Seven more sins

March 11th, 2008 at 9:38 am by David Farrar

The BBC reports on seven new proclaimed by the Catholic Church.  I would have thought they were doing badly enough the the original , they really didn’t have to invent some more.  But here they are:

  1. Environmental pollution

  2. Genetic manipulation

  3. Accumulating excessive wealth

  4. Inflicting poverty

  5. Drug trafficking and consumption

  6. Morally debatable experiments

  7. Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

Now they are all quite interesting.

If one includes carbon emissions as pollution, then we are all sinners and should ask God every week to forgive our carbon footprint. A lot cheaper than carbon credits also.

And if GM food results in millions of people not starving, or cures for fatal illnesses, well sorry you scientists – it is still a sin.

And Bill Gates is obviously going to burn in hell. No not for Windows ME but for being rich. Never mind that he donates more to charity and helping people in poverty than anyone else alive.

Inflicting poverty being a sin is also interesting.  Does this make Dr Cullen a sinner as NZ still has poverty? And does this make the Chinese Government non-evil for lifting so many out of poverty?

Consuming drugs is a sin.  Does this include party pills? How about coffee?

And what Vatican spin doctor came up with morally debatable experiments.  What does that even mean?

I might even agree with the one about violating fundamental rights of human nature if they could list what these rights are.

Now The Times lists the seven original sins, and their respective punishments:

  1. Pride Broken on the wheel
  2. Envy Put in freezing water
  3. Gluttony Forced to eat rats, toads, and snakes
  4. Lust Smothered in fire and brimstone
  5. Anger Dismembered alive
  6. Greed Put in cauldrons of boiling oil
  7. Sloth Thrown in snake pits

So what might be appropriate punishments for the new sins? My guesses are:

  1. Environmental pollution – Drowned in acid rain

  2. Genetic manipulation - Stoned to death with organic pumpkins

  3. Accumulating excessive wealth – death by gerbils with $2 coins tied to them

  4. Inflicting poverty – covered with honey and tied and staked out near an anthill

  5. Drug trafficking and consumption – water boarding with Diet Coke

  6. Morally debatable experiments – Dissection with no anaesthetic

  7. Violation of fundamental rights of human nature – forced to listen to circular tape of Al Gore speeches until natural death occurs

In case the Kiwi Party, Sensible Sentencing or Family First read this post, please note the above suggested punishments are satire and should not be included in any manifesto :-)

Tags: , ,

280 Responses to “Seven more sins”

  1. berend (1,711 comments) says:

    The Roman Catholic Church earns money by having sins: you sin? Just pay the pope, and there’s no punishment. Heck, they even sell indulgences. So these 7 extra sins have been invented to fill the coffers which are getting depleted by having to pay out victims of clergy abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    And what Vatican spin doctor came up with morally debatable experiments?

    Maybe it just translated poorly from the original Latin =)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    “Waterboarding with Diet Coke” awesome!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (13,839 comments) says:

    Another nail in the coffin of the nowadays irrelevant organisation called the Catholic Church.

    It should concentrate on unmasking its paedophile priests and punishing those perverts, instead of making stupids remarks like these. Live and let live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mawgxxxxiv (556 comments) says:

    Didn’t the Roman Catholics invent globalisation ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Richard Hurst (859 comments) says:

    I assume the Vatican will be forgiving itself for accumulating excessive wealth. To quote TIME magazine recently:

    “Bankers’ best guesses about the Vatican’s wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion. Of this wealth, Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate.”

    I assume the Vatican will also be forgiving itself for causing environmental destruction via its opposition to condoms and abortion thus causing the population in the Philippines to rise.
    On the plus side the Vatican do use their wealth for charitable acts so I guess that must be their get out of hell free card.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Talking about sins, I think the “last hurrah” taxpayer funded overseas trip via business class for retiring parasitic MP’s is another utter disgrace but Moronic Hobbs says,”I think it will be lovely” and Crafty Connell says, “I don’t know too much about the purpose.”

    God help New Zealand NOW !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    yes d4j, I saw that Hobbs quote. It makes me, as a taxpayer, cry. It is painful. They are painful.

    How about another sin… apply the Fair Trading Act, which has applied to anyone in business for many years (and very successfully), to politicians… aka …

    “It is an offence to engage in misleading and deceptive conduct in politics”.

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha infinity

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. xy (187 comments) says:

    I want to see Se7en 2 now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Anti-Catholicism… the last acceptable prejudice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. siobhan (278 comments) says:

    Thou shalt not be wealthier than the Catholic church.

    Sounds a little “Animal Farm” really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “The new mortal sins were listed by Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti at the end of a week-long training seminar in Rome for priests, aimed at encouraging a revival of the practice of confession – or the Sacrament of Penance in Church jargon.”

    Sounds like the same kind of “group think ” that exists amongst the Klark fraternity. Isolated from reality, and doctrinal. Thou shalt not sell or buy shares in Auckland Airport without the blessing of Brother Kullen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Do these come straight from God or do they make them up as they go along?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Fabt3 (28 comments) says:

    Got to love the punishments for the seven original sins effectively being a sin now, in that they are a violation of fundamental rights of human nature. The perfect circle of punishment really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. JC (958 comments) says:

    It should be noted that the “punishments” listed were not earthly punishments but artists’ impressions of what would happen when you died and went to Hell. And here’s a better list of seven deadly sins:

    * Wealth without Work
    * Pleasure without Conscience
    * Science without Humanity
    * Knowledge without Character
    * Politics without Principle
    * Commerce without Morality
    * Worship without Sacrifice

    These come from Mahatma Ghandi

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. unaha-closp (1,165 comments) says:

    Paedophilia still not on the list?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Here is a relevant quote from “The National Church of Socialism” by Mark D. Tooley:

    “Setting aside the transcendent truths of Christianity, the Social Gospel’s proponents shrank and enervated America’s once leading religious bodies by promoting materialistic and statist solutions to what are ultimately spiritual problems.”

    If the Church stuck to working effectively against the original deadly sins, wouldn’t listing a whole lot of newer ones be superfluous?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    JC..

    Work without wealth
    Conscience without pleasure
    Character without knowledge
    Sacrifice without worship

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    Anyone who has been to the Vatican to see the grossly excess grandeur of St Peters will immediately see the irony in “Accumulating excessive wealth”.

    I can think of some other sins. Like paedophilia. Or burning tens of thousands at the stake. Or anti semitism. Or assisting Nazis after the war. Rather more serious than pollution or GM, one would have thought.

    Is there a single other institution in the world that has inflicted such misery that is still accorded anything like the respect given the Catholic Church? I do not understand why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ropata (117 comments) says:

    [quote]
    A sin is not a sin because simply an archbishop proclaims it so. Sin, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us, “is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience…” The precepts of “reason, truth, and right conscience” do not shift in response to political trends, nor do they change at the whim of Vatican officials.

    The fundamental point of the L’Osservatore Romano interview was that Catholics need to recover a sense of sin, make use of the sacrament of Confession, and receive absolution for their offenses. Sin, the archbishop insisted, is a reality that man cannot escape.

    Archbishop Girotti said that the modern world does not understand the nature of sin. With their coverage of the interview, the mass media unintentionally underlined the prelate’s point.
    [end quote]

    There seems to be a ‘tradition’ of media sensationalising and mischievous misreporting of Catholic issues. A couple of days a go the Times was breathlessly reporting that the RCC was going to rehabilitate Martin Luther! haha. bizarre.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    Wow – a thread on Catholicism and just sit back and watch the insults fly. Its pathetic.

    Heck, they even sell indulgences.

    Um, they haven’t been sold since about the 1800s. God, go back to the Lutheran times.

    It should concentrate on unmasking its paedophile priests and punishing those perverts, instead of making stupid remarks like these. Live and let live.

    You are all truly stupid. You have let your distaste for the Catholic Church overwhelm you common sense. The CC is one of the most influential bodies in the world – it is absolutely essential that it sends out the message of social responsibility. If any of you have bothered to read up on the article, you’d have read that Father Gerald O’Collins says “They need to be more aware today of the social face of sin – the inequalities at the social level. They think of sin too much on an individual level.”

    I.e. – in a time where sin is so often disguised Catholics are only looking at sin within them – forgetting that there is social sin that we are ignoring.

    He also named abortion and paedophilia as two of the greatest sins of our times. And so he should have. The Church does not condone sexual abuse. And it never will.

    All this kind of thread will do is incite those who hate the CC anyway, and will not drive anyone away from the Church..

    But its great that DPF doesn’t agree with them and decides to use cheap shots on his minuscule blog – good on him. The Catholic Church doesn’t really want you anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    And the CC hasn’t invented these seven new deadly sins. They’ve merely identified them – they have been around for a long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    “Another nail in the coffin of the nowadays irrelevant organisation called the Catholic Church”

    Isn’t it amazing how, despite antipathy from many angles, the CC keeps going – and people keep joining it – about 1.1 billion I think – must be all the dumb people in the world.

    2000 years of unbroken history is also interesting. The Communist party in China, the EU or the USA combined haven’t even hit 300 years yet. When they do then maybe we can start talking about the comparable failures of the CC. 2000 years is a long time to go without making any mistakes.

    True, England has done pretty well but has been bolstered by the CC and the Anglicans which, up until a century ago were de-facto Catholic.

    Sexual abuse (or any abuse) by priests is inexcusable and covering it up is exponentially worse. That said, at least two studies in the USA have shown that incidence of sexual abuse by priests was equal to, or lower than, rest of the population. Funny that, priest being human, just like cops, teachers and parents – all have been busted for doing wrong.

    The good the CC has done in history vastly outweighs its mistakes – one a recent note – only one group was credited with saving more Jews in WW2 than the Allied Armies – that was the CC.

    Comments like “Do these come straight from God or do they make them up as they go along?” show one of two things – either prejudice in one’s reading of history/interpreting what the CC is trying to say, or good old fashioned ignorance.

    Hopefully that’ll get few replies coming in ;) Please keep your anti-Catholic cliches to a minimum. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. David Farrar (1,899 comments) says:

    I don’t hate the Catholic Church and think ben goes over the top.

    However I reserve the right to make fun of any person or institution that gives me the source material necessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Wow – a thread on Catholicism and just sit back and watch the insults fly. Its pathetic.”

    Not quite accurate Hoolian. Its

    1) A BBC story, and as we’re talking about a bunch of propagandising secular progressives of extremely poor repute, needs to be treated with exceptional scepticism.

    2) If true, an example of largely environmentally based ideas being manifested within the Catholic Church and therefore at least worthy of some attention. Are the Catholics trying to steal some of the ground of the environmental religionists?

    3) Light weight stuff really. I agree that it gives an opportunity for those who have some kind of negative feelings towards Christianity and or Catholicism to express their views, but so what? I wouldn’t take it too seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Yvette (2,824 comments) says:

    unaha-closp : “Paedophilia still not on the list?”

    It is mentioned in a CNN item, but partly dismissed as a media beat-up.
    This is probably Pride under the old list or Sloth, or even Gluttony [for punishment]

    This list of new sins is suggested to be a media pre-cursor to the Pope’s up-coming visit to the US.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    Ok Redbaiter – I’ll give you (1) and (3) but I have trouble with (2) – on the basis that I don’t think the CC becoming environmentally active is cause for concern. I think thats a general trend for any institution in modernity.

    To be honest, I don’t like the idea of these new approach for environmentalism but I don’t expect the CC to “steal some of the ground of the environmental religionists?” And this is because extreme environmentalism is an unretainable position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    What about spamming?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Do these come straight from God or do they make them up as they go along?”

    That’s the Global Faith of Climate Change that you’re referring to right? The Church of Anthropological Global Warming. (Or is that cooling? ) Funny that a GW religionist like Silvercheck Andy chooses to sneer at the Catholics. There’s probably more proof that Jesus existed than there is of man’s causation of climate change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. vto (1,131 comments) says:

    not mowing the lawns if you live in a posh suburb is also quite naughty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “To be honest, I don’t like the idea of these new approach for environmentalism but I don’t expect the CC to “steal some of the ground of the environmental religionists?”

    I’m mildly interested in this because one theory I read suggested that the Exclusive Brethren’s assault on the Greens was a result of their perception that Environmentalism is a new religion, and that it is gaining a large share of the market for faith. Proponents of environmentalism are flat out indoctrinating youngsters with their religion, and the regular religions have no answer to it, being as they’re firmly locked out of the education process (so called). The only way they can get back some market share is to try and capitalize on the work of the state sponsored propagandists/ priests of environmentalism, (Sometimes referred to as school teachers and university lecturers) and introduce the same kind of ideas into their own church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. FletcherB (60 comments) says:

    “Isn’t it amazing how, despite antipathy from many angles, the CC keeps going – and people keep joining it – about 1.1 billion I think – must be all the dumb people in the world.”

    I’m sure a small number of people do indeed “join”…. but most are born into it… So I guess making the use of contraception a sin helps with that eh?

    I also have issues with how banning the use of contraception in your followers might also tie in with “inflicting poverty” on people who can afford one or two children but not six or eight?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    “Drug trafficking and consumption”
    “Consuming drugs is a sin. Does this include party pills? How about coffee?”

    Very interesting, so now Holy Communion is a mortal sin. Or is alcohol not a Drug?

    Also very interesting, as Cannabis is referred to in both the old and new testaments as a sacred herb.

    “Accumulating excessive wealth”

    I take it that its ok for the Church to accumulate excessive wealth however?

    “Inflicting poverty”

    What does this make Mother Theresa?

    “Morally debatable experiments”

    Such as religion?

    “Violation of fundamental rights of human nature”
    What about freedom of speech, the church supports laws against blasphemous libel? What about equal rights for gays? etc

    From the sounds of it, with their new sins, the church is going straight to hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,070 comments) says:

    Only one group was credited with saving more Jews in WW2 than the Allied Armies – that was the CC.

    Of course, the ‘Jews’ that the Catholic Church saved at the end of the war all had heavy German accents, wore monocles and black leather boots and spent most of the boat trip to South America snickering behind their hands – but they deserved a break too, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Manolo (13,839 comments) says:

    “… the CC keeps going – and people keep joining it – about 1.1 billion I think..”

    These people haven’t joined the Church, they are born into it, so while in theory they make up the numbers you shouldn’t count them as real practising Catholics.

    I suggest you read Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” where your arguments on how many Catholics (or followers of any other church, cult, sect, religion) there are, and how parents’ beliefs are “passed” from generation to generation without being questioned.

    Evolution (in your case, God) gave us a brain. Let’s put it to good use.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. NZD.JPY (130 comments) says:

    Well if this is true then I’m afraid I simply cannot be a Catholic. Thankfully I think, like the requirement for priestly celebacy (tui ad), this social sin concept is just more guilt which the catholic church can feed on. A recurring theme from a polical movement that has little to do with actually helping us achieve forgiveness and more to do with hopefully finding safety in numbers when being confronted by the final accounting, if there is such a thing. Hoolian, I don’t see why I should have to take any responsibility for your lack of grace just because the commenters above think you are an idiot. Or is that not one of the collective sins being created here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Mal (29 comments) says:

    Just shows how far out of touch the church is with it’s own doctrine. The original seven deadly sins already encompass the new set as these are merely a product of the original sins. When will the church grow up and realise you don’t change doctrine as a fashion statement to win a few unwinnable souls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    FletcherB,
    You make the assumption that having heaps of kids makes you poor. On the contrary over the long term it makes you wealthier and healthier. Large intergenerational families are far better at weathering the social storms that all nations and societies face – eg the more kids that you have the more people you have to look after you in old ago or the more aunties and uncles and cousins you have to care for a kids if a parent is incapacitated.
    Indeed, if you’re an individiualist then the intergenerational thing isn’t going to suit you. But I guess the Catholic Church has never been big on individualism. Ironically, Labour pretends to be fiercely opposed to individualism and yet they are very hostile toward the non-individualistic concept of the intergenerational family. (Interestingly, this is an area National and the Maori Party could have some common ground).

    Poverty in Africa or wherever, isn’t due to the annoying policies of the Catholic Church – it’s due to corrupt political leaders that the international community needs to slam. Unfortunately the UN is more concerned about the sovereignty of dodgy nations than on helping the people within those nations.

    All the condoms in the world won’t stop AIDS in Africa. Changing cultures that allow the rape women and wives, no longer turning a blind eye to prositution, paying some attention to keeping sex within marriage and ending irrational hostility to capitalism is what will begin to arrest the spread of AIDS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..What about spamming?..”

    the prohibition of spamming is actually the eleventh commandment..

    it’s just that moses..having consumed too much of the israelites psycedelic drug du jour..

    ..’tripped’ when he was coming down the hill..

    the bottom part of the’tablet’ containing the commandments..(so.!..they were in a tablet..!..eh..?..)..broke off..

    and he was so off his tits..he just left it there..(and forgot all about it..!..)

    so..if moses hadn’t ‘tripped’..

    we’d have no spam..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    “Of course, the ‘Jews’ that the Catholic Church saved at the end of the war all had heavy German accents, wore monocles and black leather boots and spent most of the boat trip to South America snickering behind their hands”

    Any evidence of this Danyl, as it’s a very big and bold assumption or is it another meaningless load of dribble from the miserable fantasy that you perceive as reality ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    Well made Points Hoolian

    And in my opinion abortion has to rank up there as No1.

    Murder and violence among adults is bad enough

    But what sort of sick society thinks its okay to slaughter 17,930 innocent unborn babies a year

    Oh that’s right New Zealand!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    PS, FletcherB is not me :)

    Yes, I think those “punishments’ listed are from Dante or something. There isn’t anything in the Bible or in Church teaching (as far as I know) that says what punishments await those in Hell for what particular sins, but I am sure they will be appropriate.

    And yes, I’m not surprised this thread has turned into an anti-Catholic slagging match.

    I think that people in this day and age do need to be reminded of ‘sin’. Folks don’t like to think about ‘sin’ these days. The secular mantra is to do whatever you want, whenever you want and stuff the other guy. It’s really quite surprising (although I guess I shouldn’t be surprised) how people react when law and order is removed. I mean like what happened in New Orleans after the disaster there when packs of men where going around raping and killing young women – not to mention the looting. The same with that container ship (last year?) that spilled it’s contents on to the beach and folks just drove up and helped themselves to anything they could find even though it wasn’t theirs.

    No, sin seems to be and old-fashioned notion these days. Even if you don’t believe in a God though, I think you can see that the Seven Deadly Sins stand on their own as a detriment to society? Lust and Greed and the others have a negative impact on society. You only have to look at Greed and the distribution of wealth globally – some people starving and some people living in opulence. So, the Catholic Church seems to be rich? You have to ask then, what do they do to help the poor around the world? A LOT. The CC and it’s organisations do so much with regard to helping the poor, orphanages, hospitals and the like. If they (and we) were living it up, drinking pena coladas (spelling?) all day then you might have a point…As it is, you don’t.

