful for teaching and correcting' and the quoted Old Testament verses as being 'commandments' presumably fromGod for us to obey...

I have never heard the Catholic Church teach that the Old Testament was to be regarded as inspired and used as a literal interpretation or for teaching as doctrine/instruction on how to live&behave...if that's so then...

Leviticus 19:19 instructs that you shouldn't wear garments woven with two different threads...if you believe in a literal and binding translation of the Old Testament, that cuts out cotton or wool blends...hardly Church teaching...and certainly not adhered to, or preached by, the Catholic Church.

The books of the New Testament, however, ARE regarded as inspired writings...

Other religions may place more or less emphasis on taking instruction from the Bible (both New and Old Testament) than the Catholic Church , as the primary source of instruction in some cases. (although bible readings and studies feature in daily/weekly Masses, Liturgies and bible study groups, etc. and Catholics are encouraged to read their bibles on the understanding that Jesus came on earth and gave his followers contrary instructions to what they had done for generations, i.e., the Old Testament 'laws' they were following. You will find New Testaments being used in Catholic Schools to instruct students...not Leviticus or Deuteronomy, with instructions to stone or enslave anyone...please don't blurr the truth and confuse or encourage people to deamonise the Catholic or other Christian Churches any more than some on these threads already do.
(Cont...)
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 19 March 2009 2:29:38 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
(Cont...)
Jesus instructed, 'you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church...'
It's safe to assume, Jesus wasn't going to dump thousands of sandstone blocks on top of Peter and build a Church right there...he meant Peter would be the 'shepherd' leading His Church. Jesus also instructed that when Peter (as the Pope and subsequent Popes) spoke specifically as God's representative on earth 'whatsoever you bind on earth, will be bound in Heaven', that his instruction would be 'infallible' in that capacity (and only in that capacity). If he tried to pick the winner of the first race at Doomben or Randwick, he's no more infallible than you or I and would likely suffer the same fate with the bookies.
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 19 March 2009 2:35:21 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
In response to bushbasher: 1. Yes, Meg1 is definitely a treasure. 2. Certainly some Bible passages suggest God could be “more than a little bit schizo”. But many Christians are able to understand these without abandoning all rationality. Most mainstream Christians don’t look to the old testament for moral guidance. Some do but it seems pretty fraught.
I agree with Meg that the teachings of Jesus, along with the rest of the new testament, provide a pretty sound moral framework. This has broad general principles. And quite a lot of highly specific instructions too. The teachings of Jesus most relevant to evaluating the responses of the two church authorities in the original article I think are where Jesus is confronted by the scribes and pharisees. Jesus was always on the side of the outsider, the immoral, the law-breaker, the unclean against those who demanded adherence to theological precepts and moral laws. Because of this the religious legalists were on his case constantly and fiercely. It was they who had him arrested and killed. This struggle between libertarians and authoritarians has continued through history. Just the immediate issues change.
This battle is being waged at both St Mary’s and St Michael’s today. In both scenarios there is “tedious and distasteful bigotry”. But in both cases there are also calls for resolutions which reflect Jesus’s desire for tolerance, acceptance and unity.
In response to Meg1 on the Pope’s authority and infallibility deriving from Jesus’s words to Peter: This is one of the issues which separates the Roman Catholics from the rest of the Catholic church. It is also a topic of some lively discussion with the RC faith. In the matter of St Mary’s I wonder whether the words of Jesus to the pharisees are more immediately relevant than his words to Peter.
Posted by Alan A, Thursday, 19 March 2009 3:31:35 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
alan a, it's your church and your god. i really don't care. (that is, i don't care until some popelike cretin goes around africa spewing nonsense about condoms).

but i answered your question, and now i am curious as to your own answer. what on earth is "inspiring", in any sense of the word, about the passages you quoted? why do you think they are in any sense inspired by god? what is inspirational in these passages in a human sense?

why not simply treat them as a historical artifact, depicting the worst of human nature, and depicting a barbarism not yet extinct, but now almost universally derided?

why the special pleading?

as for jesus, i basically agree. i like jesus, especially the grumpy jesus. the one who pissed people off. especially church people. that i like.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 19 March 2009 5:36:01 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
Alan,

I have already asked those questions but in a slightly different way
see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2572&page=0#58722 for the full thread.

Sorry Meg but do you really know your bible?... sorry!

<<The books of the New Testament, however, ARE regarded as inspired writings...>>

Jesus, (Matthew 5:17-20), emphatically empowers the laws of Moses

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Verse 18 especially is unequivocal! It empowers all of Moses laws'

You must study more!

At this point Christians have a huge problem.

Either they should be running around stoning people or Jesus got it wrong, or the OT should be done away with completely because it is unsafe as a reference!

As any reasonable Christian would realise making a rape victim marry her rapist is absurd. What father, whose daughter was raped, would accept 50 pieces of silver to marry her permanently to the rapist?

But here it is

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found,

Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

So if this and other laws are wrong so is the oppression of homosexuals!

This Jesus character creates some real problems for fundamentalists!
Posted by Opinionated2, Thursday, 19 March 2009 10:12:10 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
Yes, bushbasher, the grumpy Jesus is kind of cool. Now see if this answers your question: It is quite rational to read all of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and find instruction and inspiration therein without having to accept all stories as literally true. Heaps of stories are parables or allegories – including many which seem to have been written as actual history: creation in six days, bears devouring 42 kiddies, the sun standing still in the sky. The bizarre stories of conquests, slaughters and supernatural visitations are read by many Christian today as parabolic. As with Indigenous Dreamtime stories they can be instructive without being true.
Similarly many ancient commandments are read today as intriguing insights into the ordering of a primitive - and sometimes appallingly cruel – early society. They are not regarded as binding for all time.
To figure which old testament teachings still apply, we read the new testament. The exhortations to economic and social justice in the OT prophetic books are clearly affirmed by Jesus and the other NT writers. Not so the punitive laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. My point in raising those questions was to clarify Meg’s understanding of homosexuality, which seems to have been the most divisive issue raised inadvertently by the original piece. More very soon in response to O2 ...
Posted by Alan A, Friday, 20 March 2009 12:14:39 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
Alan A, my last post was in response to your question, not arguing the 'infallibility' of the Pope as reason for Fr Kennedy's adherance at St Mary's...although it's a valid reason for re-considering his position.

My partial response to your question was that Roman Catholics don't look to the Old Testament in the same way others may. Jesus' coming and subsequently the 'inspired' writing of the New Testament, more accurately represents His word. His instruction was to abandon the 'old ways' (including stoning, sexual abuse or perversions, etc.) and follow Him.

