Labour’s new interfaith portfolio
An intriguing press release from Labour:
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban has been appointed as Labour’s spokesperson on interfaith issues
“This role is about linking in with the interfaith movements around the country and internationally, to build greater understanding and peace,” Winnie Laban said. …
“New Zealand has a diverse range of faiths and it will be my role to attend interfaith meetings, as I did on the weekend and listen to the concerns of the many different cultures and religions represented.
“During times of economic hardship many people turn to the church and faith communities to provide leadership, support and compassion and Labour recognises the significant role faith plays in many people’s lives.
A reader who alerted me to this release posed an excellent question.
Are the chinless scarf wearers welcome at Labour’s interfaith meetings?
I think we know the answer.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Traditional Christain faiths and EBs need not apply. This is only repeat only for those faiths recognised by the Socialists
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
More meaningless noise from labour who claim to be the voice of the people to get power then treat everyone like crap with sneering indiference while they’re in.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
This is a crock of shit.
There is no place for religion in public life, it is a private matter.
Do we want to go down the US road where a publicly proclaimed faith in god is a prerequisite for election?
Do we want to go down the road of the UK where musselmen put the Koran on the top shelf in the library, who cares about the Dewey Decimal System, allah akbar?
Do we want an unholy alliance of god botherers of all stripes ganging up to undermine the UNDHR and make comedy a criminal offence?
Chinless scarf wearers or not, keep your religion, and your stupidity, to yourself.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Fuck off Adolf.
[DPF: And that is 20 demerits I am afraid.]
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I would, but you’ve still got the dildo up your arse.
[DPF: And also 20 points for that response]
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Jack
Is it your dildo that you seem to be so worried about? no doubt it will be returned to you in time and you can go back to sitting on the thing 24/7
[DPF: Only a warning as the others started it, but no more general abuse or demerits]
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I wonder if Winnie will be equally open to the ides of Atheists?
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:26 pm
You keep hosting the nazis David I’ll keep pointing it out..
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Since when was a secular public society part of Nazism?
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
As our friend Whaleoil says: these fools can never be allowed on the treasury benches ever again. Why does the state indulge the kind of moronic stone age thinking that underlies motivation of people to explain natural phenomena with supernatural explanations.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
thekiwifish – obviously not, but why would any self-respecting Atheist want to have anything to do with this “sky pixie variations support group”?
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
When he said drive the Jews into the sea dog.
Once his 3rd Riech credentials are established he remains a nazi in my book regardless of thread. If you apply his publicly stated and rabid anti-Semitism to the above you can see the Chritsians are next in line to go into the ovens for hisnameisjerk
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Typical. The Labour pendulum swings wildly from demonising a single group because of its faith to grovelling to all of them. Whatever will win votes.
Religion is a private matter, politics a public one. There’s a difference between bringing one’s personal religious beliefs into politics and bringing religion into politics.
Perhaps the comrades need reminding that one of the motivators of Lenin, Marx, Trotsky et al was their dislike of the hold religious shamans like Rasputin had over the Czar?
Or perhaps Winnie imagines she’s now on track to become the Cardinal Richelieu of the Labour Party?
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Socialism IS a religion Rex.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I often hear Luamanuvao Winnie Laban described as a “lovely lady”, she may well be for all I know, however she seems like one of the more useless, lazy PC members of Parliament and one that we could well do without.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
The only Christian contribution is likely to be from mainline “churches” who have sold out to liberalism and Geering-style atheism. I’ll content myself with the knowledge that they’ll (the mainline “churches”) soon be as extinct as the dodo.
Any hint of evangelicalism and the pinko’s and atheists come out to smash them down, which will be the case for this Labour initiative (surely an oxymoron). I’m sure they’ll do it on this post anyway!
PS: thekiwifish, are you implying atheism is a religion? Bwahhhaaahhh!!
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
MyNameIsJack (280) 3 4 Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
“This is a crock of shit.
There is no place for religion in public life, it is a private matter.
Do we want to go down the US road where a publicly proclaimed faith in god is a prerequisite for election?….”
MyNameIsJack, what is more logical; to trust a Christian politician who believes that he will ultimately answer to a supreme being for his actions; or to trust a secular atheist who assures us that they have a lovely personal ethic that they have dreamed up themselves in their heads? (leave conscience out of it; that requires belief in answerability to a supreme being).
It is not hard to work out why a nation that values the first will be a great nation and the nation that rejects, mocks and despises the first and embraces the second, will only ever be a pathetic little excuse for a nation.
This is so bad in this country, that the media is literally salivating at the opportunity to drag any major politician who professes Christian belief, through a Kafkaesque public mockery; John Key, just for an example, may in fact be a Christian but feels obliged to keep it to himself.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
And besides, if any public figure like, say, Gordon Copeland, is actually well versed in debating his beliefs and would give quite a good showing in a fair forum; note that the media will never give him that fair forum, they will mock at a safe distance.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Rex W said “Religion is a private matter, politics a public one. There’s a difference between bringing one’s personal religious beliefs into politics and bringing religion into politics.”
Excellent observation Rex. As I Christian, there is no way that I would vote for a wholly-Christian political party. However, I am more than happy to see Christians putting themslves forward as candidates in the existing parties, which is where they can have the most influence.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Murray has a point!