    As far as having wealth and what someone said about Bill Gates – I don’t think God minds people being wealthy, as long as they don’t ‘worship’ money – make it their God.

    More to say probably, but lunch calls!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    Manolo – I suggest you read Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” where your arguments on how many Catholics (or followers of any other church, cult, sect, religion) there are, and how parents’ beliefs are “passed” from generation to generation without being questioned.

    Your first mistake is assuming that Dawkins has all the answers. His book may be a bestseller but its not all that clever. In fact, he proactively and purposely avoids the fundamental aspects of religion in order to construe his argument in a way that makes him right. By breaking apart his arguments, not only to they become untenable but they just don’t make any sense. He relies on the anti-religion sentiments of his readers to cloud judgement and overlook his discrepancies.

    Also, in today’s world, it’s almost impossible not to question anything. Most young Catholics in our modern world will be born-and-raised-Catholics, but if you ask them you can be sure they will have decided on their faith in God as a matter of personal choice, not parental force. This is a terrible presumption that any person who belongs to religion does so because they are ultimately stupid. Even you cannot justify that.

    If you truly believe in what you are saying and that what you are saying is undeniably true, then you should seek out works that don’t reinforce what you believe but oppose it – such as books like the Divinity Code by Ian Wishart (believe me when I say it pains me to recommend him) or Letters to a Young Catholic and The Truth of Catholicism: Inside the Essential Teachings and Controversies of the Church Today both by George Weigel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Camryn (543 comments) says:

    Looks like the Vatican hierarchy have been hanging out with some Italian anti-globalisation anarchist types. It practically reads like a communist/green manifesto.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    oops..!..’fletch’ is here..!

    lucyna can’t be far behind..eh..?

    (whatever did happen to that ragtag collection of rabid righties that clustered under the ‘sir humphry’ brand.label..?

    they had their religious-schism..

    then nothing..?..)

    (perhaps that the whole thing was set-up/run/closed down by a petulant 17 yr old..who ‘picked up his ball and went home’..might have something to do with it..eh..?)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. pushmepullu (686 comments) says:

    But what sort of sick society thinks its okay to slaughter 17,930 innocent unborn babies a year

    Oh that’s right New Zealand!

    Also the USA, Canada, Britain and Australia.

    Whereas Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Burma, Venezuela and Zaire all forbid this ‘slaughter’.

    Just a shame we can’t follow their sterling example, eh democracymum?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. RebelHeart (123 comments) says:

    # unaha-closp Add karma Subtract karma +4 Says:
    March 11th, 2008 at 10:46 am

    Paedophilia still not on the list?

    Fuck you conservatives are tight pricks. I suppose you’re against sex before marriage too? Seriously, go download a porn film and chill out. If you’ve got a daughter she’s probably fucking all the guys in school and if you’re gonna continue to be a hardass she’ll never feel safe telling you about it.

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    democracymum – Murder and violence among adults is bad enough. But what sort of sick society thinks its okay to slaughter 17,930 innocent unborn babies a year

    Completely agree. Its the saddest and most disgusting acceptance of our modern time. But what to do about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. thehawkreturns (162 comments) says:

    The eighth sin is the Catholic Curch and all religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Re: Richards Dawkins.
    To quick reasons I’m not a fan.

    1. He refuses to debate publicly
    2. He has recently said that science has its empirical limits and thus some things will remain unknown. Thus, he basically plays the ‘mystery’ card – the very thing he criticises religious people about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    Pushmepullu – Also the USA, Canada, Britain and Australia…Whereas Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Burma, Venezuela and Zaire all forbid this ’slaughter’. Just a shame we can’t follow their sterling example, eh democracymum?

    Um, I’m not sure I see you point…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    so basically..superhero..nobody has a fucken clue..

    and anyone who claims otherwise..

    is ‘full of it’..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    pushmepullu

    Keeping the discussion here in NZ….

    1962 There were 38 induced abortions
    2003 There were 18510 induced abortions

    Source: Abortion Supervisory Committee, and Statistics New Zealand

    I wonder if this staggering increase in legalized murder has anything to do with
    promiscuity, lust, and an overindulgence in alcohol and or drugs?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Red: “There’s probably more proof that Jesus existed than there is of man’s causation of climate change.”

    I don’t doubt that Jesus existed.

    I’m not a Catholic but my understanding is that a committing a mortal sin results in you to go to Hell. It seems strange that the rules can be changed and people condemned to hell without, as far as I can tell, any input from God or even the Pontif.

    Happy to hear from someone more knowledgable about how this all works.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    “If you’ve got a daughter she’s probably fucking all the guys in school and if you’re gonna continue to be a hardass she’ll never feel safe telling you about it.”

    You pus laden creep Rebel Scum – David F please Ban this fuckwit as that comment is criminal !!!!! You dirty low life #### !!!!!!!!!!!! How can this sinister sicko be allowed to remain in the community ? Shame on Canterbury University !!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    so..democracy mum..

    i presume you support the idea of sole parents receiving a ‘living wage’..?

    (esp as so many abortions are done for ‘economic reasons’..(and who can really blame them..?..for not wanting a life of slow/quiet misery on the domestic purposes benefit..)

    or does that ‘living wage’ idea..fly in the face of the rest of your rightwing ‘package of ideologies/imperatives..?

    (i’m trying to ascertain wether you are a ‘nuclear-family-abortion opponent’..

    one who also believes sole parents should be given diddly-squat..

    (as so many anti-abortionists are..)

    (disclaimer: i am disturbed by the high abortion figures in new zealand..(esp when we seek immigrants..?..

    and i am ‘disturbed’ by the physical realities of abortion..

    ..and by the fact that abortion..for some..has become a form of contraception..

    and of all those ‘lives lost’..)

    but i am also ‘disturbed’ by the many ‘abortion-opponents’..

    who reserve their (heartfelt) concerns to the pre-birth period..

    and who would also step over starvelings in the gutter..

    are you in that camp..?..

    democracymum..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    >2000 years of unbroken history is also interesting

    Yep. My favourite pope was John 12, who was born in the town of Frascati where I used to live. He became pope when he was 18 years old and was “a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium”. He spent most of his short reign waging war against his enemies, mostly other Italian families who wanted a bit of papal power, but still managed to fit in time to commit “sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and incest”. But not genetic modification or environmental pollution, since those weren’t sins in those days. The incest was his sister, IIRC.

    The quoted bits are from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08426b.htm .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    What a deplorable comment Rebel #### you should be in a prison you fucked up piece of shit !!!

    [DPF: 10 demerits. One response to his post was enough. Continuing on with insults mades the thread unmanageable]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    davidp

    Yeah, sounds like John XII was bad chap.

    What’s your point though?

    Pretty sure the RCC hasn’t claimed every member, or every Pope, was a good person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. MrHappy (70 comments) says:

    Hmmm… For once I agree with D4J. Rebelheart (Stan?)’s comment may not have been criminal, but it was pretty fucking out of order. Ban stick…

    MrHappy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Thank you Mr Happy – if anybody knows who this rebel #### creep is can they email me please dad4justice@gmail.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Manolo (13,839 comments) says:

    “Re: Richards Dawkins.
    1. He refuses to debate publicly
    2. He has recently said that science has its empirical limits and thus some things will remain unknown. Thus, he basically plays the ‘mystery’ card – the very thing he criticises religious people about.”

    Wrong on both counts:
    1) Dawkins is an active participant in many debates in England and overseas. He has been part of many discussion panels where science, religion, atheism, evolution and creationism were debated.

    2) Of course science has empirical limits. We don’t know what we don’t know … yet. That’s the mere essence of science and progress, and the motivation to further discoveries.
    It’s a big stretch to call that “the mystery card” (your words) and to compare it to religion, which imposes its myths on you by sheer blind faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    d4j..why does the idea of ‘a daughter having sex’..even promiscuous sex if she so chooses..horrify you so much..?

    maybe you should bring that up with your therapist..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    philu watch yourself you drug addict . Go grab another dirty needle you weak willed fool .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. infused (656 comments) says:

    Religion, the best business in the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Hey Dad, I don’t think that rebel guy was literally meaning YOUR daughter.

    But maybe he could clarify that point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. East Wellington Superhero (1,151 comments) says:

    Manolo,
    1 Actually you are wrong. Dawkins may debate with the occasional academic but he refuses to debate with the big-guns that want to discuss the interation of faith and science. Some would call that a cop-out – or worse cowardly. And a discussion panel is not a debate – it’s a discussion panel.
    2 And it is effectively a mystery card. I’m pretty sure Dawkins used the word mystery in his comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i mean..d4j..every woman you’ve ever been promiscuous with..is someones’ daughter..eh..?

    or..are you telling us..that you have never experienced ‘the delights of promiscuity’..?..d4j..

    (that also could ‘explain a lot’..

    ..and..if that is the case..maybe you should bring that up also..with your therapist..?..)

    (you’re welcome..!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    llew as you seem to have a proboscis for filth why not you ask the satanic creep yourself . Do you think a jellyfish like yourself could manage that?

    Philu do us all a favour and OD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Do you think a jellyfish like yourself could manage that?

    Nice! Do you always have to be so… combative? If I knew who he was I just might.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    d4j..it is impossible to o.d. on pot…

    i have been ‘trying’ for decades..

    so i know..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    look llew, if I offended then so be it, as it must be water off a ducks back by now. Yes I am combative when you twist things around to my children. The reference that this stan climbfell rebel #### was NOT talking about my daughter, but you had to make a subtle reference to the possibility. I have worked you out matey. Play hard and play fair . If Rebel #### is not banned then that will be beyond belief ? I will find out who he is and have a good chat to him about his malicious behaviour

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    for fuck sake d4j..

    he didn’t reference ‘your’ daughter..in the first place..

    llew was tryng to ‘help’ you..

    just take those fucken meds..!

    and go and have ‘a wee lie-down’..

    (you appear to be having one of your ‘attacks’)..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    >Yeah, sounds like John XII was bad chap. What’s your point though?

    My point was that for most of the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, it was run by a number of prominent Roman families. It had little to do with religion as we’d know it, with the fear of god being used to justify decisions made to enhance the power of these families and their incomes. Popes were “elected” at young ages in order to maximise the lifetime return to their families. Popes had children, usually described as “nephews” and “nieces” in official histories. Those “nephews” all had palaces and villas and aspired to the papacy themselves. They ran their own bit of Italy and used their influence to effect the surrounding bits. They were as brutal as other medieval warlords, being quite happy to resort to mass murder and the genocide of whole towns if it furthered their political and economic aims. The system resembled the modern mafia, especially the family loyalty aspect, more than the modern church.

    So… if someone is going to trumpet a 2000 year history as evidence of success, they should expect that history to come under a bit of scrutiny. And, personally, I think it is crazy to believe that the head of this church has any moral authority on the basis that it lost its political power 150 years ago and has since had to concentrate on the religion that it used to use mainly to scare superstitious peasants and kings in to doing as they were told.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    phoool,the lefty mentality when it comes to manners and culture is typical gutter tripe. Maybe being stoned to death by watermelons thrown by long haired hippies on acid would appeal to you, however truces are never a substitute for victory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    look llew, if I offended then so be it,

    No, I’m not offended Dad. And I wasn’t trying to “help”. Never mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. BlairM (2,341 comments) says:

    Catholicism: Making shit up about God since 869AD

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    I know you weren’t trying to “help” llew, but our resident drug addict does not read comments other than his.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    Catholicism: Making shit up about God since 869AD

    So you accept then that there is a God – and who better to ‘make shit up’ than the Church that was founded by God himself. I’m sure the Catholic Church is grateful for your warped sense of approval.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    Also, DavidP – moral authority and political power have little to do with one another. You cannot claim that the Pope (as head of the CC) has no right to make moral judgement due to the fall of its political might. Rather, its political power is far more influential today than it was, say, back in the time of Constantinople – largely due to the extend and breadth of its members and the incredible faith that its members have to the Mother Church and its message.

    A few odd Popes who have done terrible things is not an argument for the dissolution of the CC. In fact, it supports the argument that the Church and its members are, after all, purely human.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Not Catholic but a lapsed Anglican/Presbyterian.

    Cant help note the glee with which many attack the RCs here. Now if it had been the Muslims who came out with these then the PC culturally stupid (Yes we know who you are) would be expressing outrage and screaming blue murder.

    You cant say that they would be shouting.

    See to those who find it difficult to define PC and culturally stupid its the bare 2 faced arsehole test.

    You yell foul when one group gets attack but join in with gusto when another group gets the same attack

    Do I need to spell it out any simpler

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Socrates (84 comments) says:

    “In fact, it supports the argument that the Church and its members are, after all, purely human.”

    Except the Pope isn’t merely/purely human

    Google = “papal infallibility”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Wow, a religious debate on Kiwiblog, Mr Farrar will be mortified.

    It is only fair to separate what the Roman Catholic Church has done down through the ages, from “Christianity”, something that most atheists and anti-Christian commentators fail to do. Actually, no-one suffered more at the hands of Roman Catholicism than those who were the TRUE Christians at the time.

    Many religions have been through periods where they were basically hijacked by people who were basically terrorists. Many religions and movements, even Communism, that are sometimes thought to be somehow representative of a great mass of people, were no such thing, but were rather hijacked by some minority that was prepared to commit the most violence in gaining and keeping control of the movement. We see this happening today with Islam – a violent minority slowly gaining control of the whole – note that “moderate Muslims” as a group are being murdered at a far greater rate than Jews or Christians or non-Islamic people.

    What we need to be on our guard against at all times, is extreme ideologies gaining ground, that could become the basis in the minds of their most fanatical adherents, for mass murder. A mass-murderer at a University Campus who spouts a whole lot of Chomskyite stuff about inequality. A Unabomber who spouts a whole lot of radical environmentalist Gaia religion stuff about Man being a parasite on the face of the Earth.

    If we don’t wake up to where this sort of stuff can go in the minds of significant numbers of people who are daily brainwashed by it even at State funded institutions of education, we will pay the same sort of horrific price in the 21st Century that was the result of similarly extreme ideologies in the 20th. By the way, nothing in earlier centuries compares. The Inquisition was on a chicken-feed scale by comparison. (Don’t accuse me of making excuses for the inquisition – re-read my opening paragraph if you thought you were going to…..)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. siobhan (278 comments) says:

    You have a warped sense of something Hoolian if you believe GOD himself founded the Catholic Church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. RebelHeart (123 comments) says:

    Don’t worry Dick4J, if she is your daughter then she must be an retarded inbred ugly bitch. Don’t you already have my full contact details from the police and your lawyer dumbass? Keep up with your pathetic lies you delinquent fuck.

    Hmmm… For once I agree with D4J. Rebelheart (Stan?)’s comment may not have been criminal, but it was pretty fucking out of order. Ban stick…

    It was a deliberate piss take on the stereotypical comment the poster I was quoting made.

    [DPF: And that's 35 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Mike Collins (166 comments) says:

    The catholic answer to the “problems” of modern society seems to be to indoctrinate more guilt. The secular answer should be that we consider others where our actions have an impact on them. I do not believe that we need to be made to feel guilty to do the right thing.

    That is not to say doing the right thing would avoid the new (or the old) catholic sins. Some of them seem to be pretty narrow minded. For example how is accumulating excess wealth a sin? Unless this is done at the point of a gun or some other means of force, the accumulation of any wealth – be it excessive in some eyes or otherwise – is done by providing goods and services which people are willing to pay for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Rebel #### spews ; “if she is your daughter then she must be an retarded inbred ugly bitch.”

    What a nice chap you are . You will regret that comment .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    A lot going on in this thread. But re the congruent debates on abortion and teenage sex, I’m reminded of the bravest, most sensible comment ever made by none other than Jenny Shipley. DPF probably has the exact quote someplace but in essence, asked about abortion, she said she deplored it… but if we’re serious about reducing the dreadful numbers we also need to be serious about sex education in schools, the availability of birth control (ideally free) to youngsters etc.

    Good common sense stuff. Yet it’s often the very same people who tut tut about the abortion numbers who shriek loudest if anyone attempts to minimise the risk of pregnancy – and disease – to young people (including young people beneath the age of consent) who choose to have sex.

    I think what Rebel Heart was pointing out (in his own inimitable way) was that no one can stop a young girl or boy having sex if they’re determined to do so. And that if our response is outrage, anger and disapproval all we’re going to do is create an atmosphere of distrust and perhaps fear amongst our offspring who will then be disinclined to come to us for advice or help when they need it.

    And if they feel they cannot be open about their sexuality then the risk of their ending up with an unwanted pregnancy – culminating in an abortion – is significantly higher.

    I share democracymum’s horror at the rise in abortions. But she asks:

    …if this staggering increase in legalized murder has anything to do with promiscuity, lust, and an overindulgence in alcohol and or drugs?

    While I agree all those things play a role I’d posit another cause, which I think is responsible for the majority of the rise: the increasingly puritanical attitude of society to all things sexual, and in particular a reluctance to acknowledge that young people are having sex with one another, and will continue to do so regardless of the moral outrage of their elders. Acknowledge the inevitability of that, ensure they’re educated and supplied with birth control, and we might reduce the abortion figures.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Mike Collins Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
    March 11th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    “The catholic answer to the “problems” of modern society seems to be to indoctrinate more guilt. The secular answer should be that we consider others where our actions have an impact on them.”

    Actually, Mike, the secular cultural Marxist PC brigade has been working on the “guilt” thing for decades already. If you’re a white, straight, Christian, male, you are “GUILTY”, and your forebears were all racists, bigots, sexists, wife-beaters, child molesters, slave traders, imperialists, exploiters of the environment and their fellow man, etc, etc, etc……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Socrates (84 comments) says:

    Rex- I agree.

    My problem though with current sex education is that abstinence is either ignored or glossed over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Mike Collins (166 comments) says:

    PhilBest – acknowledged. That is why I wrote “The secular answer should be…” to imply that it isn’t necessarily so at the moment. Ever since a kid and adults using guilt trips on me I have had an aversion to using guilt as an incentive for behaviour modification.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Rex, once upon a time, society had attitudes (call them prejudices, call them social constructs) to human behaviour that were the most powerful incentives and deterrents that could be devised. These attitudes were based on experience and societal realities, and represented society’s first line of defense against its own destruction.

    Now watch the usual PC cultural Marxists jump all over me in a state of indignant denial, while the usual wimpy jellyfish-spined “center right” (you know who you are) nods and murmers assent…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. BlairM (2,341 comments) says:

    Hoolian, I believe that’s Catholic theology in a nutshell. “We make shit up because God lets us”.