Your comment that Jesus always took the side of the unclean, the outsider...'against those who demanded adherance to thelogical precepts and moral laws'...is half right. He took the 'sinner's' side, the 'unclean' the 'tax-collector',the unpopular and those who were morally off-track for whatever reason...but you omit to add, he also told them to REPENT and be forgiven...to 'give to Caesar what is Caesar's'...he didn't say to usurp what belongs to another, quite the reverse! He didn't say live immorally or make your own rules...he said live within the law and keep my commandments!

He taught that no sin is unforgiveable...REPENT and be healed, be forgiven, start afresh...be re-born. REPENT and be forgiven... He didn't say change His instructions or commandments...nor that it's ok to do so...He said REPENT of your sins and sin no more...He didn't say it'd be easy.

Perhaps you're missing who's the 'outsider' here, who's the isolated and marginalised...Bishop Bathersby's been tolerant for a long time, he's obliged to act, to advise and encourage Fr Kennedy to lead/instruct/guide the St Mary's congregation according to the teachings of Christ...he's patiently tried to do so and is still exercising patience and restraint. Can the same be said of Fr Kennedy and the 'rent-a-crowd' that put on the media circus, complete with bomb-threat against the Church and random un-Christian, grossly intolerant remarks about the Church, flagrant bigotry and dispicable remarks about the Pope...and yes, it could be regarded as 'tedious and distasteful bigotry'...still easier, to follow a rent-a-crowd rather than defend the 'outsider'...just like 2000 years ago.
(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 20 March 2009 3:33:47 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
Yes, Opinionated2, Jesus creates problems for fundamentalists. And for all other Christians too. The specific challenge you raise here pretty much turns on what Jesus meant by ‘the Law’. Only if he meant ‘every rule ever written in the OT’ would Meg1 and I be busy stockpiling stones. But as Jesus himself breaks so many of the old rules, he can’t mean this. Does he mean the ten commandments? If so, we have less of a problem, as most Christians regard these as still pretty much binding.
Another way of understanding the passage is to consider Jesus’ phrase ‘until all is accomplished’ in verse 18. If this refers to Jesus’ death and resurrection, then everything changes after those events. This seems to be St Paul’s understanding in Ephesians 2. There are other interpretations available too.
So Christians may have a problem. But I’m not sure it is all that huge. The main thrust of Jesus’s teaching is freedom and love. He is just not interested in passing judgment on peoples’ private lives provided they honour God and love others. This is where Jesus and his followers were so radically different from the prevailing religious authorities, and such a threat to them. For me, the problem is not understanding Jesus’ teaching, but living it. On the oppression of homosexuals, O2, I agree.
Posted by Alan A, Friday, 20 March 2009 3:35:08 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
Alan,

TY for your reply.

I would argue something way different to you.

In Matthew 5,6,7 Jesus selectively changes some laws and gives greater guidance on Anger, Adultery (nearly everyone is an adulterer by this measure), Judging Others, Divorce (anti-women), revenge, Love for enemies etc.

But before doing so in (Matthew 5:17-20), Jesus, emphatically empowers the laws of Moses and the prophets.

Now assuming this book is chronologically correct (none of us can prove this though) Jesus only modified some laws.

Now added to this, Jesus is allegedly the greatest being in the Universe and beyond, even though in John 14:28 "...because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I" he contradicts this explicitly.

Surely the greatest mind other than God's would know what he was saying and how it would be correctly or incorrectly construed by his followers.

To not believe this is actually calling Jesus and God a little thick? I think Jesus/God might be a little insulted! Would this constitute blasphemy? OOps here we go stoning people again.

Now Meg you have shot yourself in the foot again.

<<Bishop Bathersby's been tolerant for a long time, he's obliged to act>>

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25083343-3102,00.html

If this is true, wasn't he obliged to act here, also? See the problem?

That is why I likened the St Mary's people to the people at the Sermon on the Mount ... They didn't count the homosexuals in attendance there!

Your comments of infallibility regarding the Pope are not born out by history. Here check for yourself.

http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c7.htm

Some of these are even confirmed although less vividly in the Catholic Encyclopaedia!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Also on the haulocast denying Bishop http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gpAv-XCnRkh9A6YycUSb9_omKvuw

My last question on the Catholic Encyclopaedia is why did they stop at St Pius X? They say they will add the rest at a later date... Why when it is more fresh in their minds now?
Posted by Opinionated2, Friday, 20 March 2009 6:14:01 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
(Cont...)
Distinct similarities to crowds demanding Christ's crucifixion-ignoring right-from-wrong or recognising His efforts to work with and heal them? Whose 'crucifixion' are you calling for? Bishop Bathersby consistently worked to negotiate a reasonable outcome. His efforts were rebuffed until the media circus was put in place by Fr Kennedy...crowd psychology works every time...still after 2000 years!

Interestingly, Fr Kennedy seems more rigid than any I've seen in the Church, 'one-way-or-the-highway' – you can't use traditional Church liturgies, you're given the 'sheets',i.e.,'Fr Kennedy's approved' script. Sounds hypocritical when he's preaching 'choices'.

If Fr Kennedy feels the issue is faith, why not trust in his god-budha or one of the
many race and religious icons that clutter St Mary's church and start up his own, 'on faith' with his 'loyal' band of media tarts. I wonder how many would be there to support him then? I wonder how many really give a damn about what he does at St Mary's or why? I wonder why so many of his usual congregation were absent from the church on that day? I wonder why so many conscripts from MardiGras fame turned up to denigrate all things Catholic...and Christian, especially the Pope. Close your eyes, roll the tape and you'll be listening to the same verbiage and bile that spews out at MardiGras in Sydney, same sentiments, different location.

...tolerance, acceptance and unity...that sounds more like what the Church is asking for...not the disunity and intolerance Fr Kennedy directs towards Catholics and priests who're quietly living by Christ's teachings and are labelled most dispicably and without cause by his actions and those supporting his actions in the media 'rent-a-crowd'. God laid down the commandments, and the greatest of His teachings is to Love God and Love one another...that does not mean that we have to condone or love what goes against the teachings of Christ or His Commandments...there's the difference. Love the sinner...not the sin.

St Michaels is irrelevant to St Mary's at every level.

Jesus refers to 10Commandments – not Deteronomy, o2...you're selectively blind. Do you suggest rape's equivalent to homosexuality? Odd suggestion...'at-this-point,-you-have-a-huge-problem...
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 20 March 2009 7:09:51 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
Meg, I'm selectively blind? lol

Jesus appears to be beating you Meg!

Are you reading Matthew 5:17-20 with an angry mind? (OOps Matthew 5:22)

17... "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" - Very explicit!

18...not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until ALL is accomplished. - Super explicit!

To argue this only refers to the commandments is being very selective. Jesus mentions the law twice! He does mention the commandments in 20 but he speaks explicitly about the law prior to it.

Are you selective with the Archbishop's, as you called it, "obligation to act"? Do you want him to act on Father Kennedy but ignore what the article alleged?