Jack is just weird.. drive israel into the sea? the jews can move back to europe where they belong???
im not sure if and jews living in nz have to move?
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Bryan Spondre (82) Vote: 2 0 Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“As our friend Whaleoil says: these fools can never be allowed on the treasury benches ever again. Why does the state indulge the kind of moronic stone age thinking that underlies motivation of people to explain natural phenomena with supernatural explanations.”
Are you talking about the way progress in NZ has ground to a halt through the twin evils of moronic stone age thinking that are enviro worship and Maori naturalism?
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
IV2 Agree with you and Rex As a lapsed Anglican/Presbyterian IMHO religion is a private matter and nothing I repeat nothing to do with the STATE
However I would all other things being equal be more likely to give my vote to a person who not only said they were a Christian but more importantly lived the life of a Christian
As my old Headmaster who was a Doctor of Divinity said There are many real Christians who seldom set foot in a Church
Its what you do not what you say that makes you a Christian
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Murray: Good point. With so many of their idols having feet of clay, one would think it’d be about as popular as Zoroastranism, so rather than Labour looking to the Lord for inspiration, maybe He should be consulting Chavez.
big bruv: Having observed her “work” in Hutt South I’d agree entirely with your description. Grey hair, a matronly bearing, a smile and of course a title seem to dazzle people to her complete lack of effectiveness, or even effort.
PhilBest: While there are many Christians who can intelligently defend Christianity (my business partner being one of them… when there’s no work on we’ll spend many an hour arguing theology)… Gordon Copeland?! You do remember his book, which DPF highlighted here when it was published?! Personifying one’s aroused libido as a demonic force and then “wrestling” with it in your hotel room hardly invites credence.
gd: Precisely.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
PhilBest
MyNameIsJack, what is more logical; to trust a Christian politician who believes that he will ultimately answer to a supreme being for his actions; or to trust a secular atheist who assures us that they have a lovely personal ethic that they have dreamed up themselves in their heads? (leave conscience out of it; that requires belief in answerability to a supreme being).
I would much rather put my faith in a secular humanist who knows that this life is all there is and will work to make this life as good as possible.
And why do assume that one must be xian to be a god botherer politician? After all, there is one hell of a truckload of Muslims who believe they are going to answer to a supreme being, but you don’t seem to agree with their worldview.
leave conscience out of it; that requires belief in answerability to a supreme being
Crap, there are many god people, of good conscience, who are that way without the crutch of a god.
Tell me Phil, what do you prefer – a system where good is rewarded and evil punished as it happens, or the crock of shit that is christianity that permits evil people do evil things, but that’s OK, they get to answer to a higher power when they die? I much prefer to see wrong doers punished in the here and now.
Your god is such a whimp that one bad experience 2000 years ago has caused him to go in to protective custody, never to be seen again.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:11 pm
PhilBest,
“what is more logical; to trust a … politician who believes that he will ultimately answer to a supreme being for his actions; or to trust a secular atheist who assures us that they have a lovely personal ethic that they have dreamed up themselves in their heads? (leave conscience out of it; that requires belief in answerability to a supreme being).
It is not hard to work out why a nation that values the first will be a great nation and the nation that rejects, mocks and despises the first and embraces the second, will only ever be a pathetic little excuse for a nation.”
Excellent. I look forward to Iran’s future domination of the world.
Or does it really only work for Christians? If so, which flavour? I mean, does it work for Catholics (beholden as they are to the Pope) as well as for Protestants? If not, which flavour of protestantism does it work for? What about Mormons … are they close enough (or would Mitt Romney becoming president of the USA be the end of its “great nation” status)? Does it matter that Obama clearly is faking his religious beliefs for political reasons (just like McCain did), or is it enough that they hypocritically doff their caps to the superstitions of their electorate?
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
PhilBest
Touche!
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Unlike the multiple evils of stone age thinking that includes – better not vaccinate girls, it will make them horny; better not let women have any say, it’ll make them ornery; don’t covet your neighbour’s wife, but shagging his 8 year old son is ok; food falls miraculously from the sky; wine isn’t wine, its blood; god loves us all soooooooo m,uch that he has to think up horrid ways for us to die so we can get to be with him in heaven, and on and on and on.
Oh ye of little faith; you are truly the enlightened ones.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Nice to know where Labour’s priorities lie on the day the Fiscal Fool is found to have committed a Fiscal Felony.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I think it is a strange day. I am agreeing with many of Jack’s statements in this thread. If we are going to have myriads of mutually antagonistic religions around then I want them to be kept private and out of my wallet and life.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
“During times of economic hardship many people turn to the church and faith communities to provide leadership, support and compassion and Labour recognises the significant role faith plays in many people’s lives.”
It is good to see the Labour Party rediscovering faith and even a good word about the church — excellent!
Labour has in the past been very supportive of Christianity. Indeed the three movers and shakers of Labour government of the 1930s — Walter Nash, Peter Fraser and Michael Joseph Savage were united in seeing their programme of social welfare reform as “applied Christianity”.