    Personally I find faith in a metaphysical being hard enough without having to have faith in a bunch of celibate old dudes on their last legs as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    I see your point, Mike, but I would go as far as to say (completely non PC I know) that while stigma are not nice for the people who bear them, their absence is the main cause of further behaviour throughout society that is ultimately deleterious for society. I’ll post some links to some relevant articles by Charles Murray in a minute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    I posted this on an earlier thread and am glad to bring it up again here. Let the war begin!

    # PhilBest +4 Says:
    March 10th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    On the undermining of the traditional 2-parent family and social breakdown, READ:

    Charles Murray: “The Underclass Revisited”

    http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.14891/pub_detail.asp

    Charles Murray: “The Advantages of Social Apartheid”

    http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.22252/pub_detail.asp

    Bear in mind that this guy has been researching and writing for 30 years. His tone has become increasingly mocking and cynical as he sees “the social establishment” in denial over the underlying causes of society’s problems. You could summarise it thus:

    OK, if you won’t tackle “fatherlessness”, you are eventually gonna have to tackle crime.

    OK, if you won’t tackle fatherlessness and you don’t like catching criminals, you will have an increasing crime problem, and eventually the voters will force you to do something about it.

    OK, if you won’t tackle fatherlessness and you don’t like actually locking up the criminals that the voters are forcing you to catch, you will continue to have an increasing crime problem, and eventually the voters will force you to do something about it.

    OK, if you won’t tackle fatherlessness, we will just have to have large numbers of people locked up in jail. The USA is merely ahead of the rest of the world on this measure.

    And cut that BS about poverty and inequality. Look at the underlying statistics. The problem? Fatherlessness. End of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Got to go for a few hours. Shame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    These attitudes were based on experience and societal realities, and represented society’s first line of defense against its own destruction.

    That’s exactly how I imagine the 10 commandments came about – a great set of rules by which to govern a nomadic, tribal culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    Some people must inhabit a different planet than the one I do. When Rex Widerstrom says “I’d posit another cause, which I think is responsible for the majority of the rise: the increasingly puritanical attitude of society to all things sexual, and in particular a reluctance to acknowledge that young people are having sex with one another, and will continue to do so regardless of the moral outrage of their elders. Acknowledge the inevitability of that, ensure they’re educated and supplied with birth control, and we might reduce the abortion figures.”
    My understanding is that young people have fully embraced the liberal progressive agenda and are having sex with each other in record numbers. If there is “an increasingly puritanical attitude of society to all things sexual” it must be happening somewhere else. Certainly the Christian youth group that I lead, feel there is an incredible pressure to have sex among their peer group.
    Young people know all about birth control. They are all no doubt blessed by the efforts of the sex education industry. But still the abortion rate remains stubbornly high.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    I think it is important to provide young adults with good sex education but it is equally important
    to contextualize it within a moral code

    As a mother, it is with real horror that I watch the news every night to see images of young women and men
    vomiting from too much alcohol, or throwing themselves at the opposite sex like unpaid prostitutes.

    Actually the nightly news, reads like a list of the seven deadly sins!

    1. Pride
    2. Envy
    3. Gluttony
    4. Lust
    5. Anger
    6. Greed
    7. Sloth

    What part of our society would not be better, off if we endeavoured to keep these sins in check.

    Maybe God is smarter than we think!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Socrates (84 comments) says:

    “”These attitudes were based on experience and societal realities, and represented society’s first line of defense against its own destruction.”

    That’s exactly how I imagine the 10 commandments came about – a great set of rules by which to govern a nomadic, tribal culture.”

    Durkheim’s (or Weber’s I have to read up tonight as I can’t quite rember which) theories on Devience discuss this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. siobhan (278 comments) says:

    What is the break down by age group for abortion?

    As abortion is reasonably available it may be that people are making the decision for economic reasons. Sounds hard, but a working women with an unwanted pregnancy is more likely to have an abortion now than they would have 10 – 15 years ago. That must be influencing numbers to a certain extent, not just hormone driven teenagers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. calendar girl (1,244 comments) says:

    Why should we be surprised that a relatively lightweight ecclesiastical story from Europe spawns anti-Roman Catholic comment on the present thread?

    For the last two+ years our supposedly mature society has allowed PM Helen Clark and her entourage to demonise another religious group, the Exclusive Brethren, for her government’s own political ends. The EBs may have a number of unusual characteristics, as do Catholics, but at least in our society they are generally a force for community good rather than for evil.

    Nobody pretends that individual EBs, or individual Catholics, are personally blameless in all aspects of their lives. But as organised religious groups they do not deserve the opprobrium earned by al-Qaeda or the suspicion that attaches to drug dealing sub-cultures.

    Social discrimination against Catholicism is a perverse European trait, akin to ostracism of people based solely on class. We don’t advance as people by perpetuating such irrationality in a new world country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    Indeed the main problem is that without Christianity we do not have a moral code on which to build a decent society.

    We need to recover a sense of sin. We are all sinners, but if we confess our sins then through the power of Jesus Christ we gain forgiveness and reconciliation with God. We need to be reconciled with God.

    Sadly the sin of pride means that we want to go our own way and do without God. The folly of this is there for all to see — just read about all the crimes and cruelty committed in New Zealand right now on stuff.co.nz.
    We need to get back to God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    PhilBest:

    once upon a time, society had attitudes (call them prejudices, call them social constructs) to human behaviour…

    Well since none of us here are immortals (to the best of my knowledge) we can only go on what the history books tell us. And they seem to suggest that almost every society, no matter how outwardly repressed it seemed, had a strong undercurrent of sexual activity (call it promiscuity if you will). We’ve learned that everyone from the Victorians to our parents’ generation in the 1950s, were in fact just as sexually active as the 1920s or the 1960s or the present day. The “sexual revolution” was about acknowledgement of our sexual nature as opposed to suddenly “discovering” it.

    Just because in the past pregnant teenagers were shipped off to have their babies in secret (and those children were adopted, or grew up believing their mother to be their sister), or visited a backstreet abortionist (as was wrenchingly detailed in the movie “Vera Drake”) doesn’t mean society had it’s urges under control, just that they went unacknowledged and the results were dealt with behind tightly drawn curtains.

    I don’t believe there ever was a “once upon a time” where social mores were strong enough to overcome our most basic and natural urges… just times when our tendency to succumb to those urges were the elephant in the room that polite socirty chose not to acknowledge – often with deleterious consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    As a mother, it is with real horror that I watch the news every night to see images of young women and men vomiting from too much alcohol, or throwing themselves at the opposite sex like unpaid prostitutes.

    Heh – that reminds me, I was chaperoning a group of 15 year old rowers holding a “rowathon” on Courtenay Place a few weeks ago. My shift was midnight to 2am.

    It’s hard not to sound like a conservative stick in the mud, but I’m not sure I was ever THAT young & scantily clad, let alone THAT young & scantily clad on Courtenay Place.

    I’m no prude, but it was an eye opener! (Mitigation – it was also bloody muggy, which may have explained a lot of the outfits that floated by.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Indeed the main problem is that without Christianity we do not have a moral code on which to build a decent society.

    Are you saying that only nominally christian societies are decent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Hoolihan: Thanks for your considered first response. I agree that many of these ‘criticisms’ are worn-out, ill-considered and oh-so-predictable.

    People who criticise the Catholic Church as a matter of course might be interested in the recent work of Jurgen Habermas, the noted German philosopher (not a Catholic and not a theologian). On the other hand, they might not because he – after a lifetime of impressive and much-honoured secular, philosophical work – has come to the conclusion that Christianity is the only basis on which western civilisation is founded. He calls contemporary political and cultural debate meaningless and nothing more than ‘postmodern chatter’.

    It’s institutions such as the Catholic Church – despite its imperfections and mistakes – that keep us as individuals and societies in the west reasonably sane, stable and coherent.

    DPF: Of course you have the right to your sense of humour. I’m just disappointed to see that its the sort of thing I last heard at school.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    ..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Indeed the main problem is that without Christianity we do not have a moral code on which to build a decent society.

    I have trouble with this… to clarify – would you jettison the entire Old Testament & its teachings, including the 10 commandments? Because the society that spawned the Old Testament didn’t have Christianity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Fletch (6,410 comments) says:

    ps, this “new seven sins” has not been endorsed by the Pope. It’s basically the media having nothing better to report on a slow news day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Jim Anderton has said; “The bishops and priests and Christians of any sort don’t have a mortgage on wisdom and knowledge and experience and judgement.” This from a man, who linked the smacking of children to future animal abuse.

    Helen Clark says; “ Those who invoke religion must accept that they will be judged by its precepts.” Clearly she operates without the need for any rules.

    Tony Blair says; “ You talk about religion in our system and, frankly, people do think you’re a nutter.” Hasn’t Tony Bliar just become a Christened Catholic ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    1. You shall have no other Gods but me
    2. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
    3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
    4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
    5. Respect your father and mother.
    6. You must not kill.
    7. You must not commit adultery.
    8. You must not steal.
    9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
    10. You must not be envious of your neighbour’s goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.

    Imagine if you will for a moment that these are not the 10C’s but general rules to live by.

    I wonder how different our society would be today if we took these to heart
    as basic principles.

    I can understand non Christians having a bit of a problem with 1 -4 but the rest is pretty sound stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Rex W- “And that if our response is outrage, anger and disapproval all we’re going to do is create an atmosphere of distrust and perhaps fear amongst our offspring who will then be disinclined to come to us for advice or help when they need it.”

    BULLSHIT..!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    I wonder how different our society would be today if we took these to heart
    as basic principles.

    Most do – even the non christians (1-4 notwithstanding). And they WERE general rules to live by. Our society DID take these to heart as basic principles.

    And here we are, no need for imagination.

    But I realise you mean what if EVERYONE individually took these to heart. That’s never happened. Not then, not now, and not in the intervening years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Are you saying that only nominally christian societies are decent?”

    Are you saying they’re not??

    “I have trouble with this…”

    How unsurprising. Are you ever going to say anything with any real meaning, or are you just going to chip away at those who unlike yourself, have the courage to hold and express an opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Llew has mastered the art of fence sitting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Are you saying they’re not??

    Have you no comprehension at all? Feel free to quote me if I did.

    How unsurprising. Are you ever going to say anything with any real meaning, or are you just going to chip away at those who unlike yourself, have the courage to hold and express an opinion.

    That’s a question to ask yourself Russ. Feel free to quiote yourself if you ever have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Agree with llew, 5-10 are pretty much universal principles within stable societies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Llew has mastered the art of fence sitting.

    Gawd… who asked your opinion Dad? I’f you have nothing better to do than alternatively spout bile & childish insults, and chip away at people (to steal a phrase), go do it with someone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Meanwhile Reddy, maybe you could look past my chipping & answer this on behalf of the person I asked

    I have trouble with this… to clarify – would you jettison the entire Old Testament & its teachings, including the 10 commandments? Because the society that spawned the Old Testament didn’t have Christianity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Scott says:

    My understanding is that young people have fully embraced the liberal progressive agenda and are having sex with each other in record numbers.

    Do you really think that a couple of hormone-fuelled teenagers have “embraced the liberal progressive agenda”? I don’t think they’re aware of any agenda… mine certainly weren’t; nor were their friends. In fact some exactly the sensible, respectful (if not entirely chaste) behaviour most parents hope for, while others started on the treadmill of unwanted pregnancies while still in high school.

    There’s certainly an element of peer pressure but again I think that’s always existed… the difference being that what was once daring is now passé. I recall a school counsellor explaining to me that when I grew up, young men might have “notched their belt” for every girl with whom they’d had sex. Now boasting rights are granted – in some sectors of teenage male society – only for the number of unwanted children you can convince girls to bear. And two from the same girl don’t count. So I’ll grant you that we’re at a stage in society’s cycle where young people are encouraged to go further than previous generations… but I don’t believe the pressure to indulge in some form of sexual contact is any stronger now than in the past.

    I don’t think there’s a “liberal agenda” behind this… it’s a cycle that society seems destined to repeat, going from Bacchanalia to repression, then opression then back again. I do see a new puritanism evolving. Any attempt to distribute condoms to kids is met with outrage by a sector of society, yet most of those same people would – rightly, IMHO – decry the rising abortion rate. Those people are hoping to change the behaviour of others through their disapproval rather than accepting real world solutions. That to me is a form of puritanism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    Well democracymum, the first 4 can be removed immediately if they are only general rules – they all deal with how special god is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Haha Llew, getting hot under the collar deary, haha. The old testament was the prelude message to the arrival of Jesus, which was the good news in the new testament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Haha Llew, getting hot under the collar deary, haha. The old testament was the prelude message to the arrival of Jesus, which was the good news in the new testament.

    That doesn’t answer my question Dad, read the original & my response again. SLowly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Haha Llew, getting hot under the collar deary, haha.

    Dad… tsk tsk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Rex, surely you agree that as society has become more liberal it’s become less disciplined? Birth outside marriage used to be a rarety, and shameful for the family. There is far less pressure against casual sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Birth outside marriage used to be a rarety,

    Or is it that marriage itself is becoming a rarity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    OK, birth outside stable marrige-like relationships has become more common, and more socially acceptable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Redbaiter says:

    Rex W- “And that if our response is outrage, anger and disapproval all we’re going to do is create an atmosphere of distrust and perhaps fear amongst our offspring who will then be disinclined to come to us for advice or help when they need it.”

    BULLSHIT..!!!

    Perhaps you’ve misunderstood me, Red. I’m not suggesting that if my then-teenage stepdaughter came to me and said “If the 1st XV win on Saturday I was thinking of giving them a night to remember, if you know what I mean”, I’d have patted her on the head and made sure she had enough condoms. I did, however, make sure she knew how to avoid unwanted pregnancy and that she had the means to do so at her disposal. At the same time I worked very hard on emphasising self-respect because I believe that if a girl has that then it naturally follows that she doesn’t feel the need to gain the approval of the opposite sex through sexual favours. It seems I was successful with both her and my stepson.

    But equally, if she’d ever fallen pregnant she knew that I wouldn’t have leapt up, screamed “Begone, Jezebel!!”, slapped her around a bit and thrown her out till she added to the abortion statistics, or had the baby and embarked on life as a solo parent.

    Certainly we need to inculcate our children with our own values and try to provide strong moral guidance. But my point is that if we create an atmosphere in which they feel that failure to live up to those values will result in their ostracism, in the withdrawal of our love, or in violence, then they will not come to us when they need us.

    Or are you advocating outrage, anger and disapproval as an appropriate response to a child who is in trouble?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. ben (2,380 comments) says:

    I don’t know what is OTT about my earlier comment. The CC is in fact guilty of those things. Is it not reasonable to point that out? In my opinion, the CC’s authority to speak on morality is destroyed by its own bad behaviour. Being old and very, very wealthy isn’t enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    OK, birth outside stable marrige-like relationships has become more common, and more socially acceptable.

    Heh. It probably has – although I’d throw increased choice for women into the mix, employment opportunities, and far less social stigma – OK, it may not explain teen pregnancies so well, but I think it probably explains many solo parent situations.

    However, before my critics leap upon my failings… that is an expressed opinion (verging on speculation), formed of my experience, and subject to change should conflicting evidence be presented.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Andrew W…

    The short answer is, I don’t know. And I suspect the statistics wouldn’t be reliable either, because if people are going to lie about anything, it would be this topic.

    When abortions were illegal they were still performed, but obviously went unreported. And I know personally of two girls who grew up believing their mother was in fact their older sister – the truth only came out at some catastrophic time, like serious illness or near-death. How many other people took such secrets to the grave?

    It’s a bit like the “epidemic” of child abuse that’s talked about. It’s an epidemic of child abuse reporting because victims now feel, thankfully, that they can talk about such incidents without any stigma. Like any other form of sex you care to name, including out-of-wedlock pregnancy, I believe the rate has remained fairly constant – the “liberalism” to which you refer has only made people freer to discuss it, not indulge in it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Or are you advocating outrage, anger and disapproval as an appropriate response to a child who is in trouble?

    Rex… you know that’s Redbaiter’s response to everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Or are you advocating outrage, anger and disapproval as an appropriate response to a child who is in trouble?”

    If its due yes. What’s the problem with dissaproval for Chrissakes? What’s the problem with anger for chrissakes? You telling me you’ve never expressed anger in your communication with a child who might have done something wrong?? ..and outrage too could be quite acceptable in some circumstances. I feel that over indulging children is one of the main reasons we’re experiencing such a breakdown of social codes. How would the spoilt narcissitic little arseholes have coped if they’d been born with a dozen siblings??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Meanwhile Reddy, maybe you could look past my chipping & answer”

    Fuck you and your questions LLew. ..and your arrogant demands for answers. Say something and I might comment on it. Screw up your courage and have a go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    You have a warped sense of something Hoolian if you believe GOD himself founded the Catholic Church.
    I’m pretty sure Jesus, he himself being God, established the Catholic Church and in doing so made St Peter the first Pope – giving him the key and the authority to lead His Church on earth. He also pledged that the Holy Spirit would stay with the CC until the end of the world to guard it in the Truth and to help it teach the people to love and serve God – he did not give this ‘vocal’ pledge to any other, but the CC.

    So, if by ‘a warped sense of something’ you mean that I’m correct, then I’ll happily accept your cryptic endorsement.

    …how is accumulating excess wealth a sin? Unless this is done at the point of a gun or some other means of force, the accumulation of any wealth – be it excessive in some eyes or otherwise – is done by providing goods and services which people are willing to pay for.

    You answered your own question. The accumulation of obscene wealth is in itself not a sin, rather I think the fact that with wealth it is hard to be humble and ‘poor in spirit’. Bill Gates is not a sinner for his large bank account but the fact that he appears to be unwilling to share it with others or use it to alleviate poverty. Wealth in itself is not a bad thing – granted that it comes from the providence of God, and not through the misery/exploitation/expense of others.

    I believe that’s Catholic theology in a nutshell. “We make shit up because God lets us”. Personally I find faith in a metaphysical being hard enough without having to have faith in a bunch of celibate old dudes on their last legs as well.

    How sad BlairM that you cannot have faith in Got because of the physical limitation of men. You do not need to have ‘faith’ in priests, rather in the work that they do overall is for the betterment of humanity. The CC does do wonderful things for the world and if you look beyong your self-inflicted prejudice you will see that the world is better off from Christianity. It is a lousy, yet common, argument to persecute the Church for its perceived elderly priests when most over Catholic Priests are younger than 50 years of age. And last legs, really? If that’s a metaphor for the CC than its poorly constructed – the CC is an institution that is older than any democratic state and is one of the oldest religions in the world. It has lasted for over 2000 years, and believe me when I say it will definitely last another 2000 (assuming the world lasts that long).