<<He taught that no sin is unforgiveable...REPENT>>

He also taught "Do not Judge others" Matthew 7:1-5. Are you judging Meg? Sin!

Matthew 7:4-5 How's that log in your eye Meg? Sin!

Father Kennedy has you fired up... Is name calling representing your faith in Jesus and the image of Catholicism well?

Do you really love the sinner? Didn't you call those horrid sinners "rent-a-crowd"?

Did Jesus need you at the the Sermon on the Mount to clear out "rent-a-crowd"?

Jesus never said "Love the sinner, Hate the sin" but he did say "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12 How are you doing with that one Meg?

And whilst we're at it ...How many buildings did Jesus build? I was always taught the Church was the people, not the building! How do we get so far off the word of Jesus in only 2000 odd years?

Is it that man through the churches started to make things up?
Posted by Opinionated2, Friday, 20 March 2009 10:43:41 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
Dear Meg1,

One Jew who was never a Christian is Jesus Christ. If you were really a follower of his you would follow his religion not a religion set up by other people. I wrote a song on the subject which I sang on the radio to the tune of the old jazz standard.

The Imitation of Christ (consult your local rabbi!)

6 ft 2
Eyes of blue
Jesus Christ, he was a Jew
Has anybody seen my Lord?

Big hooked nose
There he goes
Preaching so that everyone knows.
Has anybody seen my Lord?

Speared in the abdomen
By a Roman,
Blood gushing out.

Rose from the dead,
So it is said.
People believe without a doubt.

Jesus died,
Still a Jew.
Still a Jew so why aren't you?
Has anybody seen my Lord?

Should be backed up by a moldy fig jazz band with a lead wahwah cornet ala Muggsy Spanier

Good night,

David
Posted by david f, Friday, 20 March 2009 10:54:28 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
alan:

>>My point in raising those questions was to clarify Meg’s understanding of homosexuality ...

thanks for trying, but you've done no such thing. let's try to get to this.

>> The bizarre stories of conquests, slaughters and supernatural visitations are read by many Christian today as parabolic.
>> ... they can be instructive without being true.

Yes, but the fact that they are not true does not help them be instructive. if you claim they are instructive, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that.

>>Similarly many ancient commandments are read today as intriguing insights into ... a primitive - and sometimes appallingly cruel – early society.

sure. isn't this what i was indicating by referring to such writings as historical artifacts?
you used the word "inspired", but that seems wrong. it's not that the nasty lines are inspired, it's that they may inspire reflection from the reader.

but then the same can be said of any text which delves deeply into the good or the bad of human nature. in that sense, OT nastiness is, um, inspiring in exactly the same manner as Mein Kampf.

but let's be specific.

1) take one of the verses you quoted:

>> Stubborn children must be killed by stoning. Deut 21:21

alan, what do YOU gain from this line? i gain nothing, but horror and disgust. for the people who wrote it, and for anyone who did or does anoint such a line, in any way shape or form.

2) alan, do YOU regard homsexuality as immoral? if so, why?

you have no obligation to answer, but is it unfair of me to ask? i don't see why. you can chat all you want about meaning and parables, and inspiration. but for me it doesn't have substance unless you address it to a substantive question.

meg ducked. what is your response?
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 21 March 2009 12:35:26 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
ROFL, I can't imagine less likely candidates for defending the 'judge not lest thou be judged'...than o2 and bushbasher...lol. But hypocrisy may be your middle names, huh?

Your confusion regarding Jesus is not difficult to address when seen in the context of the Trinity...Father, Son and Spirit.

Your repeated references to your newspaper bigotry don't say anything about what Bishop Bathersby did for the victim and his family, but both stated that they wanted privacy and were satisfied with the Church's response...why are they answerable to your bigoted journalism and sensationalist stories...why should they be victims of your media 'expose' as well as the alleged crime?

At the sermon on the mount, any homosexuals would have been welcomed and encouraged to repent and sin no more...told that they were forgiven for their sin and told to sin no more.

I don't have to judge people, but I do have to choose right from wrong based on an informed conscience...to choose wrong, is to sin...why are you so afraid of using the word, sin?

O2 you are very confused about the words of Matthew and exactly when all is 'accomplished'...Jesus challenged the old 'law' of the OT...and his death and resurrection, accomplished the will of God in opening for all of us the way to enter his Kingdom...Heaven.

You called the 'rent-a-crowd' 'sinners', not me, their own comments to media were what indicated they were 'rent-a-crowd', with no more interest in St Mary's than a one-day-media-circus to promote homosexuality, anti-Catholicism and anti-Papal-bigotry, were you there too?

RE:Matthew 7:12 I would expect that when I sin, others would encourage me to do what was right, and not continue to err...sin, call it what your sensibilities allow. I do unto others and wish others showed the same consideration...you know nothing of my efforts for others so don't dig yourself in any deeper than you have. Look to your own efforts, I'm not afraid to meet my maker on my record and I don't rest on my laurels, but nor do I need to broadcast them to you.
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 21 March 2009 10:55:05 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
(Cont...)

I would not advise my children to experiment with drugs, alcohol or promiscuous behaviour, but have always told them that nothing will ever change the love I have for them and no problem is ever insurmountable if we tackle it together. That's what God's law is there for...to help, not harm.

My comment to Alan regarding the building of the 'Church' stated that God did NOT mean that He would build a building on top of Peter...re-read my posts (19-03-09) – the Church IS the people!

David f you seem confused as to the origin of the word Christ-ian...Jesus was and is, the Christ in Christian...His nationality is not in question, why would you assume anyone has a problem with His ethnicity? It was also His own people, Jews, who called for His crucifixion and beatings...what's your point? It was the old Hebrew laws that He challenged and refused to condone, stoning, killing and sacrificing of children...

“Why aren't I a Jew?” Are you serious? Are you saying I need a hooked nose too? The poor Romans got a bad rap in your tune...what about the good fellows who refused to harm Jesus? Hmmm...I can't accept that race or creed guarantees superiority or goodness...constantly trying to do what's right and decent might be a good start though.

Bushbasher is still looking for someone to condone his lifestyle choices and still cannot accept that Jesus challenged the 'laws' of the OT and called on his followers to 'come follow me'...as he died on the cross he said, “it is accomplished!” He challenged all that was not right about the old laws and died at the hands of His own people, He paid that price for us and our salvation rather than deny what was right … rather than condone what was wrong...

...duck? I don't think so...
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 21 March 2009 10:58:08 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
ah, cupcake.

1) you're still presuming to know my lifestyle choices. you don't.

2) you presume that i'm making some claim about OT and it's role in christianity. i am not.

alan introduced OT nastiness, and asked my opinion.

i am now simply asking alan to make clear his sense of the inspiration value of OT nastiness. and i am asking alan to clarify what any of this has to do with his, your, or anyone's moral condemnation of homosexuality.

3) you claim you didn't duck. it is true, when it came to moral outrage against homosexuality, you were upright and persistent and bloody loud. but, when it came to justifying your moral outrage, you ducked.

4) i am a hypocrite? why? i am not a christian, and i am happy to judge. and i have no problem with you judging me. i am simply pointing out your inability to justify your moral judgment of homosexuality.

but, dear christian cupcake, should YOU be judging? are you quite sure who is the hypocrite here?
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 21 March 2009 11:26:35 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
Meg1 wrote: David f you seem confused as to the origin of the word Christ-ian...Jesus was and is, the Christ in Christian..... It was also His own people, Jews, who called for His crucifixion and beatings...what's your point? It was the old Hebrew laws that He challenged and refused to condone, stoning, killing and sacrificing of children...

Dear Meg1,

Messiah or Christ is the herald for the millennium that brings peace on earth. Since it did not happen Jesus obviously was not the messiah. No Second Coming because the messiah is able to get it right the first time.

Leviticus 19:18 "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against, the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." Note the command not to be vengeful. Sixteen verses later, the Jewish God makes the explicit command to love the stranger.

LEVITICUS 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. The message of love of Jesus comes from his Jewish training where he learned the laws of love in Leviticus.

People under Roman occupation wrote the New Testament. To appeal to the gentile Romans to join his new cult the NT blamed the Jews rather than the actual people in charge, the Romans.

The NT has a woman impregnated by a ghost (like Leda or other mortals impregnated by Zeus in one form or another) The protagonist of this epic walked on water, turns water into wine, gives sight to the blind, raises the dead (after 3 days in the tomb), feeds 5000 then 4000 people with just a few fish and loaves, heals lepers, releases demon posessed people (currently they would be classed as insane) and heals paralyzed people. He then dies and is resurrected (like Mithra and other pagan Gods). It is a fairy tale book but it was effective in attracting the gullible.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 21 March 2009 11:36:35 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
Ok, some responses. First to bushbasher. Your observations, questions and criticisms of my limited answers are absolutely fair. So to elaborate: Many primitive cultures had stories of violence and slaughter to instil a sense of awe at the sacredness of life and the consequences of evil. I don’t derive any spiritual inspiration from the passages above. But as a kid they possibly influenced my understanding of the horrors of war and the need to strive for peace with justice.
The text about stoning stubborn children is a primitive exhortation to accept that obeying authority is essential for sound government in a perilous world. A child, for example, who refused to wash after contact with offal or faeces, or who irritated a sabre-toothed tiger or an enemy tribe, endangered not only himself but the group. Perhaps draconian measures were once required. Not sure. Sounds like tough love to me. (Fortunately, stoning my own disobedient children was only ever a fleeting temptation, seldom acted upon.)
No, homosexuality is not evil. I see no biblical teaching against consensual same-sex relationships. Nor any other reason why they are unacceptable. With your other observations I agree.
To Davidf, love your work. But don’t give up your day job.
To Opinionated2, why repeat your assertion “in (Matthew 5:17-20), Jesus, emphatically empowers the laws of Moses and the prophets.” What about the Friday, 20 March 3:35:08 response? Meg is right. If that explanation is reasonable, then your subsequent assertions may not be.
To Meg: We agree on biblical inspiration. But not yet on homosexuality. Nor on the principal direction of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus rarely told people to repent. That was the gig of the OT prophets and John the Baptist. Two or three times Jesus told groups of rich people to repent, but not people accused of immorality. Mark and John don’t record him using the word ever. Jesus’ message to accused individuals seems to be 1. I do not condemn you; 2. come and live with us in a new kingdom of God.
Finally, Meg, I still think St Michael’s and St Mary’s are comparable.
Posted by Alan A, Sunday, 22 March 2009 12:17:41 AM
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
Alan,

I repeat things because Christians don't answer, brushing things aside and twisting the obvious words of Jesus to fit their doctrinal beliefs. Don't preachers repeat biblical messages ad nauseam? I claim the same right!

eg. John 14:28 "...because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I". This line is ignored by trinitarians! Could it be any more explicit?

Christians are very flexible when it comes to Jesus' words, many times preferring Paul's words (dump good old Jesus') and yet very inflexible when it comes to judgements of others. Why?

Anyone can hold their hand up and say they are a Christian but it is their actions, deeds, and arguments that prove that they are or not.

Ephesians 2 is not that good a choice of passages... It explains how we Gentiles can be a part of the covenants because our parents, without consent, lop a piece of genitalia off.

The most powerful being in the Universe has a foreskin collection? The most powerful being in the Universe wants us to perform an unnecessary painful operation on a newborn so we become a part of God's chosen children and open to receive his grace?

Why do Christians preach about this Dumb God? It is intellectually insulting.

To argue that it is only the 10 commandments that Jesus refers to (Matthew 5:17-20) is wrong. The 2nd most powerful being in the Universe says "ALL laws" then seperately mentions the commandments... why?

Christians can't help judging people even though there is an explicit ruling from Jesus they shouldn't do that! Either Jesus' word is "the word" or you Christians can alter it anytime and "the word" means zip!

Jesus wants "sinners" (Matthew 7:7-11) to come to him and yet when certain people attend a Church the congregations want to expel them? This is unChristian, hence the parable of "The Lost Sheep" Luke 15:4

These people at St Mary's may be the lost sheep! Is expelling them then, undoing God's plan?

Self-proclaimed Christians are such slow & selective learners!
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 22 March 2009 1:23:16 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
Yes, O2. All these problems. But applying Aristotelian logic to texts written by different authors from various cultures in many languages over several centuries thousands of years ago only makes them worse.
‘Christians are very flexible when it comes to Jesus' words’. Yes, absolutely. This is essential when they contain so many curious word pictures, historic Hebrew allusions, tricky evasions, apparent contradictions and blatant obfuscations.
Google ‘they did not understand the saying that he spoke’ in your concordance. Then see how often Jesus said ‘Let them hear who have ears to hear’.
This is why anyone reading the Bible, especially Jesus' teachings, must be extremely cautious before declaring precisely what is meant. Meg has referred, for example, to Jesus’ words to Peter about building a church on a rock. Meg’s interpretation is certainly plausible. But it is only one view held within one wing of the Christian church. As Jesus was using a metaphor, other interpretations remain open to us.
The word ‘judge’ also appears to cause you some excitement, 02. This has several meanings also. Christians are called to judge all the time but never to judge, depending on which meaning. Would you like a simpler religion, 02? So would I.
Hence reading Scripture is an ongoing challenge. Living it even more so. Most Christians find that the greater problem is not grappling with the passages we don’t understand, but obeying those we do. And most can, despite the foregoing, be understood pretty well with the help of a little scholarship, pastoral care and a Christian community.
If, however, we read Jesus with a view to ridiculing Christianity, then that would seem so easy that the fun must surely wear off pretty soon.
As to ‘These people at St Mary's may be the lost sheep! Is expelling them then, undoing God's plan?’ We shall soon see. The process now underway with the former judge may determine that Fr Kennedy and his followers are still able to remain with the Roman branch of the Catholic community. If not, they will be warmly welcomed elsewhere.
Posted by Alan A, Sunday, 22 March 2009 5:09:22 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
Alan - I would have just used the words logic, and honest appraisal & discussion.

The word judge causes me no excitement... wrong again... but when Jesus says "Do not Judge others" Matthew 7:1-5 and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12 and "First remove the log from your own eye..." Matthew 7:4-5 the teachings seem simple enough to me.

So when you ask "Would you like a simpler religion, 02"? Actually no. If Christianity would stop dragging about that mouldy OT it would be simpler still.

I simplified Matthew 5:17-20 for easier understanding Alan, and, it worked.

When you typed <<We shall soon see>> when I asked "These people at St Mary's may be the lost sheep! Is expelling them, undoing God's plan?" didn't you tell a little fib?

Let me simplify!

How will we know it is God's plan? I see starving people in the world, I hear people are sexually abused in religious institutions ...What's God's plan?

God's plan is hard to see, and yet, you type it so easily, without thought or understanding of what you type.

If you can see God's plan in all these things can you tell me what it is? I only asked "Is expelling them then, undoing God's plan?" Perhaps "I don't know" would be a better answer!

I know Christians say "God works in mysterious ways" but isn't that just so they don't have to honestly say "I have no idea what God is doing here"?

Finally, when you say regarding scripture "we do (understand & obey)pretty well with the help of a little scholarship, pastoral care and a Christian community" is this really true?

From my experience preachers preach literalism more than anything - How can that help you understand? With all that you have said I would have thought scholarship and pastoral care from churches isn't all that useful!

From the Christians I talk to, they haven't got a clue that oppressing homosexuals is a sin, and, that they are not entitled to commit it as professing Christians!

So much for scholarship!
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 22 March 2009 7:29:36 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
alan, thanks for your straight-forward answers. i'm surprised, and appreciative. i have some quibbles, and there's plenty more i might ask you about. but for now i think you're sufficiently occupied with other posters.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 22 March 2009 9:15:10 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
You're so much easier to love, bushbasher, when you call me'cupcake' and 'treasure'... :)

RE: Judging others - God laid down the commandments, and the greatest of His teachings is to Love God and Love one another...that does not mean that we have to condone or love what goes against the teachings of Christ or His Commandments...there's the difference. Love the sinner...not the sin. I don't judge the 'sinner', just the 'sin'...

In order to choose right from wrong, you have to exercise 'free will' using an informed conscience to judge – right-from-wrong!

Don't judge others by your own actions and feelings though...I feel no outrage, anger, etc. towards homosexuals. I am disgusted by the bigotry displayed by the actions and words of the 'rent-a-crowd' who claimed to be members of St Mary's Parish, a claim contradicted by every word that spewed from their mouths afterwards. I am aware of numbers of regular parishioners who did not attend in support, some because of the presence of the 'rent-a-crowd' who involved themselves in threats and violent outbursts, provoked by media bigotry and hype, in some cases.

davidf recalls vividly who called from the crowd 2000 years ago, “Crucify Him!” It was those bl#*dy Romans...ROFL, the Jews were innocent, completely innocent bystanders, right! As for the NT, it's all a fairytale too...let's stick to the OT which has a few problems with basic human rights and decency...laws that Jesus taught were wrong and should end. How often do you stone your children? Are human sacrifices still ok? You can't be serious! Talk about gullible, if I hadn't read it I wouldn't have believed you'd said it...

As for Jesus not talking about sin or repenting in cases of immorality, Alan A, remember the woman who was being stoned for adultery? The remainder of your quote...'I do not condemn you' either, go now and sin no more... Jesus taught in many ways, including parables...to repent and be forgiven, to sin no more...

o2 you certainly can claim the right to repeat things ad nauseum...but you do abuse the privilege!

(tbc)
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 22 March 2009 11:28:00 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
(Cont...)
'Christians' aren't obliged to lop-off-a-piece-of-foreskin. That's incorrect...some 'choose' it as a right-of-entry...or for medical reasons. It isn't a 'requirement' of Christianity.

Your 'Lost Sheep' outside St Mary's, exposed reasons for being there, to media. Little concerning happenings inside the church but lots of bigoted remarks against the Pope and Catholicism. We're all Lost Sheep sometimes...having-a-bad-day, lonely, sick or whatever...excommunication isn't done by the Church, it's done by ourselves, to ourselves, by choices we make...we have free will...like Fr Kennedy. If he wants to do-his-own-thing, good luck, but don't take the property or good name of the Church and use it to preach with no resemblance to the teachings of Christ...in essence, a mishmash of 'feel-good' statements-that-mean-nothing-and-go-nowhere...

Start another religion but do it on his own time and in his own place...I've no problem with that. If I squatted with my family and friends as a permanent resident in St Michael's church, it'd be considered an imposition on the congregation...if I preached about stoning their children and be-heading the infidels...I guess you'd all take a dim view of my actions then...

AlanA, I'd agree that ridiculing Christianity should quickly become tiresome, but it appears some have less challenges in their lives or other reasons to continue the practice.

As for desiring a simpler religion, how much simpler than the teachings and actions of Christ...repent, sin no more ...come follow me...keep trying, if you fail, repent, be forgiven and try again to do better the next time...there's always hope, in Christ. : )

O2 argues in contradictions...how is it God's fault when humans use their 'free will' to choose immorality and violence against one another. If we chose to follow His 'plan' there would be no such behaviour and the results around the world would be vastly different...no greed, violence, starving millions because the world has more than enough food for the world's population.

You can't have it both ways, either you make choices and take responsibility for them or you don't! If you refuse to be guided by Jesus' words, don't blame God for the mess you're in...
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 22 March 2009 11:56:08 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
Meg … You use the words rent-a-crowd ad nauseam. Haven’t you condoned yourself breaking Jesus’ precise instructions in this thread?

So when you state

<<I can't imagine less likely candidates for defending the 'judge not lest thou be judged'...than o2 and bushbasher...lol. But hypocrisy may be your middle names, >>

Do Bushbasher and I know more about Christian obligations than you?

Why do you call yourself Christian? To quote you <<You can’t have it both ways>> either you follow the explicit teachings of Jesus Christ or you aren’t a Christian! Decision time!

That is why I have used direct quotes from Jesus, Meg. Look at them! Aren’t they all the areas in which you fail?

You were angry with what these attendees at St Mary’s did … What are Jesus’ express instruction to you Meg?

Matthew 5:38-42 “…Turn the Other Cheek…” You fail this in your actions, in your words and in your thoughts.

Furthermore, you fail John 8:7 ….let he who has not sinned cast the first stone….”. Have you sinned Meg? Stop throwing stones! It’s against Jesus’ teachings!

Why can’t a loudly professing Christian see their own failings, Meg? Is it your OBLIGATION as a Christian to follow Jesus’ explicit instructions?

Why do you think I have been giving the many scriptures that apply to you and your words Meg? It’s Jesus’ own explicit teachings attempting to correct you Meg!

Why do I repeat them? Meg are you so angry, that not even the precise, instructional words of Jesus himself can stop your judgements?

People at St Mary's, who object to the Pope and Religions, reflect centuries of frustration & anger at the homophobic bigotry they have had to deal with in them.

You have a couple of weeks of frustration Meg and aren’t you failing Jesus, & angry at Bushbasher and I?.... See the parallel?

You may fly the Christian flag on the outside Meg, but is what you thought was rock underneath, subsiding sand? Matthew 7: 24-27. Beware the crash Meg!

Are you letting Jesus down?
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 23 March 2009 2:11:46 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
Have you heard of just anger o2, I'll let Jesus be the judge of whether it is your anger or my supposed anger that is the just one...I don't feel angry at you but I do feel angry that the genuine parishioners of St Mary's are put in the invidious position they are in by Fr Kennedy...who has avoided all attempts at a resolution on their behalf.

The rent-a-crowd who were involved in bomb threats and hurling abuse and bile at the Pope and the Church were not parishioners of St Mary's, they were just that, rent-a-crowd who were looking for an opportunity to bad-mouth Catholics...Fr Kennedy gave them and you, as it turns out, that opportunity.

You seem to have an axe to grind against Catholics at every opportunity also, why so angry? Has he homosexual issue hit a raw nerve? You seem to return your focus to that issue every time. If you were confident of homosexuality as a lifestyle 'choice' you would not rail at anyone who chooses to live differently.

You expect perfection of anyone who believes in Christ, yet allow yourself to indulge in bigotry and hypocrisy while you pontificate as if only your opinion could possibly hold any merit.

Christians aren't asked to BE perfect, they're asked to keep trying to be better...even when they try and fail.

Even us treasured cupcakes aren't perfect o2, but we hang in there and live to try another day...maybe I'll try harder tomorrow and succeed in getting that little bit better day by day...wish me luck or pray I succeed!
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 12:39:20 AM
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
yes, cupcake, trying harder would be worthwhile. maybe a little extra homework on reading comprehension and on logic? and do please pass on the suggestion to your darling pope.
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 9:52:14 AM
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
Meg, I'm not anti-Catholic...I am not angry! "Just Anger"....Jesus turning over the money tables? Turn over any bingo tables Meg?

I'm heterosexual Meg what is wrong with you?

You again use..."choice"...in reference to gays..."Can you tell me the day you CHOSE to be heterosexual...please explain your thought processes on that day?”

Brave enough to answer yet?

Are some priests homosexual? Christians oppress homosexuals for centuries...but...when someone dares to fight back Christians go all whiney...they called the Pope names...sob...sob!

Hopefully you realise

John 13:34..."A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another even as I have loved you..."

John 3:16..."For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

plus the other passages I have quoted, are Jesus talking to you.

I like you have no right to judge these people or throw stones, I should just be the best I can be.

Stopping the oppression of everyone in society actually empowers you to be a more positive person. "The Churches are wrong" in so many areas.

They preach an unintelligent God that hates, is vindictive and jealous!

Would the allegedly most powerful being in the Universe need to be any of those things? These are human traits not Godly!

I have trouble with all religions who misinterpret the Bible.

I don't have the same obligations as you as a Christian but I do have similar obligations as a caring human.

If Jesus is the son of God...It's our ability to be what Jesus instructed, that is our personal test.

Me asking you to be perfect would be hypocritical. I am just using your book of choice to help you see where you are wrong.

Churches don't teach honestly. That's why I referenced the ugly things that allegedly go on in your brand of church. You haven’t expressed an opinion yet!

Why so silent on alleged church crimes? Did you read what some of your Popes allegedly have gotten up to?

If they have done such things - they shouldn't be preaching morality!
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 12:18:56 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
Luckily BB & Opinionated2, I don't deal in allegations against you or others...I'll happily leave the judging up to God!

If you aren't angry O2, don't invite me to dinner when you are...

It is curious that you make a lot of claims against the Popes and the Catholic Church and then demand I justify myself against your allegations...are you suggesting that you are responsible for the 'sins' of every heterosexual or non-Catholic on earth? Then why should I be responsible for any 'alleged' wrongs that any one else may be responsible for, Catholic or not?

Your posts are very anti-Catholic...so much so that one wonders if you protest too much your non-Catholicness...are you trying to justify abandoning your own Catholic faith? Don't take it out on the me and the rest of the world if you are...

I wish you both well and hope you can learn to tolerate those who are Catholic and accept it's not them who are a threat to you...
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 5 April 2009 1:14:58 AM
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
>> I don't deal in allegations against you or others...

heh, heh! funny one, cupcake!

>> hope you can learn to tolerate those who are Catholic

ah, cupcake i tolerate catholics quite fine. it's formulaic, institutionalized, god-inspired, church-promoted bigotry that i can't stomach.

>> and accept it's not them who are a threat to you...

you are no threat to me. but the threat to others of an obtuse pope going around africa, fibbing about condoms? that's another story.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 6 April 2009 8:10:44 AM
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
Meg,

I am NOT anti-catholic..."Do not bear false witness" Exodus 20:16

Is your failure to grasp this simple fact, why, you have trouble understanding your obligations as a Christian?

Weren't you throwing some pretty big stones at the people at St Marys Meg? I thought I'd give you the opportunity to be even-handed by commenting on other things that happen in your chosen brand of religion.

It does beg the question Meg... If what this article http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/ alleges is true, how did Cardinal Pell, become the most senior Catholic in Australia?

If as alleged, no Bishops accompanied the victims to court, why aren't you equally annoyed (at least), and equally outspoken, as you are with Fr Kennedy? Why haven't you expressed this annoyance?

Is Fr Kennedy damaging the Catholic name more than Cardinal Pell if what the brokenrites website alleges is true?

Are Cardinal Pell's and the other Bishop's alleged actions or alleged lack of support for victims anti-Catholic?

I don't hold you responsible, but, it is an interesting position that you take. Aren't you on one hand you throwing stones and on the other staying silent? Why?

Is this hypocrisy? Your God is watching.

I'm sorry that I had to use your Bible to show you where you were wrong... Do you think I listened more when I went to Church than you did and maybe understand it better?

Seeing you have some weird theories about me...

Have you made a name for yourself, amongst local Catholics, with your strongly outspoken opinions about St. Mary's, that you can't honestly appraise the brokenrites link, Cardinal Pell's alleged actions or the Bishops alleged inactions in the article, because you fear being punished for speaking out equally against all things you see as un-Catholic?

I'm sorry that you think I am being tough on Catholics but as the Broken Rites site states

"About 90 per cent of the men and women who have contacted Broken Rites Australia have been from a Catholic background."

Is this organisation anti-Catholic by speaking out and helping abuse victims?
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 6 April 2009 8:45:10 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
Bb, you're full of compliments – now I'm 'funny' and make you smile too... :)

God doesn't 'inspire' bigotry nor does the Pope travel through Africa 'fibbing'...have you travelled with him? Perhaps you should talk on topics you are more knowlegable about...this is one you're out of your depth amongst...I haven't travelled through Africa, with or without the Pope but I imagine there may be some distortion of facts, dare I say Propaganda put about by other 'PopeBashers' like yourself...in Africa?

O2, you've got some pretty weird theories of your own...you argue I shouldn't 'judge' then demand I judge Cardinal Pell and others when I do not know the circumstances or the truth...nor do you...

I'm not casting any stones, just stating that some of the parishioners of St Mary's were not present on the 'media' day and many who were, did not represent either the Catholic Church or Fr Kennedy's parishioners...and if you knew the facts, you'd already know that.

Your reference to 'listening more in Church' doesn't mean a lot when you twist the meaning of Biblical passages to selectively portray a version that doesn't exist, except as a figment of your over excited imagination...in 2000 years, there have been others who have seen, but not believed...you're not the first and won't be the last...

Your statements regarding “Broken Rites” refer to an organisation that claims many things, including the loose comment that 90% of callers are 'from a Catholic background'...which could mean that those 90% (if the statement is to be believed) are devoutly, practicing Catholics...or simply people who have known someone who was Catholic, or were baptised as Catholics...but never raised in their faith...or any range in between. What does such a statement really say? Little other than show the agenda of the organisation in the cold, hard light of day...the 'callers' may even have been phoning to offer compassionate sympathy as Catholics who care for the alleged 'victims'. 'Statistics...damned lies and statistics'...they can deamonise and distort by selective omission...

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 1:10:31 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
(Cont...)

Your comment regarding bishops 'attending' court with the alleged 'victims'...how many asked the bishops to attend with them? Would their legal counsel have allowed or encouraged such 'attendance'? I guess not, since it would have indicated that the Church was not the 'monster' you are trying to portray...

I have known numerous Catholic and non-Catholic priests and religious and have never had an experience where any of them behaved in a sexually improper or suggestive manner to me … I am not in a minority within the Catholic Church...despite the claims you like to make and highlight...yet you never seem able to recognise any of the good the various Churches achieve.

That's the hypocrisy, O2...you represent the real hypocrisy of your argument in your portrayal of all that is Catholic...other than a lot of bile, there's no real substance.
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 1:12:42 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
Meg,

I'm not asking you to judge anyone! I have proven through this I don't judge - have you?

Why did you take this long to comment on these alleged criminal issues?

How did you feel about the now Cardinal Pell, allegedly escorting Father Gerald Ridsdale to court?

Why did the victims allegedly feel let down by the Church?

Meg how do you know the "Broken Rites" quotation of 90% was a "loose comment"? Not all statistics lie! Are you using a cliche to get out of addressing the issue?

I know many Catholics and they are all wonderful, caring and loving people, in great families, who do lots of wonderful things in their communities. I also have known some fabulous priests who work tirelessly within their communities.

Personally, I feel that genuine Catholics are hard done by because everyone focuses on them and not on the other religious organisations where similar crimes have occurred.

This fact doesn't excuse the baddies in your religion OR are you saying it does?

Isn't it the method which your Church and others handle these things that needs to change? Is your Church hierarchy failing you?

Isn't it you who wrongly kept labelling me anti-Catholic!Exodus 20:16 Naughty, naughty Meg!

Why didn't you address my reference to the "Sermon on the Mount" in relation to St Mary's? Does that reference make you feel a little silly?

Can you point out exactly where I misrepresented the teachings of the Bible?

You stated <<Your reference to 'listening more in Church' doesn't mean a lot when you twist the meaning of Biblical passages to selectively portray a version that doesn't exist...>>

Can you point out where I have done this or is this another case of "Bearing false witness"? Exodus 20:16 Naughty, naughty again Meg!

Do you really know your Bible Meg?

Read through what you typed about the people at St Mary's Meg... Did you fail John 8:7 ....let he who has not sinned cast the first stone...”?

But enough of this.... I look forward to hearing how I misrepresented the Bible... This will be fun...lol
Posted by Opinionated2, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 2:21:56 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
cupcake, you're the gift of humor which keeps on giving.

you suggest that i should only talk upon that which i am knowledgeable? does your very reasonable suggestion also apply to the pope? might you suggest why he is so knowledgeable about the use of condoms in the prevention of STD's? does it concern you that many health experts are on the record, shocked by the inaccuracy and the dangerousness of the pope's knowitall comments?

ah, no. you simply suggest, with out a scintilla of evidence, that it's all misquoting from pope bashers.
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 11:29:15 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
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus Christ spelt out the way his government would operate. As the King he would establish courts, and in those courts, the promise of Matthew 7:7 is given. Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened for you. The English took this to heart and devised a way that a person could formally ask Almighty God for what he wanted. The Form used was a Writ, issued in the name of the Ruling Sovereign, and tested in the name of the Chief Justice. Once issued, the Writ required an answer, and to not answer was contempt of court. The Pope took exception to this Biblical interpretation.

In England a Writ was replaced in 1873 by a Writ of Summons, and that is what Australian Courts issued in 1900. If a claim was made in a Writ of Summons, it could not be discharged by a Judge. It could only since 1472 be discharged by a jury trial with twelve men present. Men were the only ones entitled to vote back then. The jury trial was of higher rank than a Judge, and the judge could not do any private deals behind their back, because only a jury trial exercised the divine power of Almighty God. This is what all Australians voted for in 1899.

In Matthew 18 Verses 15-20 further guidance is given in the ways of good government. In verse 20 Jesus promises to be there, when two or three are gathered together in my name. The English to be fairly sure they got it right settled on 12 disciples, all sworn on the Holy Bible to find the truth. They kept the promise of Jesus Christ in Matthew 7 :18 and 19, and courts with judges brought forth good fruit, while a Court with a Judge brings forth evil fruit. There are many exceptionally gifted and genuine Roman Catholic Australians. The Roman Catholic religion was alien to England, and it is Roman Catholic law to exclude voters of both sexes from courts
Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 8:04:58 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
Peter the Believer wrote: The Roman Catholic religion was alien to England, and it is Roman Catholic law to exclude voters of both sexes from courts

Sometimes the statements of Peter the Believer are especially ridiculous, and the above is one of them.

I don't know how Roman Catholicism can be alien to England since it existed in England before there was Protestantism.

If it were Roman Catholic law to exclude voters of both sexes from courts then the courts would be confined to non-voters.

I am not a Catholic, but I grow weary of Peter the Believer's denigration of Catholics, and his vision of our government as though it should be an instrument of his religion.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 8:49:22 AM
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
I still have a few people who disagree with me that the government of Australia is based in the New Testament. Some of these people say they are sick of me. Fair enough, I am sick of atheists and secularists who refuse to accept clear evidence written in black and white, too so we are probably even, though the tide of history is on my side.

The Parliament of the Commonwealth is a Protestant Christian court that starts each day with the Lord’s prayer from the Sermon on the Mount. We used to have protestant Christian grass roots political meetings all over the country and we used to call these the Supreme Court and District Court in Queensland, and they had 12 ordinary electors drawn from the community and a lawyer as president. These had absolute power, and whatever the bods in Parliament did, it was a waste of time unless a jury thought it was a good idea and was prepared to enforce it. When Joh was in power, he knew this, but some since have forgotten it.

Now the Roman Catholic Church has a different system of government. It comes down from the top, with the Pope as absolute ruler. The combination of Roman Catholics and lawyers, in the Parliament of the Commonwealth when they created the Federal Court, Family Court and modified the High Court in 1979, made them Roman Catholic Courts. A Roman Catholic Court has a capital C. A Protestant Christian Court has a little c and it is this type of court that Ch III Constitution requires for the exercise of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth. Most thinking Roman Catholic folk liked what we had, and did not realize they had been made compulsory Roman Catholics and no longer had a choice of trial methods. It’s a High Priest Lawyer or nothing these days.

The Protestant Christian Parliament of the Commonwealth made this a crime in 2001, in the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) and the widespread attack on the civil population of Australia by a very small minority must be stopped
Posted by Peter the Believer, Thursday, 9 April 2009 8:08:54 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
Hello again. The original story has advanced somewhat recently. http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=12889 Cheers, Alan A
Posted by Alan A, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 2:09:32 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
O2, you need to turn your questions around and answer them yourself...the mere fact that there is no way to substantiate your 'statistics' with any data, indicates those statistics are questionable...

As for non-judgemental, YOU?...rofl...oh, please, rofl...(tears sreaming down my cheeks now...rofl)

There isn't a 'too long' time limit on responses, is there? Who sets the limit? Don't you have a life outside of cyberspace O2? I have a life off line...you should try it sometime... :) I think being overbearing online is called 'cyber-bullying', but I'm not intimidated by you O2, so I guess it doesn't count...

I don't 'feel' I can 'judge' Cardinal Pell on his attendance at court... he knows the circumstances of that case, not you or I...'non-judgemental' hmmm?

If you are a 'victim' then you'd know the answers, I'm not, so I'm not going to be presumptuous enough to assume I should...

'Personally, I feel that genuine Catholics are hard done by because everyone focuses on them and not on the other religious organisations where similar crimes have occurred...' ...are you serious? ...so why are YOU joining the 'everyone' when you 'focus' on one alleged issue and ignore all those Catholics you know first hand and all those 'priests who work tirelessly'...this is the first indication you have given there are ANY Catholics who exist outside of your list of alleged sexual predators.

If my local MP was failing me, I'd take it up with him-her, I'd do the same with the heirachy of the Church...but I'm happy with the Pope and his Cardinals...and the wonderful work they do. You should try to do some good works instead of trying to tear down the good name of others...look up the biblical references for that one too!

I don't 'judge' people as good or 'baddies' by how many bible references they can quote by rote...I don't know any reason why I should change that position, certainly your hypocrisy only confirms it...'faith without good works is dead'...

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 18 April 2009 2:57:16 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
(Cont...)
...your bible 'rote' learning means nothing if you use it to attack the good name and works of the Catholic Church and its believers...you've-fallen-on-your-own-sword!

The 'baddies' (judgemental again) will answer for their sins, not-for-yours-or-mine...ignoring the good and highlighting only the 'bad' that you are assuming-judging exists in others...smacks of hypocrisy permeating all your posts...Oops, O2, God forbid I become judgmental,like you!

As Davidf has answered PTB, there's little more to say...Davidf's right...I question the inaccuracy of PTB's statement especially regarding the RC religion being 'alien to England'...what the? Here's a history lesson PTB, before the reign of HenryVIII, the RC religion was the established faith of England...and I'd ask who else at Alice's tea party believed your bit about the RC exclusion of 'voters of both sexes from courts', are you hearing voices too? I think you're just kidding with your post, right? Right? You can't really ask us to take this one seriously, can you? Having known Joh personally over decades, I think you're playing with the truth to suggest he backed your fantasies...'don't you worry about that'.

RE: the gift of humour that keeps on giving...

I've saved you for last BB, thanks for the compliment...I do my best :)

The best advice to anyone to prevent STDs is to say-no-to-99-out-of-100 and restrict yourself to one partner who you've respect and love for...sex is meant to be an expression of love and gift of oneself – not broadcast as freely as e-mail correspondence. I'm suggesting you've used the term 'health experts' very loosely also so, in the absence of credible 'health' arguments that could back up sexual promiscuity and guarantee condoms will give 100% protection from STD's, I'll leave your argument where you left it...in tatters on the floor.

AA, you ask...'why do leaders of these ministries so often find themselves in bitter contention with their superiors?'
Why indeed...you forgot Mother Teresa,so well known and loved amongst the poor...without 'bitter contention with the Church heirarchy', There's-the-difference-and-the-answer. The-others-have-forgotten-that-God-asks-us-to-do-it-all-with-love-not-'bitter contention'. BTW, Pope John Paul 11 did not live in 'luxury'...your 'saint' needs a lesson in truthfulness!
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 18 April 2009 3:28:52 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
Oh Meg you are a funny one...

You can Google can't you? Maybe if you Googled Catholic Priest Gerald Risdale you might increase your knowledge (yep you can learn), then you may be actually able to see why you should know more about Cardinal Pell's alleged actions.

I have a wonderful life Thanks Meg...but I also try to assist the sheep that have fallen by the wayside. I don't call people "Rent a crowd" because I understand the significance of the Sermon on the Mount.

I would put up the good things that I do in life compared to you any day Meg... you would lose hands down!

Are you saying Bible knowledge is a bad thing Meg?

Do you know your bible well enough?

I won't continue our debate because you have reverted back to name calling. All those years at church and very little to show for it...rofl

CYA in heaven Meg... I'll be the one laughing with Jesus as you enter...rofl
Posted by Opinionated2, Saturday, 18 April 2009 7:14:42 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
Hello again. The St Mary's issue rolls along ...
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8848
Posted by Alan A, Thursday, 30 April 2009 8:08:47 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. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

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