If the present incarnation of the Labour party has at least gone some way to rediscovering their Christian principles then I say good on them.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
odd, isn’t it, how Labour talks of interfaith, and the usual suspects, aka BillPhest, Scott et al hear christianity. It is INTERfaith, not INTRAfaith.
We know phil Best likes talking to himself, but come on, are the rest of you that simplistic?
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I did write some rebuttal to your rantings poor ….Jack but you do such a good job of yourself of showing what a moron you are! LOL
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Whoa! Let’s not have one of **THOSE** God arguments!
If religious groups are having issues (or issues with each other), what harm is done in having an opposition MP who wants to listen to them? Sure beats just waiting for it to turn to ethnic violence e.g. whities vs Lebanese or Aboriginal vs P.I. like they have in the Sydney Western suburbs…
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Interfaith meetings do not include most of the mono-theistic religions because the interfaith concept patronisingly treats all faiths like they are false. Not surprisingly, only those faiths for which this isn’t a problem attend. Those that recognise that it is irrational and stupid to think your beliefs are wrong, don’t.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Yes, the belief that one’s own God is the one and only, and any other gods are figments of their pagan adherants’ imaginations seems to be a uniquely Judeo-Christian thing
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
“Those that recognise that it is irrational and stupid to think your beliefs are wrong, don’t.”
Is it irrational and stupid to think your belief that the earth is flat is right? Either God exists, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t exist, it is irrational and stupid to believe it does.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
“There is no place for religion in public life, it is a private matter.”
No argument, no reasons offered as to why just an assertion that all educated people are supposed to accept without question.
If you cannot provide reasoned evidence for your assertion then why should or anyone else accept it? Because you say so? Who made you God?
The public own public life. In a free society any member of the public should be able to present and defend any viewpoint he or she holds. Any person should be free to make any decision from any perspective he or she wants. Public policy should be set based on the best evidence and the right reasons irregardless of where those reasons originated.
You don’t throw out a good idea because of who thought of it or where it originated; religion has contributed many good policies to public life, ditto secularism. Ruling an entire perspective out of public life is facist (and breaks several rules of logic.)
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Gueez wept … Labour invoking ‘faith’ …. bit like the pregnant 13 YO standing in front of a mirror rubbing her tummy with vanishing cream and repeating over and over again “faith will move mountains”.
If ever confirmation is needed that Labour is casting around in all directions looking for traction … any traction (never mind the quality, feel the width) this is it.
Labour and Goff Drop. Going south at a rate of knots.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Everyone believes their set of beliefs are correct or else they would not hold them. No one hold’s their perspective on the world despite viewing it as the second or third best perspective. Given this its a bit rich to point at one group and say “you think you are right and everyone else is wrong” because you think the very same thing.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:44 pm
The belief that one’s own religion is the only true one is completely rational. The belief that all religions lead to God (an inherent assumption common in the interfaith movement) is completely irrational and self-referentially incoherent – here is why:
All religions lead to God.
Islam is a religion.
Islam teaches it is the only way to God.
Therefore, if it is true that all religions lead to God then it follows that Islam is the only true religion.
Self-referentially incoherent – a flawed argument. Far more logical to state that Christianity is the only way to God.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Actually there is no thing as “interfaith”
There is only tolerance between different faiths.
This is cheap, misleading crap from a failed political party to drum up support from thick people who think interfaith is some politically correct religion.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
AG – Religious faith is by definition non-rational (though it’s been reasonably demonstrated that it’s not Irrational, because proving the non-existence of God is actually about as hard as proving His existence…)
IMHO the nearest there is to a rational argument for the existence of God is “The designer argument”: i.e. if you came across a working silver pocket watch while walking among the sand dunes on a beach, it would be self-evident to you that the watch was designed and made by some intelligent power, because it is obvious from the intricacy of its design that it could not have simply eroded from the bedrock by natural processes like the sand. But the the Human body and mind are also incredibly complex, therefore they also must have been designed by someone or something.
This is not a bulletproof rational proof, but it has some good qualities to it. Unfortunately, all of the other attempted rational arguments have more serious problems:
“You can see Him, therefore He must exist” fails as a rational proof because, unfortunately, anyone who can’t see him needs only to say so and then its very hard for you to point Him out.
“You can hear Him, therefore He must exist” has the same problem.
“I have had personal experience of Him, therefore He must exist” has the problem that if someone says “convince me that what you experienced was God, and not something else like drugs or euphoria” then it’s very hard for you to prove the divinity of your experience in a way that would convince anyone.
“The bible says He exists” has the problem that anyone can ask “But did you see God personally writing the bible?” or any number of other questions about the Bible’s veracity.
So ultimately, any faith is a personal, non-rational thing and you don’t tend to get far talking about whether it is “rational” or not.
( And it goes without saying that when you see “irrational” around here it usually means “stupid” or “the left” anyway
)
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
As I recall, the interfaith situation Labour was playing with a few years ago was designed to eventally run all religions in NZ with their political ideology. Basicallly they would tell them what to believe, what they couldn’t say and do and how to run their affairs.
It’s not just a long march through the institutions for the socialists.