    What is certain is that your ideas are nothing new; they are a pathetic rehash of old contentions. The CC will outlive your cold licentious parameters for moral thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Red just blew llew.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Scott (1,805 comments) says:

    Rex,
    I think you are trotting out the standard Liberal line — basically people have always done these things, we are just more open and honest about them. With the greatest respect I think that is rubbish. We had nothing like 17,000 abortions a year 50 years ago. Sadly it is now expected for young people to have sex. If they get pregnant they can go on the DPB and even attend school at the teen pregnancy unit. We have lost all sense of shame and sin. But what’s more this behaviour hurts them. So many young people are hurt by this moral wasteland they have inherited from us — the previous generation of hedonistic baby boomers.

    People do not have the moral guidelines they had 50 years ago — which were basically Christian. I would like young people to return to decent moral values. Rather than oppress them they protect them. If young people grew up, started dating, got engaged, got married and then they went to bed together what a difference that would make! People used to live this way. With God’s help they can do so again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. berend (1,711 comments) says:

    Andrew W: Do these come straight from God or do they make them up as they go along?

    The Roman Catholic Church can. Despite what many believe, the Bible isn’t that important for the pope c.s. They have felt free to add and remove what they like. There’s actually little in the Bible they still believe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Hoolian (sorry about mis-spelling last time) and democracymum

    I agree with your comments. It is refreshing to see substantive points made without the abuse of those who hold contrary views.

    The most ardent, doubt-free and dare I say illiberal positions on Christianity are often held by people who have a laissez faire attitude to most other things. That seems a bit odd to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Red just blew llew.

    No Dad, he just blew. (Faster than you would have if I’d mentioned your daughter with disrespect.)

    He usually sucks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    kiwitoffee – Thanks! I do actually get carried away at times too, but cheers. Its nice to hear that someone agree with you on some things – most of all this.

    The Roman Catholic Church can. Despite what many believe, the Bible isn’t that important for the pope c.s. They have felt free to add and remove what they like. There’s actually little in the Bible they still believe.

    On what basis is this comment made? Of course the Bible is important to the Pope, as it is to all those in the heirarchy of the Church. List 5 things in the bible that the Pope doesn’t believe. The onus of truth is quite a burden here, berend, are you up to it?

    Note also that is was the Protestants who took out 11 of the 77 books in the original Bible, including editing parts of Revelations. So who again feel add and remove what they like?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    democracymum..

    could you please answer the question..

    ‘do you believe unwed mums/sole-parents should receive a boost in their income..and be provided with a ;living wage..?’

    (y’know..!..to care for those children they didn’t have aborted..?..)

    if not..why not..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. llew (1,533 comments) says:

    Fuck you and your questions LLew. ..and your arrogant demands for answers.

    If your perfect world means I can’t ask questions… it doesn’t say much for the “freedom” you claim is all important.

    Say something and I might comment on it.

    You comment regardless, usually with the very sort of chipping you accuse me of.

    Screw up your courage and have a go.

    Couple of expressed opinions of mine up above – have a go yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,346 comments) says:

    DPF:

    [DPF: 20 demerits]
    [DPF: And that’s 35 demerits]

    And that’s bye-bye to Stan/RebelHeart for a month – nice work!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    Philu – Do you believe unwed mums/sole-parents should receive a boost in their income..and be provided with a ;living wage..?

    After deciphering your terrible grammar and syntax, Philu, I will bite and answer Yes to your question (though please note democracymum may not agree).

    The support of solo parents/teenage mums is important if we are to reaffirm a culture that is pro-life as opposed to pro-death. This is not to say that I endorse girls having children here and there just to get a government-signed cheque, but supporting those who support life is certainly a lesser evil than giving a government-signed cheque to the abortionists who, and lets be honest here, do not give two hoots about the well-being of young women. They just want their money – and who wouldn’t? They make a killing, and no, I won’t excuse the pun.

    Instead of paying $400 per abortion to the consultants at FPA (which if you do the math is approx. $7 200 000 pa) why doesn’t the money go to a comprehensive sex education plan (in which I would insist abstinence is a key option) or go towards helping those girls?

    Its because it all comes down to convenience. No one wants a baby, even if it means support from the state – because ultimately we live in a selfish, greedy society and children are a parasite to our latte-drinking, pill-taking, materialistic lifestyle – and who wants to go about changing that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Hoolian- no offence mate, but if you know a little about the history of the Catholic Church( and it appears that you do, and still believe in its divine mandate and unbroken chain of authority, there’s no point trying to have a rational discussion with you.

    You should be ashamed of your church’s history. It is evidence that regardless of whether it ever was comissioned by God, it has surely lost its way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. RebelHeart (123 comments) says:

    # democracymum Add karma Subtract karma +3 Says:
    March 11th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Imagine if you will for a moment that these are not the 10C’s but general rules to live by.

    I wonder how different our society would be today if we took these to heart
    as basic principles.

    I can understand non Christians having a bit of a problem with 1 -4 but the rest is pretty sound stuff.

    Exactly, dude you should so rewrite the Bible and remove all the unnecessary God references… Everyone would read it and the world would be a much better place :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    The rats, toads, and snakes.. are they in a sauce of some kind?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    Well, Helmut, we’re not all gifted with your apparent wisdom. Care you give any examples and evidence to your outlandish and insulting comment? If I’m to be ashamed of my Church’s history, then surely you must feel abominably ashamed for your nonsensical approach to debates.

    I am not ashamed of the CC, nor of its history, its people, its leaders or its messages. I do know a great deal about the history of the CC and, yes, there are moments where grim and terrible things have been allowed to come to pass – the CC is not perfect and I have never proposed that it is – but nothing that has eclipsed the goodness of humanity that exists in the CC.

    All humans are capable of doing dark and sinful things – not just the Catholics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Mike Collins (166 comments) says:

    “The accumulation of obscene wealth is in itself not a sin, rather I think the fact that with wealth it is hard to be humble and ‘poor in spirit’.”

    Why should anyone need to be humble or “poor in spirit”? Why bring yourself down a couple of notches and/or suffer to fit in with those not in your position? Being poor is not noble and should never be aspired to – even if only in spirit.

    “Bill Gates is not a sinner for his large bank account but the fact that he appears to be unwilling to share it with others or use it to alleviate poverty.”

    I couldn’t care less what anyone does with their money. I do not put the moral condition on earning wealth that one must turn around and give it to others. That Bill Gates actually does is great for him and those he helps. However if he were to turn around and say “No I earnt this money – I’m not giving it away” this would sit fine with me.

    “Wealth in itself is not a bad thing – granted that it comes from the providence of God, and not through the misery/exploitation/expense of others.”

    Wealth does not come from the providence of God. Wealth comes from hard work, toil, vision and application. There is very little luck involved and one is certainly not at the mercy of the good graces of an ethereal superior being. The only superior being that man is at the mercy of is himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    philu…

    In answer to your question.

    I believe in the hand up not the hand out approach

    Yes I think some economic assistance should be available to woman who do not abort their babies, after all
    abortions are state subsidised already and costing the tax payer money.

    A planned approach to supporting a women throughout her pregnancy and for a few years beyond is a realistic and caring alternative to genocide. (And I don’t use that word lightly)

    Secondly there are many couples who would happily adopt a child – and this should be encouraged, although I believe strongly that children should always be properly informed of their heritage.

    Lastly, I do not believe women who are having second and third abortions, or babies should do so without penalty.

    We may live in a throw away society, where yesterday’s technology is old and obsolete, but to throw away the life of a child because it is inconvenient, or because you have been careless, is in my opinion inexcusable.

    About one in three abortions in 2000 were performed on women who had had at least one previous abortion, up from one in five in 1990 (Statistics New Zealand, 2001). One in 10 women having an abortion in 2000 had had two or more previous abortions, over twice the figure recorded in 1990.

    I once heard the question asked – how many babies would be aborted, if the uterus was clear, and the baby growing inside clearly visible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Rex Widerstrom:

    “I don’t believe there ever was a “once upon a time” where social mores were strong enough to overcome our most basic and natural urges… just times when our tendency to succumb to those urges were the elephant in the room that polite society chose not to acknowledge – often with deleterious consequences.”

    Rex, it is ridiculous to deny that the wholesale de-stigmatisation of all the previously hush-hush stuff, HASN’T had a wholesale effect on the rate at which the things you refer to do occur. There happens to be a “marriage penalty” in our tax and welfare codes, too. Do read the Charles Murray articles I linked to above. What we see so far, is happening in a subculture, and society can survive that. Society cannot survive family breakdown spreading to the majority culture, and that is what we risk happening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    It is one thing for a neighbourhood to have a few fatherless children. It is another thing for the MAJORITY of children in a neighbourhood to be fatherless, and to grow up regarding that as normal. This is called a “mushroom” or a “snowball” effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. RebelHeart (123 comments) says:

    If Rebel #### is not banned then that will be beyond belief ? I will find out who he is and have a good chat to him about his malicious behaviour

    Oh yeah D4J, aren’t you still too pussy to tell me which Church you go to so that I could visit it and meet you? Come on, I promise if you say which Church you go to I’ll be there this Sunday. And don’t forget the time I gave you my address and you pretended you visited in your schizophrenic world but never actually did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    LLEW:

    “It’s hard not to sound like a conservative stick in the mud, but I’m not sure I was ever THAT young & scantily clad, let alone THAT young & scantily clad on Courtenay Place.

    I’m no prude, but it was an eye opener! (Mitigation – it was also bloody muggy, which may have explained a lot of the outfits that floated by.”

    Charles Murray has an interesting essay on this sort of thing: “Prole Models: America’s elites take their cue from the underclass”.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=85000550

    Basically, the elites of Hollywood and pop music dress like drug dealers, sluts and hookers, so will the teenagers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..A planned approach to supporting a women throughout her pregnancy and for a few years beyond is a realistic and caring alternative…”

    and what happens then..?…in your ‘hand-up not hand-out’ model..?

    are they then ‘cut loose’..to sink or swim..after that..?

    and i see you advocate a (deeply flawed) ‘back to the bad old days’..of advocating/pressuring single mums to ‘give away’ their babies..

    (how ‘christian’ is that..?..)

    third time lucky..?

    i repeat my question..’do you believe a single parent should receive a ‘living wage’ to raise her offspring..(that she didn’t have aborted..?..’)

    a simple question..?..really..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    Mike Collins Wealth does not come from the providence of God. Wealth comes from hard work, toil, vision and application. There is very little luck involved and one is certainly not at the mercy of the good graces of an ethereal superior being. The only superior being that man is at the mercy of is himself.

    Wow, thank you Mike. Gosh, I am so wrong. Please allow me to prop up your soapbox so that you may stand straight and tall and convince all 1.1billion other people, who are also misguided, of the truth.

    You don’t believe that wealth comes from God because you don’t believe in him. That in itself is not an acceptable argument when arguing with, say, a person who believes in God. Handing God off as an ‘ethereal superior being’ is merely you denying what I believe. Do you honestly think you are going to convince any Catholic that you’re right and that God is merely a figment of their imagination? Your efforts are in vain – all they will do is incite those who hate the Church while hardening the resolve of those who already believe.

    But good luck with your soapbox.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    democracymum: Right again.

    Many people, myself included, would argue that the DPB and other aspects of the welfare state are now grossly abused; a good idea to begin with but where did we go wrong? One only has to spend some time in a District Court to see the reality of the impact of the DPB.

    And abortion? I think our abortion stats go up every year. Why don’t we spend this money on saving lives instead of ending them? Quite apart from all the other arguments against state-sponsored abortion, nobody seems to think this is a relevant point in the discussion about the pros and cons of immigration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “do you believe unwed mums/sole-parents should receive a boost in their income..and be provided with a ;living wage..?”

    Nope. Not from the gummint. From charity sure. But for me to be forced to pay for the upbringing of your children (as well as my own) because you’re incapable of managing that task yourself? Nope. Fuck that and fuck you too Phule. You’ve got no pride, and with no pride, how can you ever impart anything useful to your children as they grow to be adults?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i already know what you think ratbiter..

    ‘ad tedium’..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Yeah sure Hoolian, the micks have done some lovely things in the past, and good on them. And sure, nobody’s perfect (whatever that’s supposed to mean) but not everybody’s claiming to be god’s church dude. I’d expect a better record if he was really in charge.
    You guys claim an unbroken change of authority from Peter right? Aside from the fact that there’s no evidence of any succession from Peter, ior indeed any sign of anything resembling an office of a ruling bishop for over a hundred years after Christ, the murderers, frauds and unbelievers who have held the office in times since suggest that the authority disappeared ages ago. Throw in a coupleof crusades in there, a few inquisitions, selling of indulgences and the like, and I’d say you’ve got what the christians call a complete apostasy.

    I respect the convictions of all the catholics out there, and recognise that for some of them, their belief represents a genuine commitment to being christlike and all that. No doubt you’re one of them, and good on you, but the doctrine and history of the church suggest that there’s not much in common with the Catholics and the actual teachings of Christ any more.

    It’s nothing personal man, but I think your church is a fraud. I don’t mean it as an insult so don’t get personal. I did notice a comment of yours above though-

    “But its great that DPF doesn’t agree with them and decides to use cheap shots on his minuscule blog – good on him. The Catholic Church doesn’t really want you anyway.”

    Mmmkay. Don’t wanna get preachy but I don’t think Jesus would say that. Maybe the pope would though. And a middle ages pope definitely would.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    >Birth outside marriage used to be a rarety, and shameful for the family.

    Only if you define “used to” as a short and recent interval. If you look at records for 19th and 18th century Britain, which reliably record birth and marriage dates, you’ll find that births outside marriage aren’t particularly rare. And marriages while the woman was pregnant were commonplace… possibly as high as 50 percent for first births. I’m guessing that if this proportion of young women were made pregnant by pre-marital sex, then the rest were probably at it as well and it can’t have been particularly shameful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,346 comments) says:

    RebelHeart:

    Oh yeah D4J, aren’t you still too pussy to tell me which Church you go to so that I could visit it and meet you? Come on, I promise if you say which Church you go to I’ll be there this Sunday. And don’t forget the time I gave you my address and you pretended you visited in your schizophrenic world but never actually did.

    You obviously enjoy winding up D4J (and there would be considerably less threadjacking if he just ignored you) – but aren’t you banned from Kiwiblog for a month?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    REX WIDERSTROM:

    “I’ll grant you that we’re at a stage in society’s cycle where young people are encouraged to go further than previous generations… but I don’t believe the pressure to indulge in some form of sexual contact is any stronger now than in the past.

    I don’t think there’s a “liberal agenda” behind this… it’s a cycle that society seems destined to repeat, going from Bacchanalia to repression, then opression then back again. I do see a new puritanism evolving. Any attempt to distribute condoms to kids is met with outrage by a sector of society, yet most of those same people would – rightly, IMHO – decry the rising abortion rate. Those people are hoping to change the behaviour of others through their disapproval rather than accepting real world solutions. That to me is a form of puritanism.”

    Oh, Rex, that’s just PC, sit-on-the-fence stuff. The critical point is, what causes an increase in society’s problems, particularly crime, further down the track, and what tends to reduce it? The “liberal agenda” you refer to isn’t exactly universally co-ordinated, but it is a bit too much to be coincidence, that influential social theorists like Adorno, Gramsci, and Marcuse actually formulated theories 1930-1950 that are “establishment position” in our universities today, involving the overturning of society’s traditions in the guise of “reducing oppression” and improving “social justice” and the like. This is actually outright Trojan horse stuff, as these theorists were all Marxists who were frustrated that the Proletarian revolution would not come about in Western Society where the Christian tradition was too strong. Hence they sought to bring it about another way. The whole point is to replace the institutions of society with the State.

    It is all too easy to just dismiss this as conspiracy theory stuff. That is why it IS HAPPENING. Many people have been duped, and genuinely believe that they are working towards the improvement of society, but they have NO IDEA about the form of that improved society that is in the minds of the prime movers of the program. It is an interesting mental exercise to try and work out which category various politicians and activists fall into. People like Hager and Minto and Trotter bloody well KNOW what they are doing, and make no apology for the excesses of the means employed by Communism in the past. About Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, I assume that they, too, know what the program is but are more sly about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    >Also, DavidP – moral authority and political power have little to do with one another. You cannot claim that the Pope (as head of the CC) has no right to make moral judgement due to the fall of its political might.

    It wasn’t a claim that I made. But from around 3-400AD thru to the breach of Porta Pia in 1870, the Catholic Church were a mafia-like gang ruling Italy. They aren’t ruling anywhere any more and have since found religion. The pope can judge who he likes, but his authority is based on being descended from 1600 years worth of thugs and I’m surprised that anyone can take him seriously just because he claims that god is talking to him.

    >A few odd Popes who have done terrible things is not an argument for the dissolution of the CC.

    I’ve not argued in favour of dissolution. Just that most people should ignore their moralising and should laugh at them. And it wasn’t the “odd pope”… it was pretty much all of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    REX:

    “I’m not suggesting that if my then-teenage stepdaughter came to me and said “If the 1st XV win on Saturday I was thinking of giving them a night to remember, if you know what I mean”, I’d have patted her on the head and made sure she had enough condoms. I did, however, make sure she knew how to avoid unwanted pregnancy and that she had the means to do so at her disposal. At the same time I worked very hard on emphasising self-respect because I believe that if a girl has that then it naturally follows that she doesn’t feel the need to gain the approval of the opposite sex through sexual favours. It seems I was successful with both her and my stepson.”

    I believe that Rex, you are a good guy doing his best and not doing too badly. But surely you can see that the overall direction of fashion, the political lead, peer pressure, and the destigmatisation of casual sex, has made life much more likely to result heartbreak and depression for your daughter and stepson and made it much more difficult for you to help them to a happy, well-adjusted life, not much easier as you insinuate. And it may be a whole lot MORE difficult for a majority of parents, particularly the solo ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    PhilBest: I’m not denying that society doesn’t place the value upon marriage and a stable family structure that it once did. And as a non-Christian I think that’s a bad thing, just as I think that if we lived by the last 6 of the Ten Commandments as outlined by democracymum above (not to mention the Golden Rule) we’d be a lot better off.

    Nor am I denying that children who are raised outside of a stable and loving family are more likely to live lives that result in unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and similar negative outcomes. And that a rise in the number of “unparented” children has led to a rise in teen pregnancies.

    There’s also a rise in anti-social attitudes to pregnancy amongst a subculture of some young males as I’ve outlined above, meaning that an unwanted pregnancy is a “notch on the belt”. That has undoubtedly led to a rise in the number of pregnancies and abortions.

