David (Perthwestern)

You have given me much food for thought. Rather than longer political terms, annual accountability...... As an employee I am (was) evaluated annually. There has to be a way to make pollies more responsible, however could annual elections mutate into year long campaigning? Rather than year long governing?

Agree with your points however. And thank you for lifting this thread from pointless theologising.

Marin Ibn Wariq urges me to pull my finger out. OK, here goes. Martin, you claim my posts are nonsense without attempting to refute them. I don't call your rant that preceded the criticism of me a response to my previous posts, it veered from the incomprehensible to the unreasonable and was not a reflection of what I had written. Martin, you come across as a foamin' at the mouth Christian fanatic. Who on this page questioned the value of the clergy to make you go over the top in this way? How can you call my mild statements an 'ugly slander'? Why would I want to give up my wife and family and take a vow of celibacy as you suggest just to preach some anachronistic superstition? If I want to do social work, I could do so without the religious baggage. I concede that the catholic clergy are nowadays under siege and are deserting in droves, but that is because the church has refused to heed the call to modernise. Who would want to become clergy in such a moribund faith? Get a grip, mate.

First post argued relativism was true. I refuted it, its internally contradictory, nonsense. Christian warriors defended Europe at Tours, Vienna, Lepanto. Did that conflict do any good? You wanted us to trust you and those in charge with a nice sweet personally created moral code – lol ah no thanks mate. I refuted it. Its nonsense.

Bible corrupted you said. I refuted it. Its nonsense. Documents? The Donation of Constantine yes but it was something highly likely to have been written by him so it was accepted. But you’d use that to smear the whole history of the Church.

“From an objective standpoint, that is a contentious claim aimed solely at shoring up the power of the Pope and Catholic clergy against the Protestant challenge.” I refuted this nonsense statement. The Church and its hierarchy solely operate on the level of worldly power? Why weren’t the Protestants doing the same thing? Where are your eyes? Is that all you see? Your sentence is just an excuse for thought.

Are Stephen Hawking’s arguments for atheism solely an attempt to sure up the power of atheistic science in the world? Have you read any of Reformation documents? You know the arguments? Have you bothered with the content of the dispute?

PK I didn’t pass up the pleasure to refute your arguments, have a read.

But my arguments? I’m a “foamin' at the mouth Christian fanatic”. No need to deign to reply to any arguments then. My refutations are a “rant “ nothing worth straining your brain over again. Christianity is an “anachronistic superstition” no need to think anymore there. Christian ministers just do “social work” no need to consider why men and women feel called.

"Modernise"? You mean like the Arians wanted? Like the Donatists? Cathars? Gnostics? Napolean? Julian? Epicureans? 19th century materialists? Bolsheviks? National Socialists? .What you would have the west and its church do is modernize itself back into the stone age.

“Who would want to become clergy in such a moribund faith”. Compared with PKism? I think we look pretty good.

Coach
this is quite anecdotal, again the Saudi guy I met at KL. He told me a similar story...that the people who claim ancestry to Ishmael are those in 'northern' Arabia. Others I've chatted to indicate similarly.

I'm not sure how strong a link I want to make with the 'Arabs' ethnically, because I don't think it matters that much. As you say the population was there from the other sons of Noah anyway.

As for the connection between Ishmael and the Abrhamic covenant.. agreed totally. Muslims and Mohammed being the chief offender in this, falsely claim it was to Ishmael that the covenant was directed given that he was the firstborn of Abraham, though clearly, God stated it was to be through Isaac, who was the son of promise, not Ishmael who was the son of 'impatience and lack of faith'.

PERTHWESTERN.. a Quacker hey.... I thought your mob were more evangelical and adhered to the Scriptures ? Your description sounds a bit iffy :) I urge you to delve into the Scriptures and immerse yourself in them and in the Lord Himself.

Anyway.. besides that.. welcome to the forum..I don't think you've been here long. Keep up the interesting posts.

Hello BOAZ_David, and thanks for the welcome. Although methinks thee & me may have to agree to differ on quite a few things.

Yes, I am a Quaker, and I guess they did start out as quite a radical evangelising Christian sect in Northern England back in the mid-to-late 17th century (during and after Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth). As founder George Fox stated, he had met many who professed their faith, but none who possessed their faith.

Quakers are indeed an interesting story of faith evolving over the centuries. Most Australian Quakers today would admit to George's radical Christian roots, but would ameliorate it with a comment like: "In 17th century Britain, what other religion could he possibly be?"

As far as I know, Quakers are the only church in the Council of Churches that has no creed (only testimonies TOWARDS Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community & Equality - or S.P.I.C.E.!)

And yes, I HAVE read (and discussed) the scriptures - a number of times. I have read the bible and qu'ran right through, including apocrypha and texts such as the gospel of St Thomas, hadiths, etc.

All fascinating works, and giving much insight into the human condition. Probably the God of the bible that I have the greatest feel or sympathy for is the God as described in Job - an absolutely sublime story!

However, I am assuming (after looking at some of your posts) that you are a fairly hard-line “literalist” when reading the bible. Would I be guessing right to say you do NOT believe in evolution, and that you DO believe in Noah’s ark, etc.?

Alas, these are areas where thee & me cannot reconcile.

However, in the end that does not bother me one iota. As a fully-blown “political animal”, I am more interested in what we (as a society) proscribe and what we prescribe. And importantly (because there are so many issues which have valid arguments on BOTH sides) … HOW is it we decide which is which?

Looking forward to some more to-and-fro.

In peace,
David (from Perth, Western Australia)

Martin, I stand by everything I said. The catholic church is an anachronistic faith hooked on symbolism, paraphenalia, colossal wealth, power & status for its hierarchy(although admittedly only the upper echelons get much of that nowadays). I carry no candle for protentantism or any other organised religion either. I respect that many draw comfort from their religion and that the churches do some good works. All in all though the history of religious conflict is a sorry one. You think the crusades did some good do you? I think most historians feel that after centuries of bloody conflict, there was a kind of truce with christianity and islam eyeing each other suspiciously from their strongholds. Then each one split into factions and demoninations and that led to more bloody fighting. It still goes on. Catholics like you still obviously can't accept protestantism or other religions and vice versa. Pathetic. And I meant that the catholic church could 'modernise' like many catholics want. You know exactly what I mean there. Personally I don't care if the catholic church refuses to modernise and continues to slide into oblivion. If I identify with anything I guess you would call it secular humanism though I am not fanatical about it like you seem to be about your faith. At least 30% of Australians identify with no religious faith. Most of the remainder identify with a faith, but not strongly. They hang on to the vestiges of a faith that has no real meaning for them. That is why I think your faith is an anachronism. If the the catholic clergy have a calling, then it is in far fewer numbers than ever, and the congregations are also at record lows. What does that say? I know a couple of former priests that now do social work outside the church, and, talking to them, it's easy to see why. Although your last post was more reasoned, the previous one was definitely a rant with only a tenuous connection to my post. I won't further respond to anything of yours, you are a bore, sir.