The real threat and the important political message of this press release is that Labour have not given up their authoritarian schemes. As soon as they’re in power again, they’ll pick up where they left off. Rust never sleeps. You have to cut it out.
bwakile nailed it in four lines.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
It’s all a ploy to force us prostrate ourselves before the alters of Climate Change religion and it’s mystical sibling Socialism
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Religious faith can be rationally or irrationally held as I demonstrated above.
Rationally held religious faith, such as Christianity, is every bit as rational as atheism or agnosticm, as like redbaiter said, positively proving the existence of God is at least as difficult as proving the non-existence of God.
The best anyone can do in offering a rationale for either set of beliefs is to check the the conclusions of the beliefs (or lack of beliefs) follow from the premises. The premises themselves for each: Christianity, atheism and agnosticism, have to be assumed – try to come up with empirical evidence or some kind of scientific laboratory experiment to prove any of the premises of the viewpoints under discussion.
There is a God
There might be a God
There is no God
All suffer the same problem.
Once you understand that you can really begin to grasp the arrogance, irrationality and complete absence of any scientific evidence, proof or argument of statements such as “religion has no place in public life.”
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
“Interfaith” depends on the willingness of the participants to apostatize from their own faith.
I make no apologies for standing up for Christianity. Even the philosopher Jurgen Habermas commented a few years ago that we in Christendom owe everything to Christianity. “Everything else is just postmodern chatter”.
The sellout of Christianity in “Interfaith” forums and multiculturalist nations, is being done by apostates and “Christians in Name Only”.
There is very little evidence of rationality in the way post-Christian secular activists run or would run our countries. They will be responsible for “decline and fall”, a lot of which is already apparent, it is just a question who will write the history books in each country afterwards. It is a question what will be allowed to be written.
There is no end of hypocrisy inherent in trashing your own nation’s historical religion from which you have benefitted, while kow-towing to every stone age and naturalist exotic and indigenous religion in the public sphere.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:56 pm
My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:24 pm
is Not! IS NOT! IS NOT!
wanna fight?
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
“In times of economic hardship many people turn to the church and faith communities to provide leadership”, ah, at last, the socialist’s grand plan for ruling post 2008 has been unmasked. God knows nothing else would have worked for the fools.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Always bothers me when religions avoid the word and call themselves ‘faiths’ instead. Sounds like a harmless enough warm fuzzy thing, having faith…my dog’s quite faithful, is that the kind of thing they mean ?
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Madelaine – The premises themselves for each: Christianity, atheism and agnosticism, have to be assumed – try to come up with empirical evidence or some kind of scientific laboratory experiment to prove any of the premises of the viewpoints under discussion.
There is a God
There might be a God
There is no God
There is no god is easy to prove,and can be done using the supposed word of god itself.
For example John 14:13 – “And whatever you shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”
Evey day, millions of peoplepray and beseech, in Jesus’ name, and yet their prayers go unanswered. This is a straight out promise, no prevarication, no qualification, the words are as clear as abell. And yet, prayer goes unanswered. Either god does not exist or Jesus lies.
Or Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! ”
And yet, god never gives, he only takes.
My grandfather was a double amputee. He prayed to be healed, and yet his legs never grew back.
Christians love telling us of “miracle cures”, of cancer being beaten by the “power of prayer”, and yet there is not a single recorded incident of an amputated limb regrowing.
You can believe as hard as you likke, but when it is all said and done, god says a lot and does nothing.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
This Nation was founded on Christian principles. That’s why at school we learnt right from wrong. When you misbehaved at school you received punishment by way of the cane or strap.
If we misbehaved at home, parents loved us enough to correct us, in my case often by a smack. Neither did me any harm!
The Christian world view I was brought up with did not harm our country, however this has now changed and you are trying to convince me things are getting better!!
Yeah right!
Going to a Sunday school (and yes maybe the only reason my parents sent me was to get a break on a Sunday morning) certainly did me no harm. I am also glad that my children have received bible in school in their lives also because I have no doubt that these foundational beliefs are what is missing in our country today.
The more we tolerate alternative religions, the greater danger this Nation faces.
We were a Christian Nation and I wish we were strong enough to stand up again and declare that that is what we are. If the alternatives don’t like it, then they can take their religions back home with them.
I haven’t witnessed any other religion except Christianity serving within NZ. In my opinion if all the Christians left NZ we would be a lot worse off.
So forget the PC interfaith stuff. It is rubbish!
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
This Nation was founded on Christian principles.
Lie, and it sounds like you’ve been reading too many right wing xian fundy crap from the US. On what do you base this? Certainly the maori were not xians when they founded thier NZ. And the British may have been xian, but only because back then almost everyone was.
When you misbehaved at school you received punishment by way of the cane or strap.
Yes, for such horendous crimes as not standing up straight, biting finger nails, smirking or jsut being a kid. What a great way to raise children.
The Christian world view I was brought up with did not harm our country… didn’t it? And which xian world view, there are so many flavours, I never know where to start.
I am also glad that my children have received bible in school in their lives also because I have no doubt that these foundational beliefs are what is missing in our country today.
So you’re OK with your children owning slaves, raping the women of the vanquished and being killed if they disobey you? Or do you just believe in the touchy feely bits of the bible and ignore all the other stuff?
We were a Christian Nation and I wish we were strong enough to stand up again and declare that that is what we are. If the alternatives don’t like it, then they can take their religions back home with them. What about those of us who have no religion, who have no need of god(s). You’re an arrogant shit, aren’t you? A bit like your god, although he swings from arrogant to paranoid, via horrendously violent.
I haven’t witnessed any other religion except Christianity serving within NZ Well, that’s because you’re blinkered, isn’t it? Do you look for other religions, or the non religious serving, or are you simply a “My team is always right” type of guy?
So forget the faith stuff. its rubbish.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Billyborker your ability to exegete scripture is about as strong as my ability as a non-surgeon to tell you how to conduct a coronary bypass (without googling).
I could give you a rough idea based on my lay-person’s knowledge of anatomy and of course the number of episodes of Gray’s Anatomy, ER and other medical dramas I watch on TV but I would look like a complete dickhead if I asserted my theory to a cardiothoracic surgeon.
The verses you quote and exegete do not say what you say they do. You are repeating a popular, false, misunderstanding of the text and then ridiculing it (this is the strawman fallacy of logic – look it up). If the text said what you said it did you might have a point, yet if that were the case then only those with low IQ’s who were completely uneducated would follow Christianity and it would have died out years ago. For future reference, when you know that highly educated people with IQ’s much greater than yours who have actually studied it are fully convinced of Christianity, and yet when you read it you find it stupid, consider that the problem might be more about your faulty understanding of it and less about its voracity or rationality.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
fugley has great faith billy borker can convince everybody there is no God. Carry on you wee devil.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Madeline, you have written a lot of words, but not one of them contradicts my post or counters my argument.
You use the same old fall back position of the religious whenever their texts are quoted “The verses you quote and exegete do not say what you say they do” and yet all I did was quote the exact words in my nearest translation of the bible.
So, if those words don’t say what they do, what do they say? And why were those words chosen if they werre not meant to mean what they say?
I know English can be toughn for some people, but these passages are pretty clear. Ask and you shall receive. Cann’t get much clearer than that.
And you need to work on the meaning of strawman, as my post was clearly addressing the text, you went all around the place but never near the point.
I jsut love how one has to twist and contort logic to believe in the unbelieveable.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
The passages are very clear; they were not, however, written in English.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
look out, theres’ a spider crawled out from under its rock.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I am well aware the originals were not in English, but maybe you could stop being a flirt and point out why Ask and you shall receive actually means, Ask, but fuggedaboudid?
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:50 pm
You can make any set of words removed from the context and audience they were spoken to mean a variety of things, none of which the author intended. To get at the author’s intention you need to look further than your personal interpretation of what a sentence or two removed from an entire book means.
As I said before, look up the definition of strawman. It is not open to interpretation or subject to “my meaning” of it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Come on Madeline, teach me oh wise one, fill me from your cup of knowledge.
What do those words mean?
Why doesn’t god answer prayer?
Why don’t amputated limbs regrow?
Or is it easy to fool yourself, harder to fool others?
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 pm
“look out, theres’ a spider crawled out from under its rock”
It’s obvious who has rocks in their head fugley billy pucker. No doubt your web is in a trap door.
You have 6 hairy legs ?
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
And its also obvious who’s the rock spider, and it ain’t me.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
OK billyborker:
1. No I have just read History in regards this. Check out the principles the treaty was signed under for yourself.
2. No just for misbehaving, in other words not following instructions!
3. Show me where our current worldview has improved things.
4. I was never taught anything of what you mention here.
5. Nothing worth commenting on in that part of you rave billyborker. To me you seem to have a very twisted viewpoint. Sad really.
6. Name them and tell me what they have done for others and not their own organisation.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
billyborker,
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743276965?ie=UTF8&tag=theintework-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0743276965
Buy the book and read it.
There may not be a god. But focused intent (prayer to some), does get scientifically proven results.
Why? This is what scientists set out to discover:
“The Intention Experiment is a series of scientifically controlled, web-based experiments testing the power of intention to change the physical world. Thousands of volunteers from 30 countries around the world have participated in Intention Experiments thus far. Lynne McTaggart, architect of the experiments, is working with leading physicists and psychologists from the University of Arizona, Princeton University, the International Institute of Biophysics, Cambridge University and the Institute of Noetic Sciences.”
Those aren’t toy universities, and the experiments are carried out under strict scientific protocol.
There’s something to prayer/focused intent. It may not be god. But it’s worth knowing that it works even if you pray to the garden gnome at the bottom of the garden.
Maybe there IS something to the Amway / Positive affirmations approach after all !!!
(giggle)
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Your poison is obvious fugley billy sucker. Bad luck, build another fire and launch again you loser. You can’t win fugley, you know that but you try anyway.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
1. I do not see the word god anywhere in the treaty, much less christianity.
2. As I said, for minor things such as smirking and being a boy.
3. Done better than what? tTheh Crusades? Burning witches? Prohibiting scientific enquiry? invading Iraq? Denying condoms? Pretending taht natuarl disasters a god’s punishment?
4. Read your bible, its all in there. Trouble with most xians is they believe what they’re told, they never read the sorce docuemnt themselves. Ignorance is bliss, eh?
5. O fcourse you have nothing to say, your fear of Hell stops you questioning god, your arrogance won’t allow you to see that others can also have a palce, without bending the knee to your idol.
6. You are fucking insular, then aren’t you? There are many community organisations that serve NZ without the need to do so either on pain of eternal damnation of the promise of eternal bliss. Rotary? Lions? Mankind Project? Hare Krishnas? Bhuddists? I could go on, but you’d simply deny they serve because they don’t feel the need to live in terror.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Nice to see that the “religion of peace” has been spreading the love around in Lahore
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10559779
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
“Ask and you shall receive” when it is on the Toyota TV ad means something very different from what it means when I say a paraphrase of it to my kids when they demand things without saying please and it means something very different again to what it meant in the Sermon on the Mount, the context in which it occurs in the bible.
Just as, if you picked up a murder mystery, randomly flicked it open and read the line “bob killed jane” it would be wrong to conclude bob did in fact kill jane without reading the whole book and seeing the context the statement occured in. The statement could have been made in the context of a question: “did bob kill jane?” It could have been “I had a nightmare last night that bob killed jane”, it could have been gossip “I head mary say that bob killed jane” or it could have in fact been the case that bob killed jane or it could be a false conclusion the author wants you to think because in fact Peter killed Jane as revealed in chapter 10 – you don’t know and you shouldn’t assume without looking at the context. You cannot say “what’s your problem, “bob killed jane” is plane english.’
The context that words in a text occur in is not a fall-back position, it is a legitimate point and a key component of interpreting any language including an english translation of an aramaic sermon written using semitic idioms thousands of years ago.
The reason I did not go through each and every one of your claims is that the context, when you working with something translated from another language written to a culture that utilised idoms and norms ours does not today, would take up more space, if I did it justice, than one typically uses in a blog.
Some basic tips. Read the passages around the verse you are quoting – the bible is a book, it is not a collection of one-liners. Read some commentaries on the culture of the time and the various nuances of the language – we might have one word for love, another language might have 4 each with its own meaning. Read competing viewpoints and theories, not just one interpretation.
Ask and you shall receive, in the context of the Sermon of the Mount, relates to what Jesus had just talked about. He was a giving a speech – it was all on topic – the single line “ask and you shall receive” was probably not intended to mean in 2009 when you ask me for $1,000,000, a new car (or whatever else you want) you will automatically receive it.
Especially when you take another step back and look at the context the Sermon on the Mount falls in, the message of Christianity is not one of Alladin and the magical lamp.
Ask and you shall receive in the book of Matthew (in the context of the preceding verses and when you see the same passage repeated again in Luke) refers to asking God for the ability to know what is right and wrong and the strenght and courage to live in accordance with this even if that requires some self sacrifice.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Billyborker: You are now showing your confusion. Let’s just address your last point. I said “I haven’t witnessed any other religion except Christianity serving within NZ ” To my knowledge service clubs are not religions so what have the Hare Krishna or Buddists done to serve others outside their own organisations within NZ?
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Here you are stuck in your narrow vierepoint that only religions do good, I have some counter examples, thus showing one does not need religion for good people to do good things, although for good people to do evil things, religion is an essential.
Hare Krishnas provide free meals to the hungry. OK its vegetarian, but it is still food in the stomach.
Bhuddist, in my experience, never turn down a request for help, regardless of the religion, or lack of religion, of the seeker.
Muslims offer a variety of charitable acts, you may have seen the Red Cross. they work with the Red Crescent, so closely that to all intents and purposes, they are one and the same.
I note that you have not read your bible in its entirety.
Thank you for reaffirming for me the stupidity of putting faith above reasona dn the quest for knowledge.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
How to get rid of christian doorknockers: read out Mark 16:17 – 18
“And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
Apologise for not having a snake handy for them to verify they’re true believers, but offer to get them a bottle of Janola to drink.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:21 pm
So madeline, you have prevaricated again. If we must put Jesus words into the cultural context of his time, then they have no relevance for today, and yet I thought they were supposed to be timelss and eternal.
Especially when you take another step back and look at the context the Sermon on the Mount falls in, the message of Christianity is not one of Alladin and the magical lamp.
Funnilly enough, loaves and fishes, the raisng of Lazarus, walking on water, even the resurrection have a lot in common with Aladdin’s lamp.
So, tell me again, why doesn’t god answer prayer and why don’t amputated limbs ever regrow?
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I like it, putitaway.
I have a game I poaly now when they knock on my door. I find out what church they’re from, then I sit outside their church one day, follow a few home and note down their addresses.
A few weeks later, i knock on their door and introduce them to the flying spaghetti monster or reason. They seem put out that i would take the time to knock on their door to tell them there is no god. Funny how thay want the right to spew their bile on mY doorstep, but don’t like the return visit.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
And GJ, tell me what the Exclusive Brethren do to serve NZ outside their own doors.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
billyborker: You are very interesting. Why have you jumped to the conclusion I am a Christian? Did I ever say that other organisations don’t do good things as well? I think you assume far to much for your own good and this makes your Worldview very narrow! I thought the exclusive brethren were a cult but then again I could be wrong, but hey didn’t they support National billyborker?, but you proberly don’t like that either! Over and out from me!
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Oh the agony, I watch the lefties e.g. billy, redbaiter, toad etc, preach their version of how society should be, and in general they are permitted by the blog owner to spout their views.
Oh how different it is when others declare their faith, the boot is in eh boys, no reciprocal politeness from you eh boys/girls.
You should be ashamed, but that is why you are what you are, narrow minded bigots.
No I am not a Christian, but I would not be so impolite as to describe them as xians either, you rude buggers.
Flame lighters who have no home now that your heros have been shown to be liars, & criminals.
Lonely at the standard I guess.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Billyborker
All organisms, including humans, have the ability to regenerate something in the body. But the process is much more developed in lower organisms such as plants, protists — unicellular organisms such as bacteria, algae, and fungi — and many invertebrate animals such as earthworms and starfish. These organisms can grow new heads, tails, and other body parts when injured.http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2002-04/why-can-some-animals-regenerate-limbs-humans-cannot
Isn’t a 5 second Google search just wonderful thing.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
…I would not be so impolite as to describe them as xians either… shows your own ignorance. This is a well accepted abbreviation, even among xians AND christians. The x represents the cross. Next I suppose you’ll tell me off for writing god instead of God.
sweetd, I am well aware of that, but I am wondering why a god who says he will answer prayer, a god who can raise the dead, cannot or will not answer the prayer for a limb to regrow.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Seeesh. If we could turn just a tiny fraction of borker’s anti-God bitterness into faith there’d be bent spoons everywhere
edit: borker — bollocks. x is the unknown quantity. the undefined. fits perfectly with your idea of God. At least be brave enough to stand up for something!
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Anyway, Boston Legal is on and I have a tonne of malicious phone calls to make before bed time.One on its way for you d4j, hope you’re still up.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Inventory – that could turn out to be Tamils not Muslims, we don’t know for sure yet. Hint – if the pakistani authorities mysteriously fail to find them, they were Muslims…
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
No billy, I know you will read this tomorrow or after Boston whatever.
If that is acceptable it is at best lazy at worst disrespectful.
Go back to the stranded.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Billyborker
I used to be quite the atheist. No God for me, no sir. Right up till my mid 30′s.
However, age, life events, and experience all showed me that God exists. As they say, there are no atheists in the trenches. I wish you well in your search. We all find what we seek in the end. If you don’t believe in God, then no argument from me or anyone else will convince you otherwise; you need to find it for yourself.
As to why humans can’t grow back a limb, I don’t know. Maybe science will find the answer one day. Its all faith. You either have it, or you don’t.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Thankfully Labour are happy with peace. The Greens don’t like peace any more – they want justice
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Put it away: Here’s the real question.
If someone did drink said poison, and had no ill effects, would you believe?
Of course not.
So why should anyone do such things simply for your entertainment?
I have heard the most extraordinary thing from different Christians, when God stepped in and intervened in ways unimaginable to you and me. I recently outlined a case where millions of pounds were raised (over $1B by some measures) for the care of orphans, none of which ever went without for decades. Not a single person was ever asked for money.
http://halfdone.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/5-billion-dollars-dont-lie/
George Muller just prayed, and his needs were met, sometimes only in the 11th hour – but they were *always* met. The large buildings he built still stand on the Bristol skyline.
The context of the passage to which you refer is sending people out in God’s ministry – for his glory. Keeping 3000 orphans in food, clothing and good education shows God’s glory.
Performing a cheap trick solely for your entertainment doesn’t.
Oh, and could the person who seemed so confident that Muller’s work doesn’t prove the existence of God please follow up their comment with some detail? I’d love to hear the answer to how he did it – since no skeptic has been able to explain it for so many years, your reply should be a doozy.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
“As to why humans can’t grow back a limb, I don’t know. Maybe science will find the answer one day. Its all faith. You either have it, or you don’t.”
Well, humans fell into sin and that caused issues like lost limbs. That sin is our fault – some of us really love it even.
If you want your limb to grow back, why not get to know God first? I’m telling you – if you want a million from Stephen Tyndall, you’re better to play a few rounds of golf with him first than to run up to him on the street and ask.
Funny how many people never think of it that way!
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Scrubone: So I can put your Janola back under the sink then ? Thought so…
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 pm
scrubone (76) Vote: 1 2 Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Put it away: Here’s the real question.
If someone did drink said poison, and had no ill effects, would you believe?
Of course not.
How can you make that assumption? is it because you are so wedded to your beliefs that nothing will change them? For me, for rationalists in general, when someone shows us a proof, we accept it unless or until a better proof comes along? What do you do? bury your head in the sand?
So, drink the poison and prove your god exists. It worked for Jim Jones. Didn’t it?
Well, humans fell into sin and that caused issues like lost limbs
well, no, not quiote. As god is omnipotent and omniscient he planned the fall, knew it would happen, and did nothing to stop it, so every bad thing Man does is as a result of god ordaining it that way.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Well said scrubone – one of the churches here had a sign outside saying “No God, no peace; Know God, know peace” – summed it up pretty well IMHO
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Billy – his first argument rests on the assumption that I won’t change my mind if I see miraculous proof, and yet he spends the rest of his comment trying to claim there *is* miraculous proof. Unfortunately this proof only seems to exist in the form of urban legend tall tales you heard from a friend of a friend or whatever, by people already convinced and therefore wildly biased in favour of believing any old bollocks that supports what they already believe. And some pointless claims about the finance methods of a 19th century dogooder…
And yet given the opportunity to do a bona fide miracle here and now right in front of me, with this nice tall glass of Janola, which I can see myself and don’t have to rely on hearsay and chinese whispers from fanatics, somehow god isn’t into that kind of thing. Even thought the bible says he is. Convenient…
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Billy has a point
As much as I’m at the opposite end of the scale on political leanings I must agree with many of his statements today.
Religion must not be part of the government – simple stuff like we have easter off is fine – that’s historical precedent – but the moment we let any variation of C relgion determine personal behaviour for soley Christian reasons then we are stuffed – but that’s not a problem – except for the worshipping aspect the 10 commandments are surely universally acceptable. Simiarly, if we go the way of the UK and do stuff like ban piggy banks as they upset (in theory) muslims then we go down the wrong path.
Madeleine is a self confessed god botherer and her postings should be treated appropriately – she believes and logic is not going to get in the way of that. She’s pretty subtle though – go look at her site.
One thing the yanks got right is to take religion out of politics – until they let it back in again – let’s get this right – judge people by their behaviour and not any particular belief.
March 4th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Another surreal religion thread here at Kiwiblog. I’m a Christian but I hate theology when a “biblical worldview” opposes science, and condemns the world rather than trying to help the suffering. Christianity doesn’t work when it’s all tangled up in laws and theories — it’s all about love thy neighbour.
If Labour is turning over a new leaf and fostering dialogue then good on them (labour = love thy neighbour?)
March 4th, 2009 at 3:05 am
Labour clucking at straws again.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:52 am
except for the worshipping aspect the 10 commandments are surely universally acceptable.
I am sick to the back teeth of people saying this. What is so wonderful about them? Three of them are simply about god’s paranoia and to reinforce his ego, and I doubt you’d find too many supporters here for following the sabbath the its meant to be followed. They may believe in god in their homes, but in business it is mammon all the way.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:52 am
billy borker is strong evidence for the existence of a God. He goes to bed hating the thought of Christianity and wakes up bitter and twisted at the thought of a loving God. Thanks fugley, because you will convert many non believers. Do have a good day and I pray you get better one day. Poor chap living a life of torment.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:23 am
My atheist informers within Labour tell me this is a precursor to A Ministry of Religion.
They’ve got an office lined-up in the Beehive, beside Women’s Affairs and apparently staff will get time-off for both prayer and periods.
The ‘good oil’ is also the P.C bunch within Labour, insisted a Satanist band did the interdenominal theme-tune for Interfaith.
See ya.
Paul.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:53 am
That is very interesting Canterbury atheist. In my previous posting yesterday at 4:53 PM I was prepared to offer tentative support for Labour, in that they seem to acknowledge the importance of the Church ministering to people in times of hardship. If however it is just a Trojan horse, to treat all religions the same, and to demonstrate this by bringing in Satanism — I would have to say that I might seriously reconsider my support!
Unfortunately the whole idea of dialogue between religions and interfaith agreements seems to have at least two problems that I can think of straightaway.
The first is that it implies that the government will regulate religion. As you say, if Labour comes back into power they might bring in a Ministry of religion. Like most evangelical churches we believe in freedom of religion. And government regulation appears to be against that. Communist countries, which are officially atheist, always try to regulate religion and in practice it means persecuting the Church and other places of worship and other religions. China would be a good example of this — they persecute Christianity and the Buddhists and Falun Gong.
The other problem is that religions disagree at a fundamental level. I suppose we could sit down with Moslems and say we are not going to fight each other. But at the end of the day there is not a lot of common ground between say Christianity and Islam. So what is the point of interfaith dialogue, I am not at all sure?
March 4th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Billy – hardly any christians honour the sabbath as it’s meant to be honoured, because the sabbath is saturday ( technically friday sunset to saturday sunset). There’s no biblical basis for changing it to sunday. Gives me a big laugh to think of all those pious christians convinced god is pleased with them turning up to church on sunday.
March 4th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
# Madeleine (107) Vote: Add rating 8 Subtract rating 5 Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Religious faith can be rationally or irrationally held as I demonstrated above.
Rationally held religious faith, such as Christianity, is every bit as rational as atheism or agnosticm, as like redbaiter said, positively proving the existence of God is at least as difficult as proving the non-existence of God.
The best anyone can do in offering a rationale for either set of beliefs is to check the the conclusions of the beliefs (or lack of beliefs) follow from the premises. The premises themselves for each: Christianity, atheism and agnosticism, have to be assumed – try to come up with empirical evidence or some kind of scientific laboratory experiment to prove any of the premises of the viewpoints under discussion.
There is a God
There might be a God
There is no God
All suffer the same problem.
Once you understand that you can really begin to grasp the arrogance, irrationality and complete absence of any scientific evidence, proof or argument of statements such as “religion has no place in public life.”
”
All this talk of logic and you pull a blatant golden mean fallacy, well done.