    However, in terms of the number of times teenagers have sex and the ages at which they are choosing to have it – no, I don’t think there’s significant differences between now and any other time in our past, just that teenagers today are much more prepared to admit what they get up to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. JC (958 comments) says:

    Phil, I’m with Hoolian on this. I had to work out whats happened to benefits a few weeks ago and found that Labour has been lousy at keeping the DPB and the likes of sickness and invalids benefits up to scratch. Given inflation and it’s compounding effects and the straight dollar loss that occurred under the “Mother of all budgets”, these people are now about $40 per week worse off.. thats huge.

    And as far as breeding goes, it ain’t being done by the “me” generation but by solo mums, Maori, PI, and immigrants. We need those kids to keep our services and tax income up. In fact, I’d say those kids are so damn important that we should have a mandatory plan for solo mums to improve their parenting skills, cooking etc, so we can make something out of them in the long term. Same thing for their kids.. we already know that this is the group thats poor and prone to going off the rails, and we should unashamedly keep a closer eye on them.

    And like it or not, Rex is right when he says we are more puritanical.. but these days we camouflage that with railing against solo mums being bludgers, but 40 years ago mothers didn’t work either. Modern puritanism is determined not by the amount of sex but by how much it costs to maintain a solo mum.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    “philu” fires a question about solo mums getting support to raise their children. And while they’re on that support, they can have another one……. and another one……. and another one…….. all to different guys who never hung around………. and without having to name the biological dad to the relevant agencies of the State………….?

    Fine by our current political and intellectual leadership. Fine if it is an increasing phenomenon, too.

    It is not hard to conclude that our current political and intellectual leadership has a hidden agenda involving the eventual ascendance of the State into a total surrogate position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    POC I have tried my best against that Rebel #### and I cop demerits. I give up. Oh yes, nearly forgot Rebel #### you come to my Church and I will ( 10000 demerits)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. helmet (807 comments) says:

    So JC’s on hoolian’s side. Buggers up my argument doesn’t it? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    PhilBest… was replying to your first comment during the time it took you to leave the subsequent ones! So I’ll try and cover it here.

    While there have to be common sense exceptions to every principle I do believe that people are overall happier and better off in innumerable ways if left to pursue their lives in whatever way they wish provided they bring no harm to others. Which is why my primary concern is that my children developed a sense of self respect, and respect for others, and a knowledge of how to prevent pregnancy and disease. I see that as an essentially libertarian perspective on morals, and don’t see how one can can claim a libertarian philosophy on economic and even other social issues and then get uptight and start moralising on other issues without a whiff of hypocrisy*. If I don’t want church or state telling me what to do with my money, nor do I want them telling me with whom I can have sex, and what I can and cannot do in the bedroom.

    When I was a teenager I was so immersed in my career goals my parents would yell at me to leave the house and go out with friends. Others in my peer group were into parties and girls and – even allowing for their boasting exceeding reality – a lot of casual sex. Sexual behaviour during the teenage years – unless resulting in an unwanted pregnancy carried full term – doesn’t seem to have had much impact upon the way their lives turned out.

    The “destigmatisation of casual sex” of which you speak is a highly subjective term, depending on your definition of “casual sex”. I don’t class the young men who try to get girls pregnant in order to beat their friends’ “score”, for instance, as indulging in “casual sex” so much as a form of emotional and mental rape. But a couple of teenagers, perhaps believing they’ve found true love (when of course the chances are they will have many subequent relationships) choosing to have sex… while not something I would actively encourage, nor is it something I would stigmatise.

    For one thing, stigmatisation isn’t an effective deterrent… just ask any smoker, huddled outside in the cold, whether they’re any closer to giving up thanks to the stigmatisation of their behaviour.

    Still, I guess liberal, libertarian and libertine all come from the same etymological root, so where I fall along that particular graph is open to subjective interpretation :-D

    (* Not implying you’re doing so, Phil. But certainly some commenters who’re happy to run an ‘all taxation is theft’ line on economics are distinctly control-freakish when it comes to these moral issues).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    What we SHOULD be doing, is removing the “marriage PENALTY” from the tax and welfare structure, and we should be INCENTIVISING those solo mums to have a guy there for their kids on a permanent basis. The evidence that fatherless kids are the main predicting factor of future crime rates and other deleterious social outcomes is overwhelming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    your silence speaks volumes..democracymum..

    and such ‘unchristian’ double-standards..have the effect of negating anything else you may say/your credibility/even your philosophical pretences/canards….

    as jc noted..sole parents are now $40 a week worse off than when labour came to power..

    (your thoughts on that..?..or can we educate a guess..?)

    so..to boil your cack-handed philosophy down to basics..

    you are against people having sex..

    you are against the result of abortion that occurs from this activity…

    and..you are against sole parents receiving state/societal support..to raise those babies that aren’t aborted..?..

    do you seriously expect us to believe there isn’t something seriously out of whack/mind-bogglingly ‘wrong’..in any christian or secular sense..

    .. with that little package..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    btw..democracymum..i hope you never find yourself in the position of a marriage dissolving..and having to turn to the state/society..

    ..for help to raise any children..

    (you may find your ‘give them nothing!’ attitude..doing a u-turn..

    or..you could always give them away/’adopt them out’..eh..?

    (as you expect others to do..?..)

    (‘christians..!’..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    PhilBest: You’re dead right re “marriage penalties” and encouraging – or at least not placing impediments in the way of – solo mothers forming new relationships.

    Yet here in Australia Centrelink (the equivalent of WINZ) have just been caught letter-dropping the street in which any solo parent whom they believe has relationship, is living. The neighbours are told the person is on a benefit and that Centrelink suspects them of fraud (so much for the Privacy Act – over-ridden, Centrelink claim, by the Social Security Act). They are also asked to spy and warned that if they give misleading information they will be prosecuted. Those who are also on benefits are threatened that if they fail to comply they may themselves be subject to investigation. All tactics that would make the Stasi proud.

    I certainly don’t want to pay my taxes to have some welfare cheat draw a disability pension while working as a labourer. But I don’t begrudge a solo parent having someone over a few nights a week to see if a relationship might work out – epsecially since, if it does succeed, their dependency is likely to be reduced or disappear and, as you so rightly point out, their kids will have a far better chance in life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    And my comment at 6.28PM, “philu”……….? Your position, please.

    Is Welfare as an entitlement, “Christian charity”? Funny, I thought Christian charity was what there was BEFORE the welfare state came along. You looked out for your own kids, your own mum and dad and grannies, your own neighbours, the needy in your parish……… And it worked, it kept families and neighbourhoods together, and it was based on love, not State coercion…..

    Funny thing too, but “conservatives”, particularly Christians, do a lot more for charity today than secular lefties, even at the same income level.

    http://richiericher.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/arthur-brooks-who-really-cares-the-surprising-truth-about-compassionate-conservatism/

    Lefties give THEIR money to political movements that will force everybody to give to the State to look after the poor and unfortunate. Conservatives actually look after the poor and unfortunate. That is a telling difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    sorry phil-the-inferior..

    i’ve tried reading your posts..

    but have found them interminably longwinded..dense..muddled..

    ..bordering on incomprehensible..

    ..and poorly laid-out..

    so..sorry about that..

    but if you try to lift your game in all those areas..

    then i’ll try again..

    ’till then..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. JC (958 comments) says:

    “So JC’s on hoolian’s side. Buggers up my argument doesn’t it? :-)”

    I’ve been keeping an eye on you, my son, and you are about to get a bolt of lightning up the bum. Truly, you will move in mysterious ways.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Philu – do you agree with the other Phil that fatherlessness is the modern day scourge for society?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    one of them..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    The modern day scourge of society is old people driving cars really slowly before veering erratically from side to side. Oh, and the Labour Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Buggerlugs, the labour party are not a scourge for society, they’re case study in corruption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Mike Collins (166 comments) says:

    Hoolian – “You don’t believe that wealth comes from God because you don’t believe in him. That in itself is not an acceptable argument when arguing with, say, a person who believes in God.”

    You are right I don’t believe in him/her/it. That however is irrelevant. That doesn’t mean to say I think people are wrong to use god as a motivation to do what I believe is the right thing. For example if people believe that by working hard and toiling away they will earn the good graces of god and therefore become wealthy as a result, who am I to tell them to quit?

    However when you say “Wealth in itself is not a bad thing – granted that it comes from the providence of God”, you present it as defacto fact that wealth is derived by getting into the good graces of god. That is something I will challenge. I challenge that by presenting my view as fact – not to convince you otherwise but to note my view of the alternative. An alternative which is essentially the same with the removal of god as a player.

    The important thing here is that we both appear to acknowledge that hardwork is the main driver for wealth, not whether man needs to please god with hard work first in order to become wealthy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. JC (958 comments) says:

    D4J

    “Philu – do you agree with the other Phil that fatherlessness is the modern day scourge for society?”

    It is one.. but it’s also a fact of life. All the blathering in the world hasn’t stopped 20-30% of kids being brought up in single parent households. If we don’t like it, we can kill them now before they grow, or we can employ some sort of social contract that provides the help that most need to bring up kids, and insist on certain standards and requirements in return for that help.

    A good, old fashioned Tory/Liberal approach is needed here to ensure we get the kids we want, not those grown in the dark like mushrooms.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Yes JC, the difference between kids that make and kids that don’t is often one caring adult.Children need to avoid unnecessary conflicts that might seriously impact on them, however with that said , how can parental balance and harmony be achieved by a bias govt who will not acknowledge shared parental rights? Why cannot they see that kids yearn for to be loved by both genders. Fathers who cause stress for the kids and do not take responsibility for their children need a bullet to the head. Surely supporting the family is advantageous for society. Why can’t this govt prioritize children rather than sending unscrupulous deadwood MP’s on a holiday !!~!

    Shame on New Zealand. God help save our children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. RebelHeart (123 comments) says:

    double post

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. RebelHeart (123 comments) says:

    POC I have tried my best against that Rebel #### and I cop demerits. I give up. Oh yes, nearly forgot Rebel #### you come to my Church and I will ( 10000 demerits)

    Sure thing – which Church is it? Mine is Riccarton Community Church. What’s your’s?

    Shame on D4J. God help save our children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Has your Pastor got a couple of horns on his head creepy person?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. RebelHeart (123 comments) says:

    Ah, Peak Oil Conspiracy – once again you have entered a thread and contributed nothing in relation to the original post just to lick D4J’s balls. And again, you have failed to see that it was him again who threw the first stone. Retard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. big bruv (13,934 comments) says:

    phul

    Anything (and I do mean ANYTHING) that results in you receiving less of my money on a weekly basis is a fucking great idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. RebelHeart (123 comments) says:

    Has your Pastor got a couple of horns on his head creepy person?

    No, unlike you he is not a Christian for his own selfish anger venting, rapist person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    The level of depravity shown by Rebel Horus on this thread just shows that Satan’s plan through the eye of Lucifer is well on track.
    Unbelievable filth from a demonic beast.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Holy cow! (excuse the pun).

    I can’t help but hear the theme from the Exorcist playing in the back of my mind when reading this thread of late.

    Will RebelHeart’s head start spinning round? Will green soup spew forth?

    If so, will it be because he’s had one too many bowls of phil u’s mung bean and mull special, or is it demonic possession?

    Will D4J sprinkle him with holy water? (At least he says it’s holy water, but what was that flushing sound?!)

    Will they meet at the Riccarton Community Church in a scene resembling the finale of “End of Days”? And will their comments become any more readable as a result (an “end of daze” if you will)?

    Will the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse show up to watch, and will they demand the popcorn concession if they do? (Hint: try to avoid buying anything from Pestilence. I hear he’s in trouble with the Council health inspectors).

    Will this get any worse before I decide to st…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Haha Rex, that made me fall to the ground in fits of uncontrollable laughter, “that flushing sound ?!” :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Thanks D4J. With my diplomatic skills perhaps I’ll get appointed Honorary Consul to Riccarton ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. reid (16,514 comments) says:

    DPF:

    I might even agree with the one about violating fundamental rights of human nature if they could list what these rights are.

    How about collective punishment? Is perpetrating that a violation of fundamental rights?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Drug trafficking and consumption

    The Communion Meal Wine Cup?

    Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

    The celibacy requirement for priests?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. radvad (767 comments) says:

    This effort by the Catholics is just another example of the chasm between institutionalised religion and Christianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    reid

    Fair question, given the entire faith is posed as resulting from collective punishment falling on humanity for the decision of two people to eat an apple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,346 comments) says:

    RebelHeart:

    Ah, Peak Oil Conspiracy – once again you have entered a thread and contributed nothing in relation to the original post just to lick D4J’s balls. And again, you have failed to see that it was him again who threw the first stone. Retard.

    You continue to show yourself up as an obnoxious git – well done.

    First, what did you contribute to the original post?

    Fuck you conservatives are tight pricks. I suppose you’re against sex before marriage too? Seriously, go download a porn film and chill out. If you’ve got a daughter she’s probably fucking all the guys in school and if you’re gonna continue to be a hardass she’ll never feel safe telling you about it.

    Wow – I’d say you contributed nothing in relation to the original post.

    Second, I don’t lick anyone’s balls here, let alone D4J’s. I’m an independent commenter and the views expressed are my own.

    Third, I’m quite happy to set my record against yours, for constructive Kiwiblog contributions. Others can judge that for themselves. A case in point is this delightful comment of yours on another thread (directed at another commenter, not me):

    Dude I know you just love D4J’s ass and enjoy licking it regularly with yours.

    I defy you to find any comment from me that remotely approaches that level of depravity. It’s not a popularity contest. I just don’t believe you contribute much to Kiwiblog.

    Finally, I’ll say it again with added emphasis: Stan/RebelHeart you have 105 demerits – I believe that means you’re banned for a month.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Phil Best

    If the most Christian country is the USA – possibly the only western nation state where only a Christian can be elected, how well do the poor fare, in this land of charity …

    Charity works as a means of helping the poor, like teaching abstinence works in sex education …

    It’s actually about control and power, if the poor have no right to an end to their poverty, then they are powerless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. reid (16,514 comments) says:

    SPC, in the realm of religion, perceived collective punishment from God is deemed to be justice. Whether you see it that way or agree with it I care not. That’s the way it is.

    OTOH, at an individual not a collective level, we are individually judged by the treatment we mete out to our fellow travellers. Some of us do better than others. (I’m not including myself in the “us” there BTW.)

    The interesting conundrum arises when you address the issue of a national body that uses its superior force to commit collective punishment. Is the whole nation thereby condemned? Is it merely the perpetrators, or those who support them by giving them orders and committing resources to allow them in full knowledge to perpetrate their punishment? What about those who support the regime in all good faith, in general terms: e.g. voters of the govt in charge at the time who have enunciated the policies?

    Interestingly it’s those nations who collectively turn from God that suffer collective punishment as a nation and to my knowledge we have seen that only once in the Jewish diaspora. Nations that commit collective punishment against their fellow travellers don’t appear to suffer the same fate.

    You can name many regimes that do this today. I won’t bother, but such are the inner questions I suggest are addressed both by the original seven sins and the addenda.

    BTW, I’m surprised no-one has mentioned that greed is not one of the seven, it’s avarice. Stuff got it right, The Times didn’t. Appalling ignorance. Perhaps they were “dumbing it down” but if so, it’s a reasonably important distinction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    The way “we” treat others, is sometimes also called “justice” too reid. If we have the ultimate “power” to do so. This happens amongst us, when individuals are judged individually, or sometimes collectively.

    The idea of ultimate power and justice, via right to judge others, derives from the concept of both God and agency of God on Earth. Today we have somewhat democratised it all, but the idea of being able to declare what is “deadly” and what is “sin”, speaks to a claim of agency of God and infallibility on the matter.

    Generally “accountable” power on earth, acts in the name of public security or national security, as a protective service of the “voting” public.

    PS Presumably you were saying that you see the suffering of the Jews during the diaspora, from discrimination by both Christians and Moslems, as because the other two groups saw themselves as having God authority primacy and thus “an obligation to collectively punish an independent people”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    No human or human organisation has the authority to decide what is or is not sin. That is God’s role.

    The Catholic church is stepping over the line and acting as God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. reid (16,514 comments) says:

    SPC:

    re your first 3 paras: if I interpret those correctly they are referring to the mechanism of action, I was more talking about the justice or lack of it behind the actions. I think you hit on it when you talk about justice but I suggest it is relevant to separate God’s justice from man’s concept of it. They are two very distinct concepts and IMO it’s up to us to come to the party and not the other way round.

    re the diaspora: I was saying that the Jewish people bought it on themselves by accepting the actions of the Jewish Congress in declaring themselves above God’s wisdom while under the service of Rabbi Akiva after the destruction of the second temple. The diaspora ended in 1967 when the second half of Israel was returned by the grace and will of God. But the Jewish people have not responded to that re-gifting by honouring and turning to and showing love for God. Instead many have continued to act in ways that could be considered sinful, in particular with respect to this thread, by perpetrating collective punishment against the Palistinian people.

    I hasten to add there are many other examples of sinful collective punishment: e.g. Zimbabwe, I’m not singling out the State of Israel, but they are a seminal case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. reid (16,514 comments) says:

    Mr Dennis, do you accept that the role of the Church is to act as God’s agent on Earth?

    I’m not an RC, but if they’re like other denominations that I know of, then I imagine that they are not trying be God, but simply translating His word as they hear it.

    Perhaps if you look at it as: they’re not trying to tell you what to do, they’re telling you what God is saying to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Do you mean the identifying of a man as Messiah to lead them in a rebellion against Rome in the 130’s”CE”? I suppose this could be called not waiting until God sent them a Messiah to liberate them and restore Zion. But that would imply, would it not, that any attempt to restore Zion for themselves was “turning from God”, puting themselves “above God’s wisdom”, as you put it.

    This seems a little inconsistent with any idea that in 1967 “the second half of Israel was returned by the grace and will of God”. IMO it would seem to be simply be defeat in battle 66-70″CE” and 130’s “CE” and success in battle in 1948 and 1967. It’s a little fatalistic to limit God to the source of victory in battles in the collective affairs of nations – like a god of fate presiding over military matters, just to continue the theme of a nation in the world also being subject to the test of a special relationship with God.

    Given there has been no annexation claim made over 1967 territories, except for East Jerusalem and that was mostly on offer in 2000, it would seem the state of Israel is operating within very secular parameters.

    “Nations that commit collective punishment against their fellow travellers don’t appear to suffer the same fate”

    I would think the Germans who invaded France in 1914 and 1940 and Iraq who invaded Kuwait in 1990 might disagree.

    Which brings us full circle.

    There is an interesting mirror image to the idea that Israel operates in a different sphere to other nations (in relation to God and the religions of the world) and is to be judged on that basis, yet is also simply one of the nations and to be judged on the same basis as any other nation also.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    reid

    It all depends what one means by “Church”. Only a few claim to be the one true church and only one claims to be lead by the “vicarius filii dei” (vicar or agent of the son of God) infallible on matters of doctrine and morality when speaking in that role for others to hear.

    In that light, the current Pope’s possible revisionism on Luther is interesting. Luther as he heard it, saw the church after Gregory (a German who brought in celibacy) as becoming powerful but also corrupt. He heard a calling to challenge the corruption and when ignored chose a life in the Church as a brother in the faith, of a pre Gregory order (he married a nun).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    democracy-mum…!

    helloooo..!

    you have fallen silent..

    pray tell why..?

    is your ‘nakedness’ visible to all..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Anti-Catholicism… the last acceptable prejudice..”

    no..we can still sneer at rabid/gibbering/rightwing-nutbars..

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. big bruv (13,934 comments) says:

    You can Phul, trouble is NOBODY takes any notice of you or your blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    look..!..there’s one now..!

    (this one is ‘right out there’..eh..?..whoar..!..

    in fact..he is (almost) the benchmark..eh..?

    barking..!..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Sam (502 comments) says:

    Well, at least He is trying to remain relevant, but methinks He needs better advice than that proffered by the his gaudiness in Rome. Mind you, you never know unless you try it – if you don’t like it, Satan will always take you back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    look..!..there’s another one..!

    this one leavened with good ‘ol old testament fervour..

    images of satan..burning/dancing/playing in his eyes/mind..

    (whoar..!..eh..?…stand well back now..!..he could ‘blow’ at any moment..!)

    sam..have you met democracymum..?

    (i’m sure you’d get on ‘like a hell on fire’..eh..?..

    and hell is where democracymum would send/banish the ‘fornicators’ to..

    you could get together..and make a ‘list’..

    i’m sure that would keep you both amused/excited for a while..eh..?)

    (and..um..!..sam..just to be clear on this..sam..

    when you say ‘He’..you aren’t referring to ‘our’ big bruv..?..are you..?..

    but if you are..i agree he is ‘trying’..and he definitely ‘needs better advice’..

    than that he gets ‘proffered by the gaudiness’ of/at fox..eh..?

    we agree on that..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    JC:

    “And like it or not, Rex is right when he says we are more puritanical.. but these days we camouflage that with railing against solo mums being bludgers, but 40 years ago mothers didn’t work either. Modern puritanism is determined not by the amount of sex but by how much it costs to maintain a solo mum.”

    Here is a quote from Charles Murray:

    “Throughout human history, a single woman with a small child has not been a viable economic unit. Not being a viable economic unit, neither have the single woman and child been a legitimate social unit. In small numbers, they must be a net drain on the community’s resources. In large numbers, they must destroy the community’s capacity to sustain itself. Mirabile dictu, communities everywhere have augmented the economic penalties of single parenthood with severe social stigma.”

    You might talk about “railing against solo mums as bludgers”, but the fact is that they have been de-stigmatised, (what happens to a politician who dares to suggest reforming the dPB?), economic penalties have been removed by way of State support, AND THEIR NUMBERS HAVE INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY. Yeah, married mums used to not work, too, but the 2-parent family was still a more viable economic unit. The 2-parent family is even the most ecologically sustainable structure for society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Sam (502 comments) says:

    Yes, if by “big bruv” you mean Our Father who art in Heaven.

    And philu – your lack of humour is eclipsed only by your inability to write in a manner that makes sense. You need to chill out a little, before you charge up on that high horse of yours, only to discover that my stead is a Trojan one…

    Do you really think that a puritanical zealot would write that He takes advice from below? How about you attempt to think critically before engaging the punctuation keys..eh..?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    # philu –4 Says:
    March 11th, 2008 at 7:03 pm

    “sorry phil-the-inferior..

    i’ve tried reading your posts..

    but have found them interminably longwinded..dense..muddled..

    ..bordering on incomprehensible..

    ..and poorly laid-out..

    so..sorry about that..

    but if you try to lift your game in all those areas..

    then i’ll try again..

    ’till then..?”

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Doubtless you would have the same problem with Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Sowell, Paul Ormerod, Hernando DeSoto, Roger Douglas, Charles Murray, Walter Williams, et al. (BUT DO GIVE P J O’ROURKE A GO…..)

    And you are a socialist. SURPRISE, SURPRISE !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    whereas you sam..are a barrel of (biblical) monkeys..eh..?

    (and gee..!..phil-the-inferior..

    you don’t half ‘rate’ yourself..?..

    eh..?)

    (i just saw..!..”roger douglas’..on your list of ‘great writers’..

    priceless..!!

    was that for the/his treatise on ‘how to be a successful pig-farmer’..?..

    or for his philosophical piece..

    ‘i arrogant..therefor i am’..?)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    JC:

    (re fatherlessness)”…it’s also a fact of life. All the blathering in the world hasn’t stopped 20-30% of kids being brought up in single parent households. If we don’t like it, we can kill them now before they grow, or we can employ some sort of social contract that provides the help that most need to bring up kids, and insist on certain standards and requirements in return for that help.

    A good, old fashioned Tory/Liberal approach is needed here to ensure we get the kids we want, not those grown in the dark like mushrooms.”

    JC, do you mean more Tory/Liberal blathering, or a return to the incentivisation of mum-and-dad families and the disincentivisation of the other? Because, mate, you are flying in the face of reality to suggest that anything else is gonna work.

    Rossi’s Iron Law of Program evaluation: “The expected value of any net impact assessment of any large scale social program is zero”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    ‘philu’s iron law of comment evaluation/avoidance’..

    “..the longer the thread..

    ..the higher the level of incomprehensible crap from phil-the-inferior..”

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Sam (502 comments) says:

    Such a stinging comeback from you philu – my you are on form today.

    And btw, I believe Homer is a character from the Simpsons – not the Bible…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    SPC Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
    March 11th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Phil Best

    “If the most Christian country is the USA – possibly the only western nation state where only a Christian can be elected, how well do the poor fare, in this land of charity … ”

    READ THIS:

    “The World’s Wealthiest Poor” By Bill Steigerwald

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=36BD9AB4-3667-48FC-A5FE-A89757979301

    Do also look up the Heritage Foundation study that Bill Steigerwald refers to. (It is called: “How Poor are America’s Poor?”). You get the idea?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    SPC:

    “Charity works as a means of helping the poor, like teaching abstinence works in sex education …

    It’s actually about control and power, if the poor have no right to an end to their poverty, then they are powerless.”

    Here is a quote from Charles Murray. Love it or hate it, the guy is RIGHT.

    “Stigma may be hurtful to those on the receiving end, but their deterrent effect on others is indispensable. Stigma is one of society’s most effective methods of suppressing destructive behaviour”.

    Another one:

    “Society as a whole can survive the effects of an epidemic of illegitimacy within an ethnic minority, but not among the majority”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i don’t think homer features in the bible..?..

    he’s from ‘the greek crew’..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Homer is the famous ancient author of the Iliad and the Odyssey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..my stead is a Trojan one..’

    i prefer ‘featherlite’..how about you..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    phil-the-inferior..

    a pompous/irony-free zone..

    eh..?

    (check the evidence..!..)

    our very own ‘cliff’..from ‘cheers’..

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. Sam (502 comments) says:

    I prefer to do my KnightRiding bareback if we’re talking preference (rather than practice).

    Oh, and thanks for that elucidation PhilBest, would that be the fellow that wrote about the Trojan Horse then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    # radvad Add karma Subtract karma –1 Says:
    March 11th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    “This effort by the Catholics is just another example of the chasm between institutionalised religion and Christianity.”

    # RebelHeart –11 Says:
    March 11th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    “Has your Pastor got a couple of horns on his head creepy person? (Quoting D4J)

    No, unlike you he is not a Christian for his own selfish anger venting, rapist person.”

    Actually, when institutionalised religion appoints as pastors anyone who has done the requisite course of academic study, who is to know what is the motivation of a person thus appointed? It isn’t half obvious that some of them are atheists, wiccans, Marxists, and the like who are out to kill off Christianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    What an appropriate coincidence. While I am entering my post about atheists, wiccans, Marxists etc infiltrating established religion as pastors, here’s some others bringing up the ancient Trojan Horse story……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “sorry phil-the-inferior.. i’ve tried reading your posts.. but have found them interminably longwinded.. dense..muddled.. ..bordering on incomprehensible.. ..and poorly laid-out.. so..sorry about that..”

    Ha ha, that just about takes the prize for being simultaneously the dumbest and most hypocritical statement ever written on Kiwiblog.

    Leaving aside the issue that whereas I often point out that good arguments are wasted on dimbulb leftists, here’s Phil Best, who actually does you that courtesy, and takes the time and puts in the effort to write what are probably some of the most articulate posts and most rational arguments you’ll find on Kiwiblog, and that’s the response he gets.

    Which proves I’m right. In most cases, leftists are too mentally crippled and politically stunted to understand comprehensive and rational arguments. You ignoramuses should be eternally grateful to people like Mr. Best for his polite and considerate attempts to enlighten you. I reckon its a classic example of pearls before swine. Phil must think there’s still some chance of getting through to you. Which means its not only his arguments that are to be admired, but also his exceptional level of optimism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  234. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    q.e.d…?

    that..

    ‘philu’s iron law of comment evaluation/avoidance’….?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    ‘..its not only his arguments that are to be admired, but also his exceptional level of optimism..’

    get a room..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Thanks for that Redbaiter. Actually, I do it for the “swinging audience”. The hardcore Socialists are generally beyond help, as you say; but there have been a lot of younger ones who have made significant conversions before it was too late for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. JC (958 comments) says:

    PhilBest,

    You might talk about “railing against solo mums as bludgers”, but the fact is that they have been de-stigmatised, (what happens to a politician who dares to suggest reforming the dPB?), economic penalties have been removed by way of State support, AND THEIR NUMBERS HAVE INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY. Yeah, married mums used to not work, too, but the 2-parent family was still a more viable economic unit. The 2-parent family is even the most ecologically sustainable structure for society.

    First, we need to establish if the DPB is increasing. According to Treasury, it’s not.. adjusted for inflation DPB expenditure 2001-2010 has fallen and numbers on the DPB are down 7% 2001-2010.

    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/2006/pdfs/befu06-exp.pdf

    I agree the two parent family is best, especially in economic and social terms, but it’s lost it’s attraction as a vehicle for children because of the cost of housing, sheer selfishness, women working at careers, the median age rising (currently 36) more older people, the attraction of the single life, homosexual lifestyles and a general swing away from the religions that promote family life.

    Yet we still have a need for children, and we’ll have to take them where we can get them unless and until we swing back to the (larger) family as the basic building block of society.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. JC (958 comments) says:

    PhilBest,

    “JC, do you mean more Tory/Liberal blathering, or a return to the incentivisation of mum-and-dad families and the disincentivisation of the other? Because, mate, you are flying in the face of reality to suggest that anything else is gonna work.”

    I’m all for incentivising mum and dad families but it ain’t “gonna work” for this generation and possibly the next. There’s simply too many competing interests with the older folks keen on their overseas trips, flash new houses and cars, the middle class cheering on Labour to “churn” their tax money back to themselves and making damn sure that the Nats don’t upset the applecart and the greenies making sure we don’t develop the country.

    You want the truth? A country can support two major political parties with a third somewhere around as a spoiler, not a plethora of parties representing different elements of selfishness that stymie economic growth and a sense of nationhood.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    No human or human organisation has the authority to decide what is or is not sin. That is God’s role. The Catholic church is stepping over the line and acting as God.

    Thank you for your interpretation of the sacred words of Jesus Christ. I’m sorry to hear that the Gospel according to Mr Dennis was omitted from the Bible. But then again, perhaps for good reason. As reid has already pointed out, the CC believes that its voice is the voice of God and that it draws its authority from God himself when Christ made Peter the first Pope, of whom all other (legitimate) popes are descendants of. So really the CC is acting on behalf of God, not as God.

    No other church is called the Bride of Christ by the Apostles – of all Christianity, the CC is the one with the most authority to bring people to Heaven. Well, at least more authority than Mr John Doe who decides to become a preacher and interpret the Bible as he chooses, and he does so at his own whim. All actions within the CC are done with extreme consideration and heavily scrutiny.

    If the CC has no right to decide what sin is, then who? And how then does God get his message out?

    Pascal – So I suppose you could say “he [Gates] appears to be unwilling to share it with others or use it to alleviate poverty”. But you’d be blatantly wrong. He does a lot more than most.

    Pascal, I would completely agree with you. I think Gates does a bloody great deal of awesome work and I wasn’t attempting to undermine that. But step aside for one moment from what he gives and look at what he keeps . How much money does one person need and why keep 200 million and give the rest away? Not that I think that he should, because it’s his money and he can do what he wants with it. But from the perspective of the Church, I can understand why it is calling people to be generous. But good points and I wholeheartedly agree. Gates was a bad example.
    Drug trafficking and consumption – The Communion Meal Wine Cup?
    Violation of fundamental rights of human nature – The celibacy requirement for priests?

    First, Communion is not a meal. And just as popping a bottle of vodka in your luggage when travelling is not drug trafficking, so is sipping a drop of wine once a week not drug consumption. Good work.
    Second, the requirement of the CC for its priests to be celibacy is not a violation of human rights, you total retard. Because the CC does not force anyone to become a Catholic Priest – it’s a choice made on the basis of free will – and because the CC has all the rights in the world to decide what requirement it sets for any of its members. Just like God does – you need to be virtuous to get into heaven; it’s not just a free-for-all. Also, if you don’t agree with the CC, then leave. It’s also a freedom for its members to leave and return at will. So well done, your officially the most ignorant person of the day.

    This effort by the Catholics is just another example of the chasm between institutionalised religion and Christianity.

    On what basis? This is another of the anti-Catholic statement founded in nonsensical absurdity, and worse still, yes worse than its hollow extremity, is that it’s offensively generic. We’ve all been victims of this outrageous bollocks before, and no doubt we will have to bear it again

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  240. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Hoolian

    Again, thanks for a substantive posting.

    The more I read of the ‘criticisms’ of the Catholic Church posted above, the more sense its teachings make.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    Hoolian: How much money does one person need and why keep 200 million and give the rest away?

    I’m roughly in agreement with Kiwitoffee, I appreciate the thought you put into your posts. It certainly paints what I’d always considered as a dusty old relic in a new light.

    As to that specific question, he has indicated that once he has passed on his fortune will go to charity with a comfortable sum remaining for his children. If every ludicrously wealthy person was that philantropic we’d likely live in a much better world. Or one would hope so.

    All good though, all good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Nonsense. Hoolian’s had a fair crack at at it answering, but all he’s done is recite baseless dogma, which is all catholics ever do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Helmet: Always recite baseless dogma? I think not.

    In my experience, most Catholics (myself included) base their beliefs on three things: authority, reason and experience. These are a sort of intellectual counterpart to the Holy Trinity.

    But don’t take my word or the Church’s word for it, if you don’t wish to. Try the recent writings Jurgen Habermas, a secular philosopher who has spent much of his long life thinking about these issues. He comes close to assessing correctly the real value and role of the Church. (I’d direct you to one of his articles but I haven’t quite mastered that yet. You might like to google him).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    JC, you agree with me on the importance of incentivising the 2-parent family, but you diss the chances of anything changing. What it needs is the political will to address the fiscal penalty for marriage. Have you followed the argument earlier in the thread? There is no more reliable indicator for future crime rates, than the rate of illegitimacy/ fatherlessness.

    # PhilBest +4 Says:
    March 10th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    “On the undermining of the traditional 2-parent family and social breakdown, READ:

    Charles Murray: “The Underclass Revisited”

    http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.14891/pub_detail.asp

    Charles Murray: “The Advantages of Social Apartheid”

    http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.22252/pub_detail.asp

    Bear in mind that this guy has been researching and writing for 30 years. His tone has become increasingly mocking and cynical as he sees “the social establishment” in denial over the underlying causes of society’s problems. You could summarise it thus:

    OK, if you won’t tackle “fatherlessness”, you are eventually gonna have to tackle crime.

    OK, if you won’t tackle fatherlessness and you don’t like catching criminals, you will have an increasing crime problem, and eventually the voters will force you to do something about it.

    OK, if you won’t tackle fatherlessness and you don’t like actually locking up the criminals that the voters are forcing you to catch, you will continue to have an increasing crime problem, and eventually the voters will force you to do something about it.

    OK, if you won’t tackle fatherlessness, we will just have to have large numbers of people locked up in jail. The USA is merely ahead of the rest of the world on this measure.

    And cut that BS about poverty and inequality. Look at the underlying statistics. The problem? Fatherlessness. End of story.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    What we have is an ideology driving this, taking priority over ALL ELSE, that holds that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”. STUNNING. Oh, the WISDOM. The MORAL WEIGHT of the argument. Centuries of accumulated tradition and belief vaporise like mist before the glare and heat of the sun, in the face of this newfound superior system of reason and logic…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Hmm. An intellectual counterpart to the Holy Trinity. Says it all really. And the authority thing is soooooo dodgy it’s easy enough to debunk, (if you’re into reason as well).

    BTW- I thought that this:
    “The more I read of the ‘criticisms’ of the Catholic Church posted above, the more sense its teachings make.”
    suggested that you weren’t a Catholic, hense my rubbishing of your praise for your fellow believer. If I’d known you were a mick too I’d have left you guys alone to slap each others backs in peace.

    I’ll have a look at that guy you recommended- but just so you know, I’m not saying that the church is worthless. I’d much prefer people joined the Tykes than Al Quaeda. But treating the church as God’s mouthpiece or even anything remotely to do with the work of a Christian god is a bit far out for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  247. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    This has turned out quite a thread, hasn’t it? I wonder if DPF expected anything like it when he made the original posting?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Could one of our theological experts please respond to THIS?

    # PhilBest Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
    March 12th, 2008 at 11:08 am

    “When institutionalised religion appoints as pastors anyone who has done the requisite course of academic study, who is to know what is the motivation of a person thus appointed? It isn’t half obvious that some of them are atheists, wiccans, Marxists, and the like who are out to kill off Christianity.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    ‘morally debateable experiments’..eh..?

    ah well..that’s all the vivisectionists condemmed to hell..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    “Kiwitoffee”, you are right, Jurgen Habermas is an interesting case of an old philosopher of postmodernism and critical theory who has recently stunned his followers with THIS:

    “Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than a mere precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in the light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.”

    – “Conversation about God and the World.” Time of transitions. Cambridge: Polity Press 2006, p. 150-151

    I haven’t been able to find much online in the way of quotes and interviews that tell us more – it seems that one must buy the book. It looks suspiciously as though the intellectual world is busily ignoring this, hoping it will go away……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Lucyna (35 comments) says:

    I’ve done a couple of posts on this topic.

    Updated Sins and Want to know more about Sin?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Helmet: Yes, sorry my Catholicism wasn’t clear at the outset. It was only after I re-read the phrase you quote that I thought I’d better make my position clear.

    Questioning the role of authority is fair enough. We do, however, accept things ‘on authority’ all the time. Lois Muir is an authority on netball. I’d listen to and probably accept her opinions and advice about the game. The late Sir Ed Hilary ditto on mountains and CK Stead on what constitues good (or proper) literature. For me, its much the same with the Papacy only the issues are far more important.

    PhilBest: Thanks for the Habermas quote which I hadn’t seen in quite that form. I might try to get a copy of the book. It looks like an interesting read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Phil Best

    I wonder if Habermas can explain why, when the secular society takes up egalitarian universalism call, it is “accused” of being in rebellion against religion and God? Or is this “attack” a load of “post modernist revisionism” of the foundations of the religious faith itself.

    Just because, Judaism had laws in the national cult, does not mean it invented justice and just because, of the call to provide for the sojourner, does not mean they invented hospitality.

    Just because Christians talked of love, it does not mean love for others was not known before this time. The idea that doing no harm to others was only half the way of true justice, was part of Jewish thought before Christianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    I’m not sure what to say to you, Helmet. It’s obvious that we disagree, but I’m not sure why.

    But treating the church as God’s mouthpiece or even anything remotely to do with the work of a Christian god is a bit far out for me.

    Is this because you A – Don’t believe in God, B – Do believe in God, but just not a Christian God or C – Believe in a Christian God but don’t think the CC has any authority to speak as God’s ‘spokesperson’. Or even D – other.

    I’m curious to know.

    When institutionalised religion appoints as pastors anyone who has done the requisite course of academic study, who is to know what is the motivation of a person thus appointed? It isn’t half obvious that some of them are atheists, wiccans, Marxists, and the like who are out to kill off Christianity.

    Philbest, what exactly are you asking? Are you saying that half of the preists in the CC are atheists, wiccans, Marxists, and the like who are out to kill off Christianity? Or are you saying that its fishy that the CC sets a mandatory training scheme for its priests?

    Please clarify if possible. I’m no theologian though.

    Just because Christians talked of love, it does not mean love for others was not known before this time. The idea that doing no harm to others was only half the way of true justice, was part of Jewish thought before Christianity.

    While this may be technically true, it is thanks to Christianity that we have the message of love as an underlying ideal in our society. The foundations of western political thought is heavily based on the works of basic Christian doctrines (see influential works of Aquinas and Moore) than on the so-called liberal, inclusive concepts that modern day human-based Adventists herald as the new Gospel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Phil Best

    Charles Murray:“Throughout human history, a single woman with a small child has not been a viable economic unit. Not being a viable economic unit, neither have the single woman and child been a legitimate social unit. In small numbers, they must be a net drain on the community’s resources. In large numbers, they must destroy the community’s capacity to sustain itself. Mirabile dictu, communities everywhere have augmented the economic penalties of single parenthood with severe social stigma.”

    Using the materialist/economic arguement, as the basis for the social regulation of society, allows no criticism of successful career women who store eggs, use sperm donors (possibly a surrogate) and then hire a nanny to handle the child raring (thus the attack is only on women on the DPB, not working single parents – thus why of course America simply required solo parents to work for their welfare while the child was in a creche – no actual national economic saving because of the child care cost, but a penalty on the single parent who was unable to retrain or educate herself for a higher paid as many women do here).

    The materialist/economic efficiency arguement also allows for an attack on the household mother who is able to afford not to work, as not ensuring a maximum use of available worker resources (thus pressure for child care facilities). And it is only of recent generations that most women did not work while mothers (formerly that was a privilege of the upper classes). Historically women and children worked (much as those on farms still do, within the limitations of children’s schooling).

    Conversely while some attack the availablility of divorce for the cost of one parent families, it actually increases the numbers of women who work – more so if subsidised child care is available for those solo parents on lower incomes and WFF type top ups as well.

    So it’s dangerous to proffer the economic/materialist arguement when railing against the availability of divorce – it’s economic cost is not a major problem (there are societal issues resulting from family break-ups but there are men who just don’t like being accountable to their wife and or the financial cost of any settlement).

    “The 2-parent family is even the most ecologically sustainable structure for society.”

    I think you mean less housing per person, but that is not the same thing as a two parent family, it would actually be the extended family on one site which is the most efficient. Some of course advocate the idea of housing regulation, preventing singles flatting, or the unmarried setting up house together etc. Rationing housing by social construct is something only communist parties have done of recent times.

    Fatherlessness

    Why are children of single women and divorced women without fathers? Are they dead? If you mean that men who do not live with their children, are not prepared to be their fathers, this speaks to the ethics of the men concerned. What sort of fathers were they while they were in the household (absent most of the time anyway?).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  256. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Hoolian- don’t worry about it. I’m sure the Catholic Church doesn’t want me anyway.

    Re the authority thing Kiwitoffee- Sure I’m willing to accept that the clergy are experts on god, if that’s what you’re talking about. I’m thinking that the Church is claiming more than that- the actual authority to act on behalf of God as His agent.

    The first one I’m happy to agree with- but anyone can be an expert if they study enough, the Church isn’t unique there.
    The second definition is where we’ll have to agree to disagree. From an objective point of view, I don’t think that Catholics can claim any evidence that the ‘keys’ have been legitimately handed down in an unbroken chain of succession from Peter to the pope today.

    Anyway- I’m not into a debate on religion on this blog. Fricken politics is enough of a minefield as it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  257. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    hoolihan

    “Is this because you A – Don’t believe in God, B – Do believe in God, but just not a Christian God or C – Believe in a Christian God but don’t think the CC has any authority to speak as God’s ’spokesperson’. Or even D – other.”

    I know it’s addressed to someone else … A no. B yes C no D not relevant. I just don’t think we can speak for God, thus the God of the Jews and Christians and Moslems is a God they created to give their own faith status as a the word of God to man. It’s not, it’s their own ideas about God – a total work of faith in their own ability to know … without knowledge of God.

    “than on the so-called liberal, inclusive concepts that modern day human-based Adventists herald as the new Gospel.”

    I presume you resent the term universal being associated with the word egalitarian (Habermas) as it suggests inclusiveness without judgement. And I suppose your use of the term “Adventist” here speaks to a traditional Catholic Church (as a kingdom of heavan on earth?) fear of later churches preaching another gospel taking their place within their Western Christendom sphere. Thus, on the as above so below premise, wary of any developing secular society of the values one people equal before the law, as it might inspire a revisionism within Christianity and result in a sympathetic religion without the traditional resort to a claim of authority from God to warn the unsaved of coming judgement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  258. JC (958 comments) says:

    Hoolian,

    “While this may be technically true, it is thanks to Christianity that we have the message of love as an underlying ideal in our society. The foundations of western political thought is heavily based on the works of basic Christian doctrines (see influential works of Aquinas and Moore) than on the so-called liberal, inclusive concepts that modern day human-based Adventists herald as the new Gospel.”

    Lets get the history right. At the time of Christ the Jews were a loose confederation of tribes much like the Iraqis and Arabs of today. Whatever it was that Christ did he certainly changed the view of “an eye for an eye” to something quite different that set in train the Christian world of science, progress, exploration and world dominance. His testament was of “love the people outside of your family and tribe”.. and that was good enough to set in motion an international movement of co-operation that moved the West to pre-eminence.. eventually.

    The nuclear explosion of Christ’s thought is with us still, and drives us to greater discoveries that are not limited to family or tribe.. and thats the difference we have over the traditional tribal societies. However, the moot point is whether His message is sufficient to overcome the new Mega-tribes of the Suiciders (those who won’t breed), the Greens (those who hate the breeders) and the “Me” generation who have no intention of allowing rugrats to influence their good life.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  259. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    hoolihan

    Mr Dennis “No human or human organisation has the authority to decide what is or is not sin. That is God’s role. The Catholic church is stepping over the line and acting as God.”

    hoolihan “Thank you for your interpretation of the sacred words of Jesus Christ. I’m sorry to hear that the Gospel according to Mr Dennis was omitted from the Bible.”

    I don’t in any way disagree with Mr Dennis, and I challenge any man to say they have any authority otherwise. Can you cite anyone who actually does? Slighting anyone with a different opinion as having another gospel speaks to an arrogant presumption that another truth is held and it’s authority is somehow absolute.

    Grace of God is traditionally from God alone, even within Christianity, so why do you believe otherwise and where does the Catholic Church claim it’s mandate comes from.

    hoolihan “But then again, perhaps for good reason. As reid has already pointed out, the CC believes that its voice is the voice of God and that it draws its authority from God himself when Christ made Peter the first Pope, of whom all other (legitimate) popes are descendants of. So really the CC is acting on behalf of God, not as God.”

    Where does Simon Peter say he had any authority to decide what was sin (on behalf of God)? Where does Simon Peter claim that believing that Jesus was a “son of God” make him infallible on anything afterwards? Jesus taught men, none being perfect (thus leaving it to God to decide) not to judge and certainly describing “mortal sins” is an act of judgement.

    Yeah, this acting for God line does not convince me, Simon Peter was leader of those preaching a gospel of a coming Kingdom which would have authority, not a group claiming that they themselves had authority over others (when the church claimed to be the kingdom of heaven … they crossed the line into the realm of the power that corrupts those less than God).

    “Drug trafficking and consumption – The Communion Meal Wine Cup?
    Violation of fundamental rights of human nature – The celibacy requirement for priests?”

    FFS, you want to debate a joke? Oh well then …

    “First, Communion is not a meal. And just as popping a bottle of vodka in your luggage when travelling is not drug trafficking, so is sipping a drop of wine once a week not drug consumption. Good work.”

    So eating “bread” is not part of communion … based on a meal centuries ago, oh well …

    Some people claim that alcohol is a drug and surely you know of Mr Smith’s campaign for the US Presidency experience during Prohibition.

    “Second, the requirement of the CC for its priests to be celibacy is not a violation of human rights, you total retard.”

    So it’s not a “sin” to establish an office premised on disobeying the “God word” directive to Adam to procreate … Can a house divided against itself stand?

    And if the Catholic Church wants to say that it is wrong, to be in violation of the fundamental rights of human nature and that includes the procreation of the species, because of natural desire created in the man for the women, well then …

    “Because the CC does not force anyone to become a Catholic Priest – it’s a choice made on the basis of free will – and because the CC has all the rights in the world to decide what requirement it sets for any of its members.”

    Even if they are in breach of a “God word” directive to procreate and to not be in violation of the fundamental rights of human nature … a “deadly sin”

    “Just like God does – you need to be virtuous to get into heaven; it’s not just a free-for-all.”

    Except that the Catholic Church as you describe it earlier somehow also represent God and can also determine deadly sins and thus determine who is virtuous …, also known as the post sacrament free for all of Catholics only … once with the infamous addition of those with the indulgence exemption …

    So you need to be virtuous as a Catholic Pope describes virtuous … as if Catholic standards were also heavan’s standards …

    “Also, if you don’t agree with the CC, then leave. It’s also a freedom for its members to leave and return at will.”

    Why would anyone assume that what I wrote was written as a Catholic …

    “So well done, your officially the most ignorant person of the day.”

    You are the most presumptious of the year so far. Declaration of the surpemacism and arrogance of your Church is not an endearing trait by the way. It’s just a form of primitive tribalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  260. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Helmet: Yes, trying to establish a coherent political position can be almost a full-time job. When you add in a Christian perspective it becomes even more so. Perhaps that just makes the whole thing more interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  261. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    are you christians having fun..?

    (i don’t know if you noticed..but everyone else seems to have slipped away..

    ..but don’t let that stop you..

    eh..?

    and how about that phil-the-inferior–?..

    and his ‘conversions’..?

    whoar..!..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  262. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    JC

    The whole discourse about the influence of “Christianity” on Europe is tenuous.

    The bible is said to be the word of God to Christian Europeans – most of whom could not read till late 19thC or the 20thC. This showed a lack of respect for the people having direct access to the so called word of God to man. Whereas the literacy of Jews gave them an educative advantage (greater knowledge of their own religion and also the world and its learning). Most learning was confined to universities for literate Christians (a minority) only or the monastery.

    What had a profound impact on Europe was contact by some groups like the KT and the ME, social contact between Jews with links to the ME and Europeans and then the transfer of the pre Christian European learning of Greek culture around the time of the end of Byzantine civilisation. The same Greek learning which had influenced Hellenised Jews (Philo Judaeus) and thus so threatened the Jewish religious culture. While the influence was of course limited to the universities and those who could access and read or have read to them the written works, it had a growing impact.

    Democracy and the replacement of autocracy by republican citizenship was pre Christianity by centuries – so was scientific method and the constructs of wise thought – philosophy. Whereas Christendom was synonomous with autocracy and claims of divine right agency.

    As for empire building and the coming of civilisation with the arrival of an occupying power – that was Roman, Greek, Persian … long before Europeans sailed the world and much of early modern science was a re-discovery of pre Christian knowledge.

    The imperial arrogance revival of Europeans was pre Christian – the idea of doing good was liberal Christian reformers/social gospel justice (but some of the later glory of Europe was just of an advance in science – from printing to disperse learning to industrialisation of the factory age …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  263. The Dumb Ox (29 comments) says:

    “Another nail in the coffin of the nowadays irrelevant organisation called the Catholic Church”

    LOL.

    I hate to break it to you pal, but people have been saying the exact same thing for two thousand years, and guess what – the Catholic Church outlasted all of them.

    I don’t mean to rain on your parade, but the Catholic Church will still be around long after you have died, and your gravestone is nothing more than a moss ridden piece of rock that has been tagged by Tariana Turia’s great great grandchildren.

    Viva il Papa!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  264. The Dumb Ox (29 comments) says:

    I encourage everyone to read the following article about the so-called “new 7 deadly sins”

    No “New Deadly Sins” – Media Perpetrating Massive Distortion

    By Hilary White

    March 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Some of the most prominent English language newspapers in the world – the Times and the Daily Telegraph in London; the Globe and Mail in Canada; the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia; as well as Reuters news agency and ABC News and NPR in the US – have run this week with the story that the “Vatican” has “re-written” the traditional seven deadly sins and offered a “replacement” list. But Catholic journalists and media watch groups have said it is a blatant case of media distortion and the creation of a massive teapot tempest.

    Within hours of an interview with a Vatican official appearing in L’Osservatore Romano, the news wires were flooded with hundreds of reports. “Vatican updates seven deadly sins”, ABC News offered; from Reuters we have “Vatican lists ‘new sins’, including pollution”; the Sydney Morning Herald wrote, “Vatican updates seven deadly sins”.

    Out (say the news outlets) are lust, greed, gluttony and sloth; in are environmental degradation, “social injustice” and being too wealthy.

    But according to Catholic media experts, the headlines have distorted beyond recognition the original L’Osservatore Romano interview with Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, an official of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican office that oversees the delicate and difficult matters of confession of sins.

    Catholic author and journalist Phil Lawler said the “media need a reality check”.

    “When a second-tier Vatican official gives a newspaper interview, he is not proclaiming new Church doctrines” Lawler said.

    Presenting the comments in the context of a speech by Pope Benedict calling for Catholics to return to the sacrament of confession, Girotti was portrayed as offering a “new list” of sins that would “replace” the traditional theological formulation.

    In reality, Archbishop Girotti was giving some private comments on the application of Catholic teaching to modern conditions. The archbishop gave examples of what he called “new forms of social sin,” including genetic manipulation of human embryos and drug trafficking.

    Girotti also listed “social inequality” and “social injustice” as a “corollary of the unstoppable process of globalization”.

    Girotti, erroneously identified in the media as the “head” of the tribunal, told the interviewer, “If yesterday sin had a rather individualistic dimension, today it has a value, a resonance beyond the individual, above all social, because of the great phenomenon of globalization. In effect, the attention to sin presents itself more urgently today than yesterday, because its consequences are wider and more destructive.”

    Writing for Catholic World News, Lawler said the media’s frenzied reaction has not only distorted what the archbishop said, but the concept of sin as it is understood by Catholics.

    “An ordinary reader, basing his opinion only on the inane Telegraph coverage, might conclude that a ‘sin,’ in the Catholic understanding, is nothing more than a violation of rules set down by a group of men in Rome. If these rules are entirely arbitrary, then Vatican officials can change them at will; some sins will cease to exist and other ‘new sins’ will replace them. But that notion of sin is ludicrous.”

    Lawler continued, “A sin is not a sin because simply an archbishop proclaims it so…The precepts of ‘reason, truth, and right conscience’ do not shift in response to political trends, nor do they change at the whim of Vatican officials.”

    Also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins, the “seven deadlies” are a theological classification of vices first formulated by St. Gregory the Great in the 6th Century AD. In the original Latin they are Luxuria (extravagance, later lust), Gula (gluttony), Avaritia (greed), Acedia (sloth), Ira (wrath), Invidia (envy), and Superbia (pride). They are countered by their opposite virtues: chastity, abstinence, temperance, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility.

    Many Catholic thinkers and writers have strongly criticised the concept of “social sin” popularized by the leftist “progressive” wing of the Church since the beginning of the social revolution of the 1960’s. Trendy among dissenting Marxist-inspired “liberation” theologians, the notion of social or “corporate” sin such as “social injustice” or “systemic inequality” has been largely discredited.

    The Church continues to hold that sin is an act by an individual contrary to the will of God, that can be absolved after the sinner makes a valid confession. Critics have said that the idea of “social sin” such as “environmental degradation” is one for which no one individual can be held to account and that therefore becomes largely meaningless for the greater majority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  265. Hoolian (220 comments) says:

    Great questions, SPC; well done on the dissection of my post, and I apologise for my lengthy reply (of which I cannot answer everything), though not for its content nor for my stand in defence of the Catholic Church or its members.

    The Roman Catholic church is the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken episcopal succession descending from Saint Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ. Until the break with the Eastern Church in 1054 and the break with the Protestant churches in the 1500s, it is impossible to separate the history of the Roman Catholic church from the history of Christianity.

    I don’t in any way disagree with Mr Dennis, and I challenge any man to say they have any authority otherwise. Can you cite anyone who actually does? Slighting anyone with a different opinion as having another gospel speaks to an arrogant presumption that another truth is held and it’s authority is somehow absolute.

    SPC, the CC solemnly believes in absolute Truth and absolute authority. Therefore, to deny the CC Magisterium is to deny Truth, the Truth who’s very purpose is to . So why would you deny yourself the way to Heaven?

    On the questions of infallibility and authority:

    Infallibility is the protection given by the Holy Spirit to the pope so that he will never teach error in matters of faith and morals. The First Vatican Council, which defined papal infallibility in 1870, was acting in response to a challenge to the doctrine which has always been true and was accepted and practiced from the earliest times. The evidence for papal infallibility comes from three sources: Scripture, history and logic.

    Evidence of the Church’s authority appear in Scripture, such as: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the powers of hell will not prevail against it…to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17-19); “Do you love me, Peter… Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17); and “I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren.” (Luke 22:31-32)

    Grace of God is traditionally from God alone, even within Christianity, so why do you believe otherwise and where does the Catholic Church claim it’s mandate comes from.

    Let’s look at the CC as a megaphone, an instrument that God holds up with His own hand and in which His voice passes through to his people. Just as a megaphone does not have the ability to speak for itself, the CC is not an authority unto itself. It does not have the authority to decide what sin is, but it can relate to its members and the world on what God thinks of sin or what it interprets God thinks of sin. Do you disagree with the Church on sin? Do you not think that pride, anger and lust are terrible things? They are, and it is important for such an influential body such as the CC to reaffirm that not all actions by men are good ones – and that we can commit acts which will limit our access to Heaven. Its mandate comes from scripture.

    Where does Simon Peter say he had any authority to decide what was sin (on behalf of God)? Where does Simon Peter claim that believing that Jesus was a “son of God” make him infallible on anything afterwards? Jesus taught men, none being perfect (thus leaving it to God to decide) not to judge and certainly describing “mortal sins” is an act of judgement.

    By reaffirming to Christ that he believed he was the Son of God, Jesus made Peter the first Pope of the CC. And the CC is certainly not infallible on everything – but it is on Faith and Morals as stated in the Catholic Catechism. I strongly suggest you read it.

    Yeah, this acting for God line does not convince me, Simon Peter was leader of those preaching a gospel of a coming Kingdom which would have authority, not a group claiming that they themselves had authority over others (when the church claimed to be the kingdom of heaven … they crossed the line into the realm of the power that corrupts those less than God).

    I know of no reference where the CC has ever claimed to be the Kingdom of Heaven and cannot see how you can claim that they have been corrupted by power. If you believe in God, then you must also believe in His power. It is a testament to the CC and its authority that survives with the blessing of God. I cannot believe that God would allow such a ‘presumptuous’ church to act on His behalf if He did not wish it to be so. I trust in God and that if the CC goes beyond itself and becomes a power unto itself than God will step in.

    So you need to be virtuous as a Catholic Pope describes virtuous … as if Catholic standards were also heavan’s standards

    Yes, the CC’s standards are the standards of Heaven. This is not to say that if you are not in the CC, then you are not going to heaven. I believe that good, honest, virtuous people by decree of God will make it into Heaven, but that is not to say that everyone will. BUT if you follow the CC faithfully, then you are in good stead of getting there. Its not the only way of getting to heaven, but by far it’s the best way.

    You are the most presumptious of the year so far. Declaration of the surpemacism and arrogance of your Church is not an endearing trait by the way. It’s just a form of primitive tribalism.

    I understand that the CC’s stance on absolute truth is hard to sallow. I would too, especially if it came from anywhere else. But if you see it from the CC’s point of view, it has the authority and the office of St Peter to back itself up. No decision from Rome is made lightly. It takes years and years to verify and confirm its beliefs, but what is a testament to the truth of the CC is that it has lasted so long. Its dogma has withstood the test of time and through centuries of heresies and attacks from outsiders.

    As the beautiful St Augustine of Hippo once said:

    In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  266. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Hoolian Add karma Subtract karma +1 Says:
    March 12th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

    “Philbest, what exactly are you asking? Are you saying that half of the preists in the CC are atheists, wiccans, Marxists, and the like who are out to kill off Christianity? Or are you saying that its fishy that the CC sets a mandatory training scheme for its priests?

    Please clarify if possible. I’m no theologian though. ”

    What I am saying is not aimed specifically at the Catholic Church, but at all churches who appoint pastors, and fail to remove them, when those pastors are driven by objectives other than the Christian gospel, and might from the outset have only become a pastor to advance some other agenda. I am not making any claims about percentages of pastors, “half of priests” or anything like that.

    For example, there was a time when all the establishment churches stood for care of the poor and needy at the level of the family, the neighbourhood, and the parish. Now we have the absurd situation where they have been supplanted in that role by State coercion, yet many pastors are little more than political activists on the behalf of more of the same. The role of envy and the moral hazard implicit in welfarism and entitlement seems to have escaped them.

    One is deeply suspicious at the nexus between the rise of Marxist activism, in its workers revolutionary form, its income-redistributive form, and its modern-day cultural form; and the positions of many pastors of establishment churches. If you take the time to look into “Cultural Marxism”, “Political Correctness”, and “The Long March Through the Institutions”, you will see that the neo-Marxist theory driving these things explicitly states that “churches” are to be used along with the media and educational institions and bureaucracy. And some churches do not appoint their pastors carefully enough to escape this infiltration.

    Others, while not being specifically driven by a “cultural Marxism” agenda, may merely wish to impose THEIR notions of what Christianity should be, rather than uphold what it IS.

    I do think that issuing a new list of seven new modern-day sins falls into the category of political activism, and that many church figures have lost sight of their responsibility to preach and work against the original seven.

    But at least the Catholics do not, I think, have any of the absurd Geering / Veitch / Spong type of white ants infesting its clergy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  267. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    SPC, your arguments about economically viable fatherless children are all very well, but what Charles Murray is talking about is society’s ATTITUDES to it. In the past, it was kept to a minimum both by economic necessity and social stigma. But now, the wheel has turned full circle and one dares the wrath of the PC brigade if one dares to be “judgemental” about having children without the presence of a father.

    The main underlying thrust against this stigma has been not so much the idea of “compassion for the unfortunate”, as plain, straight-out feminism and the “empowerment of women”. We actually have a marriage PENALTY in the fiscal and welfare structure as it stands, and it is politically correct to leave it this way because our politically correct establishment positively despises the IDEA of traditional husband-and-wife child raising, full stop. What we are refusing to confront is that the growth both of an “underclass” and of crime, is driven to such an extent by the phenomenon of children being raised without a father, and quite possibly even economically-viable upper-class solo motherhood plays a role in this too.

    I agree completely that we must not be unfair in focusing on the mothers of the children concerned. The DPB has enabled irresponsible and predatory attitudes among males just as much as it has “empowered” women. There is something VERY WRONG with a system that does not bother to penalise irresponsible, predatory males while married, family-supporting fathers are slugged to the extent of thousands of dollars per annum. People’s basic desires are powerful enough without the State and the institutions of society adding leverage to activity and lifestyle that is socially destructive in the long term.

    It is not a case of needing to revert to theocracy. We didn’t have that in the first place. We just had individual responsibility. Nor am I advocating regulations about numbers of people per dwelling or the like. I strongly oppose the current PC eco-totalitarian line that tells people how to live and where to live, based on premises that do not stand up to scrutiny. It is good to see that you understand my argument about this. Do you not think it hypocritical of Malthusian activists living in inner city apartments to rail against suburban family living, when THEIR ecological footprints are actually the greater?

    Basically what I am saying is quite compatible with an agenda of freedom and small government. Government tinkering with society does, and has had, unintended consequences that has made society worse off, whether in increased crime or in increased resource consumption. The freedom and small government that leftist activists despise, would actually have given better outcomes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  268. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    JC:

    “At the time of Christ the Jews were a loose confederation of tribes much like the Iraqis and Arabs of today. Whatever it was that Christ did he certainly changed the view of “an eye for an eye” to something quite different that set in train the Christian world of science, progress, exploration and world dominance. His testament was of “love the people outside of your family and tribe”.. and that was good enough to set in motion an international movement of co-operation that moved the West to pre-eminence.. eventually.

    The nuclear explosion of Christ’s thought is with us still, and drives us to greater discoveries that are not limited to family or tribe.. and thats the difference we have over the traditional tribal societies. However, the moot point is whether His message is sufficient to overcome the new Mega-tribes of the Suiciders (those who won’t breed), the Greens (those who hate the breeders) and the “Me” generation who have no intention of allowing rugrats to influence their good life.”

    WELL SAID !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  269. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    SPC Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
    March 12th, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    “The whole discourse about the influence of “Christianity” on Europe is tenuous.”

    Oh, come ONNNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  270. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Phil Best,

    Christianity made a “contribution”, good and bad, while in authority in Europe. There is a continuing cultural legacy. But it should not be overstated. Christianty’s pride in Europe and a related possessiveness, is not a good look for the religion.

    et al,

    The “PC” environmentalism and related social gospel in the modern view of the issues of sin, is of course speaking to the modern democratic or national community (rather than the individual), which did not exist till recent times.

    It is not unbiblical, Adam was told to have dominion and responsibility for the world environment (conservation of species, sustaining the habitat – there is no evidence the flood even happened), and the end time prophecy book (which is really about human mortality and the coming of the Kingdom of God, still asks us to oppose the causes of human distress – war, famine and disease, so that we still die of old age, rather than in societal destruction by anti-human forces).

    Even a Green, without religion, understands that of the message.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  271. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    philu Add karma Subtract karma –1 Says:
    March 12th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    “are you christians having fun..?

    (i don’t know if you noticed..but everyone else seems to have slipped away..

    ..but don’t let that stop you..

    eh..?”

    One thing I’ve noticed is that the longer the thread, the longer it takes to load, and this is probably a factor in people dropping out. The question that comes to MY mind is, how does a bludger like “philu” afford the necessary bandwidth to still hang in there? Not to mention the hours he spends online…..or perhaps he just has more time to waste waiting for a lengthy thread to load……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  272. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    SPC, what is at stake for Europe and humanity now, is what the substitutes for Christianity are going to do in comparison. Secularism and environmentalism/Gaia worship.

    I don’t mind making the extreme prediction that like the godless movements of the 20th Century, they are going to be disastrous in the extreme for humanity. But not that the responsible “establishment” will ever have to admit it. Think Naziism or Communism having won, and entrenched, and the untold millions of deaths and the suffering, being forced on our opinions as a good thing………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  273. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Phil Best

    Do you think defending “Christian” tradition, by trying to claim that secular society and sustainable economy through conservation and environment protection is some post communist and fascist threat to “human” life, is going to work? You might believe it, but …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  274. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Hoolian

    There is no need to apologise for taking up the opportunity offered to inform us of Catholic Church “apologetics”.

    But there is nothing in the only writings attributed to Simon Peter of any such claims made by himself. Even Jesus only called himself Son of Man (a title from the book of Ezekiel, given for the human visited by an angel, which if used for others also so visited would make it less than unique – and it would also include some women called “Daughter of Woman” – more rare cases when this occurs within families).

    The interesting thing about the gospel storyline is that the location, Ceasarea Philippi, is a cult centre to the emperor as a god. The point being to pose a cultural division in religious matters between those with a faith in the one Creator God and Rome and the rest of the world. This points to a struggle of authority in the religous sphere (not with swords). In any struggle of authority, there is the issue of superior claim to primacy. One has to see the gospel writing in this light.

    At this point I suppose, the different perspective, between those who believe the bible is the word of God to man, rather than the word of men about the Godfaith they were building, becomes obvious.

    Christianity: On Catholic tradition and others within the Christian word of God faith, the divisions occur over Simon Peter ever being at Rome (issue of evidence) “and” leading the church from there. And then of course the issues of HASP and continuance via other streams etc, as well as the resort to a “Christ led church of the bible word authority” of other groups formed (who usually identify some truth revealed to them to legitimise either their election or their special righteousness in the faith).

    BTW.

    1. If one is searching for what is called justification or legitimacy behind the “claims” made in the gospel, they exist in the understanding within tradition. Psalm 2 refers to a son of God’faith throne concept for the throne of David. Elsewhere Israel is called a kingdom of priests (of God). Is the Messiah to take up a son of God’faith throne in a kingdom of priests. This speaks to the idea that the royal King has some authority over mercy (a lower worldly form of God’s grace) for the lawbreaker, being able to ransom them to the service of slaves (building for the King) by his word (such as he who worthy to judge another let them cast the first stone …).

    2. In Jewish thought, they imagined their Messiah, once restoring Zion, being a leading figure in the world. The problem of course was the growing awareness in that age that no man could fulfill the mandate (fight and defeat empires and establish their small nation as one with greater ruling power, yet be a Rabbi of the word of God bringing peace and justice to the world). Of course what was possible, was to de-emphasise the national throne restoration and focus on the oneness of all creation before God. This would require the idea of a son of God throne kingdom being one for all peoples and nations and his followers/Church in the world presenting this gospel.

    “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the powers of hell will not prevail against it…to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17-19);

    It’s interesting that the word key is associated with a message to the angel of the church in Philadelphia in the book of prophecy – where it is called the key of David (Psalm 2) and uses the same metaphors as well. Others include reference to the Temple and a new Jerusalem which comes down from heavan (which speaks IMO to the issue of a national throne city becoming a son of Godfaith throne city for all peoples and nations (again see Psalm 2).

    Like Rome, Philadelphia/Amman Jordan, has 7 hills. A group went there in 67CE to escape the fighting in Jerusalem, where Jews were killing other Jews even in the Temple (this civil war and purge during the fighting with Rome).

    I suppose the Catholic Church will have to have to explain how a church coming out of Judea could be a “new Jerusalem” arriving at Rome from out of “heavan”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  275. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    OK, SPC, I was short of time. BESIDES my predictions that abandoning Christianity will cause yet more disaster, again, for any nations that abandon it, I will state categorically that there is NOTHING you will be able to point to in support of your comment that some of Christianity’s contribution to the history of Europe was “bad” as well as some good, that does not in fact involve some abandonment of the teachings of Christ by those that YOU impute to have been the Christians at the time. For example, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, it was predominantly Christians who were being tortured to death, in the Inquisition, not Christians doing the torturing. Torquemada and his ilk were merely equivalents in their day to the Taleban today. Notice that Muslims are the ones who suffer the most at the hands of the Taleban, and we are constantly told that the Taleban sort of stuff is not the true Islam. Same idea.

    Gimme some more of your tired historically revisionist arguments and we’ll see what we can do with them, but a lot of what has already gone down in this thread is going to be relevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  276. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    Phil Best

    I have noted you state here and there your opinion that not only the indiividuals but also the society/nation outside of Christianity awaits disaster … this is the pre Christian society religion of 2000 years ago and now the post Christian society religion of today.

    “I will state categorically that there is NOTHING you will be able to point to in support of your comment that some of Christianity’s contribution to the history of Europe was “bad” as well as some good, that does not in fact involve some abandonment of the teachings of Christ by those that YOU impute to have been the Christians at the time. For example, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, it was predominantly Christians who were being tortured to death, in the Inquisition, not Christians doing the torturing. Torquemada and his ilk were merely equivalents in their day to the Taleban today. Notice that Muslims are the ones who suffer the most at the hands of the Taleban, and we are constantly told that the Taleban sort of stuff is not the true Islam. Same idea.”

    So your arguement is that anything done wrong by Christians was something done wrong by someone who was not a Christian, because Christians do no wrong. Well who can argue with logic like that ….

    So all those acting in the name of Christianity and the Church or their divine right authority as an anointed head of state (and or church) who did wrong were not Christians. The lack of declared Christian advocacy of democracy as a more legitimate form of government, the lack of focus on literacy so people could read the people was because Christians were not inspired by their faith to do justice for the powerless or enlighten/empower the people with knowledge of the word of the bible. How many real Christians were there in Europe in all those centuries?

    Were Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans of the 30 years war, Anglicans …? And if so many were not real Christians, what real Christian heritage is there in Europe …

    Oh were Jews who chose to convert to Christianity to avoid property confiscation real Christians when they continued to observe the sabbath day (the Catholic Church banned sabbath day keeping by Christians at the Council of Laodicea in 365CE).

    “Gimme some more of your tired historically revisionist arguments”

    I would have thought denying that Christians did bad things because Christians did not do them, would have to be the most revisionist statement about Christians, their history and Christianity itself that I have ever heard … so take a bow …

    and we’ll see what we can do with them, but a lot of what has already gone down in this thread is going to be relevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  277. PhilBest (5,125 comments) says:

    Is it not clear enough TODAY, that IRA killers are NOT Christians? Or that Christianity has given the nations and the regions that embrace it, eras of peace, progress, and well-being, that are unmatched in regions that are non-Christian? And that the collapses into destruction that have occurred in the midst of all that well-being, have had their impetus from implicitly anti-Christian ideologies like Naziism and Communism?

    OK, I will say that Christians do sin, and the real ones repent. But I make no apologies for disowning Torquemada, or IRA killers, or their like.

    The critics of Christianity invariably give no benefit of their judgement to the Christian Martyrs who were the main VICTIMS of the inquisitions. De-Christianising THOSE people is a FAR more immoral argument than MINE is……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  278. SPC (5,643 comments) says:

    The 30 years war …, the wars between Christian nations throughout European history … the wars of conquest in the Americas …

    So you choose to cite the Inquisition as the unChristian killing the Christian – the fact is much of European Christian history is that of the Catholic Church – built on its claim to authority and right to declare heresy (Cathars, Waldensians/Lollards/Wycliffe, Hus and Luther and Calvin) and this also included the Inquistion – which was not a unique event (nothing is quite as telling as the slaughter of people of south France to the order kill them all Cathar and Catholic alike, God will save the Catholic). One cannot isolate the people running the Inquistion from the authorisation for it from the Church and its tradition and the accpetance of Christian autocrats to this happening in their countries. And lets note that other groups, Anglicans and the Consistory of Geneva amongst them, were capable of some brutality themselves (the English Civil War was as much about the ruling religion as anything political). This happens whenever religion has theocractic power and asserts either its truth or its primacy.

    I take no sides in noting the mixed influence of Christianity in Europe – I neither say the abuser or the victim was the Christian involved, I simply say the abuse was wrong. And the abuse occured because society was not secular and this is why Europe moved to secular society to have peace. When national conflicts continued to cause war, they moved away from fixed national identity to the European Union to have peace.

    There is something called a natural state in which the rights to life and liberty occur, because Christian theocracy – monopoly religion and political autocracy, became a problem to life and liberty, they were replaced with a new social contract. Because nationalist conflict became a problem to life and liberty, they moved to a new social contract.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  279. jmcgarvey (6 comments) says:

    There is a good article in the Herald today written by the Most Rev Patrick Dunn who is the Catholic Bishop of Auckland. He makes some pretty good points including the analogy of how would Helen Clark feel if a backbench MP made a statement and then the media attributed that to be the official Labour Party Policy, write an article about it and then put a picture of Helen next to it. The actual quote from the italian priest never refered to them as the new seven deadly sins, nor was the list sanctioned by the catholic church! I think everyone has been a bit rough jumping on the bandwagon here. It seems that anti-catholicism is taking preference over the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote