Christian Intolerance

December 19th, 2009 at 12:05 pm by David Farrar

It has been amazing to see the on display by some extremist Christians. They have applauded the destruction of a church’s private property, because they don’t like the message on display.

It is only a small way removed from the Islamic extremists who burnt down an Embassy, because they didn’t like the cartoons of a newspaper in a country. Of course that was a more extreme act, but what they have in common is both sets of people think their God allows them to break the law to try and suppress a message or image they do not approve of. It is the thin end of theocratic rule.

There are many legitimate ways people could take action against the billboard of St Matthew-in-the-City. They include:

  • Complain to the Advertising Standards Authority (as Family First did)
  • Protest outside St Matthews
  • Put up your own billboard with an alternative message
  • Lobby for the leadership of St Matthews to be disciplined or sacked by the church hierarchy (if possible)
  • Try and have the entire parish booted out of the Anglican Church

But instead the nutters have won, with their campaign of destruction:

After the latest attack, by an elderly woman with a knife last night, the church said the billboard would not be replaced.

The Vicar of St Matthew-in-the-City, Glynn Cardy, said the billboard was “attacked by a knife-wielding Christian fanatic who was then apprehended by a group of homeless people who care about our church. Later in the evening another group of fanatics ripped it down.

I wonder how the fanatics would feel if someone threw bricks through all the windows at their local church, because someone doesn’t like their message.

It isn’t far removed from the morons who vandalise Jewish graves because they don’t like Judaism.

There is no right in New Zealand not to be offended by a religious message. If you are offended, then tough. Either take action under the law, or lump it. But you do not have the right to destroy private property of a church, because you are offended by their message.

But for all those who cheer on the extremists and vandals, well don’t cry out for sympathy when the same happens to your church. I mean if the Catholic Church beatifies Pope Pius XII, then it must be legitimate for Jewish activists to vandalise Catholic cathedrals to protest such an offensive move (Pius XII refused to publicly condemn the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews), if you think it is legitimate for Christian activists to vandalise St Matthews billboard.

Tags: , ,

157 Responses to “Christian Intolerance”

  1. radvad (688 comments) says:

    Defacingdestroying bill boards happens every election and does not draw such strong language from you David.

    I don’t give a toss about the church’s silly billboad, nor do I get my knickers in a twist about its destruction. Churches frequently incur damage without complaining and in one recent case, I think in west Auckland, worked with the offenders. Sarah Palins church was destroyed in an arson attack over a year ago (with people inside) and still no arrests.

    I however give a toss when people feed me pap. St Matthews claim they wanted to provoke discussion. Wrong. They wanted attention and did it by mocking a central Christian belief. If a similar bill board appeared mocking another religion’s beliefs they would be the first to cry for “tolerance” and “celebration” of diverse faiths. A tolerance they are not prepared to show themselves.

    St M’s also claim some sort of moral high ground but seem to me to be long on confrontation and short of forgiveness, both very “unchristian”.

    A pox on both the individuals who destroy private property and allso those organisations that cause confrontation by mocking and then try to con us that their motives are pure. Bah humbug.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 68 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    It has been amazing to see the intolerance on display by some extremist Christians.

    I’m not. Xtianity, like all religions, is intolerant. Look at the intolerant god they worship for a clue as to why.

    There is no right in New Zealand not to be offended by a religious message. If you are offended, then tough. Either take action under the law, or lump it.

    Isn’t there a logical contradiction in here?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 47 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. andrei (2,528 comments) says:

    Censorship phttt that revolting image has gone viral.

    Nor is it intolerance – let me just down the road from that Church Auckland’s elite have been guffawing at a play called Christ Almighty!!! which includes such things as St Joseph having sex with the donkey and transvestite angels huk yuk which reveals just how purile Aucklands glitterati are IMHO. And nobody said boo.

    No beheadings – we just leave the morons enjoy their boorish entertainment knowing that it reveals how empty and shallow they really are.

    I would have personally preferred that billboard remain to stand in condemnation of those who erected it but passions run high – assuming of course that those who erected it who aren’t also those behind the vandalism – always a distinct possibility when dealing with Liberal media whores.

    But in no way was that Billboard anything other than a cheap attention grabbing stunt designed to sow discord and unhappiness during one of the Church’s Holy Festivals.

    And in that it is mission accomplished

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,811 comments) says:

    radvad, ditto.

    The money shot:-

    “They wanted attention and did it by mocking a central Christian belief. “

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. krazykiwi (formerly getstaffed) (9,189 comments) says:

    It is only a small way removed from the Islamic extremists who burnt down an Embassy, because they didn’t like the cartoons of a newspaper in a country.

    Wow DPF – this is beat up on Christians season for you isn’t it?!? The statement above gets my vote for your most absurd, most alarmist statement of the kiwiblog year.

    [DPF: The extremists use the same justification for their actions - the difference is only scale]

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (857 comments) says:

    I cant agree

    It was a deliberately stupid, provocative and frankly anti-christian billboard put up by a bloody vicar who thought he/she was being all edgy.

    I am an atheist myself, but you dont go shitting on your parishoners.

    If you want a real analogy, as opposed to the foolish strawmen that you put up. Try this one:

    Imagine one of mohammed in bed with his second wife (yes the 9 year old one) put up by the imam just before ramadan, with some smart arse comment aout bedtime stories never having been the same since the marriage.

    Thats the level of stupidity this church elevated itself to. A supposedly christian church thought it would be funny at christmas to mock christianity. oh yes, hardy hah hah, very cool, very edgy.

    and now the vicar thinks its cool to call an offended parishioner a “fanatic”. If she threw a brick through a window at mcdonalds and burnt a couple of cars, he simply call her a social justice activist, and attempt to understand her point of view.

    Yup, no wonder the anglicans are deservedly going down the toilet.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 65 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lucia Maria (2,238 comments) says:

    I mean if the Catholic Church beatifies Pope Pius XII, then it must be legitimate for Jewish activists to vandalise Catholic cathedrals to protest such an offensive move (Pius XII refused to publicly condemn the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews)

    Dear David,

    You are seriously misinformed as to the nature of the controversy over Pius XII.

    But then, given a number of your recent comments on Christianity in general, I doubt this is something you will want to rectify.

    However, for your readers, I will direct them to this page: Soviet KGB falsly linked WW2 Pope with Nazis, just so that they know how off the planet your comments are.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ross Miller (1,676 comments) says:

    Well clearly ‘their’ Bishop doesn’t agree with their actions. The Anglican Church is tearing itself apart in trying to be all things to all people. Right now it is seen by many as standing for everything and nothing all at the same time.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Gavin Knight (83 comments) says:

    well argued David

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 45 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. krazykiwi (formerly getstaffed) (9,189 comments) says:

    Ross – the expression “Being so open minded that their brains have leaked out” may be relevant here.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Zapper (947 comments) says:

    Just another reason why religion is such a waste of time. Intolerant, hypocritical, self-righteous, judgemental – sums up almost every christian I’ve ever known. Considering how tenuous their beliefs are, it is amazing how uptight they are. Or maybe that is the reason behind it.

    http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm – There is no proof Jesus even existed.

    Bring on the negative karma from the delusional…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 47 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    David, if you want true evidence of the evils of the papists, look no futher than ratzinger and his covering up child abuse in the church.

    Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had ‘obstructed justice’ after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church’s investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.
    The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

    It asserted the church’s right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II’s successor last week.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

    then there’s always this:

    THE abject failure of the Catholic Church to act on child sex allegations in Toowoomba shows it has learned nothing.
    A parent had complained to the principal of the abuse of his nine-year-old girl, and staff had raised similar concerns.

    It was an opportunity for the church to redeem itself after decades of covering up child abuse, by bringing in the police and, more importantly, not risking the innocence of another child.

    Instead, the school and Catholic Education officials believed the teacher’s denials and kept it secret from police. Twelve other children, allegedly preyed upon by the accused pedophile, appear to have paid a terrible price for that misjudgment.

    Documents point to overriding concern of a public scandal, with written warnings to the teacher to keep the allegations “strictly confidential”. For the next year, the teacher — who also served as the school’s child protection officer — allegedly abused a further 12 Year 4 students.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/church-has-failed-to-learn-its-lessons/story-e6frg6nf-1225807136433

    Or how about:\

    THE parents of a clerical sex abuse victim who took his own life have repeated their call for the Bishop of Limerick to resign.

    Peter McCloskey (37) died in 2006 after repeated attempts to seek redress from Dr Donal Murray and the Limerick diocese following the sexual abuse he suffered as an altar boy in the early 1980s.

    He was repeatedly raped by deceased priest, Fr Denis Daly in the Caherdavin parish between 1980 and 1981.

    Mr McCloskey reported the matter to the bishop and his family in 2002, but tragically died by suicide four years later.


    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/suicide-victims-parents–say-bishop-should-go-1964068.html

    Sort of puts a humourous billboard in perspective, but I don’t see the andrei’s and lucyna’s condemning this behaviour.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Angus (536 comments) says:

    Mocking Christianity is saccharine for the pseudo-liberal.

    Firstly it makes the protagonists of such behavior feel all “liberal” whilst having the added benefit of there being no serious negative consequences of such action.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. krazykiwi (formerly getstaffed) (9,189 comments) says:

    Intolerant, hypocritical, self-righteous, judgemental – sums up almost every christian I’ve ever known

    That’s a rather sweeping, intolerant, self-righteous judgement from you there Zapper.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. radvad (688 comments) says:

    “Intolerant, hypocritical, self-righteous, judgemental – sums up almost every christian I’ve ever known.”

    What is that statement if not judgemental and intolerant?

    Billy, a huge majority of catholic child abuse (truly an evil, along with the cover up) was homosexual in nature. I await your posts denouncing the evils of homosexuality.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Zapper (947 comments) says:

    Hey, I put the word almost in there! And it’s not a generalisation if it applies to almost every christian is it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Lucia Maria (2,238 comments) says:

    Borker,

    My preferred punishment for sex abuse is execution, as I have said so publicly a number of times now. Priests should not be exempt, I have said that publicly too.

    But just because a lot of people don’t agree with how I would punish pedophiles (including those who have sex with teenagers, and especially those men who corrupt young boys) doesn’t mean that those that disagree condone pedophillia. Just like, how the Pope deals with clerical sex abuse doesn’t therefore mean that he condones it or makes sure that it continues – far from it. Right now, resignations are occurring in Ireland at the highest levels, because of the sex abuse scandals there, and how they were not handled appropriately.

    Basically, you are condemning the Pope for his lack of power in various countries. I somehow doubt you want that power increased. Or is that what you want? Inquisitions that transcend international boundaries. Could be interesting …

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Will de Cleene (485 comments) says:

    Christians attacking Christians. Nothing new there.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Reg (544 comments) says:

    One point, St Mathews in the City along with St Andrews on the Terrace (Wellington),can no longer be regarded as Churches in the Christian context. They are Citadels of apostasy.
    Their blasphemous provocations don’t need to be avenged by men as in time they will reap what they sow.
    That said comparing upset old ladies with militant Islam in crazy David.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 44 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Zapper (947 comments) says:

    radvad, you follow this:

    What is that statement if not judgemental and intolerant?

    with this:

    Billy, a huge majority of catholic child abuse (truly an evil, along with the cover up) was homosexual in nature.

    Wow. Illustrating my point quite nicely. Child abuse is independent of sexual orientation. You’re basically saying that because a man has abused a female child before then as a heterosexual male, I must be a child abuser. Thanks, appreciate it.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Yvette (2,735 comments) says:

    “Love is patient and kind; it is not jealous or conceited or proud; nor offensively smart-arse; love is not ill-mannered or selfish or irritable; nor wantonly destructive of other people’s billboards; love does not keep a record of wrongs; love is not happy with evil, but is happy with the truth. Love never gives up; and its faith, hope and patience never fail.”

    I suggest neither St Matthews-in-the-city nor the vandals are being particularly ‘Christian’ in their conduct

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. artemisia (218 comments) says:

    The law of unintended consequences – the story has gone worldwide including BBC, Huffington Post, ABC, Telegraph, and very many more including YouTube. Suck that up, Christian vandals ….

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. burt (7,948 comments) says:

    Update: Chris Trotter has labeled the people who defaced the billboard as traitors.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. burt (7,948 comments) says:

    Oh, and just as well that billboard isn’t next to the one where I live;

    Christmas@Church.come – what next; is Lisa Lewis featuring in the nativity play this year ?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. krazykiwi (formerly getstaffed) (9,189 comments) says:

    Zapper – I’d say you need to meet more Christians. If you go looking for the pious self-righteous type (in order to reinforce your preconceived notion) you will find them. Similarly if you want to find kind, caring atheists you will find them no problem.

    It amazes me that people like you to silly enough take the moral high ground in their accusations that all Christians are judgmental and intolerant. It’s a self defeating position.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Re Angus 12:52
    Good Point.
    I’ll be impressed with the bravery and courage of the Apostates of Auckland, when they put up a bill board mocking Islam!!!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. TripeWryter (715 comments) says:

    1 – St Matthew-in-the-City’s vicar is misguided. He doesn’t even believe a central tenet of Christian belief; that Jesus’ father was God himself. That’s like a revolutionary not believing in revolution.

    2 – The billboard was attention-seeking. Nothing to do with getting people ‘thinking about Christmas’.

    3 – It did, however, serve to provoke the religious, in the same way that Jesus provoked the religious of his time; they conspired to have him crucified.

    4 – The religious took offence on behalf of God, despite there being no evidence that God was offended. Was he? Does he care? If the religious are his representatives, they must know what he thinks.

    5 – The Bishop of Auckland seemed weak yesterday. He was deploring the billboard, but he didn’t seem to be doing anything more. Aren’t bishops of any stripe, any religion, sovereign in their own dioceses? Couldn’t he have just ordered the thing taken down? He gave the vicar at St Matthew a licence to practise and to preach. Couldn’t he had just withdrawn it? Put the vicar on the next plane out to wherever he came from?

    6 – An online magazine headlined its story: ‘Christ, can’t you take a joke?’

    Too true.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. David in Chch (510 comments) says:

    I agree with artemisia (84) Says:
    December 19th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    When are the fanatics on whichever side going to learn that in the modern world, protests bring attention to the very thing they wish to suppress. Witness the infamous South Park episode that the Catholic Church wanted banned. More people watched it than had ever watched South Park before (or since). (I confess ;-) that I watched, too – the one and only episode I had ever watched.)

    I could go on and on with movies/plays/shows that various (self-)righteous groups want banned, that then receive more attention (free publicity) than they would otherwise have had.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. backster (2,105 comments) says:

    Your fanaticism in taking every conceivable opportunity as an Atheist to attack the Christian faith is every bit as extreme as those you condemn.

    [DPF: Who said I was an Atheist?]

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    TripeWryter (200) Says:

    December 19th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
    1 – St Matthew-in-the-City’s vicar is misguided. He doesn’t even believe a central tenet of Christian belief; that Jesus’ father was God himself. That’s like a revolutionary not believing in revolution.

    Then why do both the gospels of Matthew and Luke have genealogies of Joseph proving his descent from David and Abraham unless Jesus IS from Joseph’s seed?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. krazykiwi (formerly getstaffed) (9,189 comments) says:

    [DPF: The extremists use the same justification for their actions - the difference is only scale]

    Scale indeed. And the difference in that scale is so vast that to associate them one with another is ridiculous. Perhaps these actions are similar because the perpetrators were breathing, or were right handed, or had brown eyes, or … whatever.

    In truth the perpetrators of religiously inspired acts are driven by a feeling that they doing what’s right. So too are Greenpeace protestors, MP’s at the trough, and me double parking when I think I’ll only be a minute.

    Being driven by a feeling of doing what’s right is not a crime – actually it’s laudable. If a crime results from the feeling then the punishment is matched to the scale of that crime, not to the motivation itself.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. berend (1,671 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria, aren’t you the same person who claims that the inquisition was setup to people wouldn’t be burned by laymen upset by heretics?

    And I have to agree with DPF: Christians should never resort to violence. So the actions of these “Christians” should be strongly condemned as they are worse then the perpetrators.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Zapper (947 comments) says:

    Zapper – I’d say you need to meet more Christians. If you go looking for the pious self-righteous type (in order to reinforce your preconceived notion) you will find them.

    OK…so it’s my fault that when I meet Christians they are generally as detailed above…gotcha.

    I have some close friends who are Christians and our relationships work just fine when they aren’t telling me how I should be living my life.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. MT_Tinman (3,033 comments) says:

    This story, including this thread, has been rather fun to follow.

    I admit that I care not what christians do, think or say about the triumvirate they call one as long as they do (think or say) it in a way that does not affect me and they do it somewhere I’m not.

    What surprises me though is that so many are so insecure in their faith they must resort to force to whenever challenged.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Lucia Maria (2,238 comments) says:

    Berend,

    Yes, I am.

    So, what is your point?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ZenTiger (425 comments) says:

    It has been amazing to see the intolerance on display by some extremist Christians.

    Yeah, I’m amazed extremists are so extreme, but I’m equally amazed that all the moderate people remain so moderate through this. What is it with the moderates anyway?

    They have applauded the destruction of a church’s private property, because they don’t like the message on display.

    Yes, but in fairness only the extremists applauded. The moderates thought it a stupid response to a stupid billboard.

    It is only a small way removed from the Islamic extremists who burnt down an Embassy, because they didn’t like the cartoons of a newspaper in a country.

    And consensual sex is really only a small way removed from rape. They both involve penetration. And National Party voters that deface a Labour Billboard is only a small step away from murder. And making jokes about Helen Clark’s looks is only a small step away from bad taste. And faux outrage at “Christian intolerance” is only a small step away from advocating them thrown to the lions.

    Of course that was a more extreme act, but what they have in common is both sets of people think their God allows them to break the law to try and suppress a message or image they do not approve of. It is the thin end of theocratic rule.

    Of course, anyone engaging in a political act is in open defiance of democracy and needs to be executed for treason. It’s the thin edge of a full blown fascist revolution, comrade.

    There are many legitimate ways people could take action against the billboard of St Matthew-in-the-City. They include:

    * Complain to the Advertising Standards Authority (as Family First did)
    * Protest outside St Matthews
    * Put up your own billboard with an alternative message
    * Lobby for the leadership of St Matthews to be disciplined or sacked by the church hierarchy (if possible)
    * Try and have the entire parish booted out of the Anglican Church

    But for some reason, only the moderates only explore those avenues. Why are extremists so extreme?

    But instead the nutters have won, with their campaign of destruction:

    After the latest attack, by an elderly woman with a knife last night, the church said the billboard would not be replaced.

    An elderly women with a knife and a pair of knitting needles has put them off, or the vast amount of negative reaction from “moderate” voices?? After the paint over, they were all for putting up another billboard (and maybe they have), but I wouldn’t be surprised if the implications of just how offensive their little media stunt actually is to many people.

    The Vicar of St Matthew-in-the-City, Glynn Cardy, said the billboard was “attacked by a knife-wielding Christian fanatic who was then apprehended by a group of homeless people who care about our church. Later in the evening another group of fanatics ripped it down.

    There go those fanatics again. Why are they so fanatical? Then again, a fanatic with money simply puts up an offensive billboard. Those sorts of fanatics are easy to spot (due to the size of the billboard and the content of the billboard), but they are fanatical within the law. It’s not illegal to offend people, but it’s ignorant to hide behind “freedom of speech” as the excuse to offend people.

    I wonder how the fanatics would feel if someone threw bricks through all the windows at their local church, because someone doesn’t like their message.

    We’ll have to catch them and see what they feel, if they go to church and if they realise how stupid they were. But a word of warning – fanatics can be fanatical about things.

    It isn’t far removed from the morons who vandalise Jewish graves because they don’t like Judaism.

    They weren’t morons David, they were extemist religious fanatics. Don’t hold back now, a vandal isn’t merely a vandal nowadays.

    There is no right in New Zealand not to be offended by a religious message.

    There is every right and freedom to be offended. You cannot think for one moment you can tell people what they are and are not “allowed” to think about something. There is no right to use ones offense as a justification for action outside the law. Subtle, but an important distinction.

    If you are offended, then tough. Either take action under the law, or lump it. But you do not have the right to destroy private property of a church, because you are offended by their message.

    Same goes for all lawbreakers, they should be caught and punished in a just manner. No surprises there.

    But for all those who cheer on the extremists and vandals, well don’t cry out for sympathy when the same happens to your church.

    OK, that’s a few people. What about the thousands of moderates you are now going to lump into your next point?

    I mean if the Catholic Church beatifies Pope Pius XII, then it must be legitimate for Jewish activists to vandalise Catholic cathedrals to protest such an offensive move

    Yeah right. First you argue that extremists have no right to break the law, now you are suggesting that a third party (the Church and all it’s moderate members) should expect whats coming to them. The Catholic Church has not condoned this vandalism, and it’s thousands of moderate members have not condoned this vandalism. This is a straw man argument you are setting up. Why assume these people are Catholics? Why assume they speak for the Church?

    (Pius XII refused to publicly condemn the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews)

    A controversial assertion, and you might want to look into this a bit further.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. scrubone (3,074 comments) says:

    “Of course that was a more extreme act, but what they have in common is both sets of people think their God allows them to break the law to try and suppress a message or image they do not approve of.”

    Funny, many Christians would say that’s what Glynn Cardy did. He put an atheist billboard in front of what claims to be a christian church.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” It has been amazing to see the intolerance on display by some extremist Christians. They have applauded the destruction of a church’s private property, because they don’t like the message on display.”

    Get used to it. Christians and Conservatives have been an easy touch for too long, but that is all going to change.

    …and don’t whine about the violence. Its all the Progressives understand. (as the Muslims have demonstrated)

    Might even convince John Key that the next referendum might be worth more than a condescending sneer.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Yvette (2,735 comments) says:

    berend : “And I have to agree with DPF: Christians should never resort to violence.”

    So no Christians should have taken part in World War II or any other?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. kowtow (7,859 comments) says:

    I think DPF has lost the plot. To equate the petty vandalism of the 2 in Auckland with the life threatening and major property damage (not to mention diplomatically/internationally significant) burning of an embassy because of some cartoons published to prove that Westerners no longer had the balls to stand up for their own beliefs is simply stupid.

    To add the Pius XII controversy compounds the stupidity. DPF is implying 2 wrongs make a right. I don’t know why PiusXII didn’t condemn the Holocaust,Was he asked to?
    The Vatican did help European Jewry during the war,that’s a fact.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. dimmocrazy (286 comments) says:

    “It has been amazing to see the intolerance on display by some extremist Christians. They have applauded the destruction of a church’s private property, because they don’t like the message on display.
    It is only a small way removed from the Islamic extremists who burnt down an Embassy, because they didn’t like the cartoons of a newspaper in a country. ”

    What DPF is actually saying here is that: ‘applauding’ the destruction is a SMALL step from ‘burning an embassy’. I.e. expressing agreement with the sentiment behind the opposition to the message on the billboard (a clear freedom of speech right) is only a step away from a very serious criminal offence, not against the perpetrator of an alleged emotional harm, but against property of the government of the nationality of the perpetrator.

    My conclusion: DPF has completely lost his senses on this one, or provides a small but significant insight in a very, very troubled mind. It’s up to the reader to decide which of the two. Advice to DPF, go seek professional help if you weren’t drunk when posting this.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Funny thing about Kiwiblog. A guy can get pinged 20 demerits for making a harmless joke about a prominent homosexual and his handbag, but Billy Borker can post a multitude of vile messages here demonstrating an unbelievable level of hatred and bigotry towards Christians, and not get pinged at all.

    [DPF: Attacks on individuals rather than groups will always get harsher treatment.]

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Inventory2 (10,161 comments) says:

    Redbaiter has a point. billyborker gets away with murder. I’m still very disappointed that DPF saw fit to give borker the latitude he did on this thread three weeks ago:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/11/general_debate_28_november_2009.html

    His 10.15am comment is the absolute pits.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Rebaiter, fuck off. My bigotry and hatred extends to all religious fools, morons and knuckle draggers. Christians, catholics, jews, moslems, hindus, bhuddists, jains and all blacks barrackers.

    But back to your point, if you have one-

    What’s vile about pointing out the vile behaviour of the current pope in hushing up child abuse?

    What’s vile in pointing out the differences between what xtians say they believe and their bible?

    Case in point – Yvette (403) Says:

    December 19th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
    berend : “And I have to agree with DPF: Christians should never resort to violence.”

    So no Christians should have taken part in World War II or any other?

    If you are a true follower of Jesus, you would not ask this question, you’d already know the answer from the bible.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    IV2, before having a go at ME, go back to that thread and look at Kaya’s obnoxious 9:21. I didn’t light the fire.

    Talk about intollerant.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Fletch (6,094 comments) says:

    As I said on another thread, if the billboard had been about someone like, say, Ed Hillary, and questioning his virility (maybe a billboard that says, “mountain man can’t raise bedcover tent” or something like that), and someone painted over or damaged it, people would cheer the ‘vandal’ rather than vilify him. I bet even DPF would cheer it’s defacement.

    It all comes down to what is important to you.

    [DPF: In no way would I cheer its defacement.]

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Fletch, one major difference. Hilary lived, Mary & Joseph are characters in a work of fiction.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. ZenTiger (425 comments) says:

    Billyborker illustrates how being an atheist is no proof against extremism.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Perhaps some-one could embark on a social experiment testing the relative tolerance of various communities and religous groups using the incident in Auckland as a base.
    Then
    1. Erect a poster insulting to Isalm in Mecca
    2. Same as 1.but in Bradford UK
    3. Put up a Bill board in Dehli provking the Hindus
    4. Distribute leaflets in Tibet aimed at offending Bhuddists.
    5. Place a large Bill Board at a prominent intersection in Posonby comdemning the gay life-style.

    Results would be measured on a scale of reaction from 1 -10
    1. Being advert is damaged by a little old lady, and 10 being the experimenter arrives home in a body-bag.

    [DPF: The billboard was vandalised on four occassions within 24 hours. They even destroyed the replacement one. So not one little old lady, but a plethora of violent extremists]

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    If a gentle little poke at the virgin birth story can elicit such responses, I’m surprised every Mosque and Mormon Church in NZ isn’t covered in brown paint. Surely they’re more of an affront to Christianity than an ambiguous and tongue-in-cheek billboard? Those unchristian churches stand, year on year, physically mocking and defying the Christian message.

    Or are we just hearing the growls of internetus paper tigerus?

    Watch out Hare Krishnas. You’re no better, even with your cheery dancing and bells.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    ZenTiger (189) Says:

    December 19th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
    Billyborker illustrates how being an atheist is no proof against extremism.

    One more of your typical content free posts.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Dave Mann (1,184 comments) says:

    What on earth are you bleating on about David, with all this nonsense about ‘violence’ and ‘attacking private property’? Its not as if they were burning the church, killing the vicar or even throwing summer at the windows. These people were simply taking effective action to stop the stupid vicar from blatantly mocking a central tenet of their faith by targeting the bloody billboard. I am an atheist but I support their right to take this action. Get some perspective FFS!

    [DPF: Was it their property? No. Then they have absolutely no right to take action. None. Zip. Zada.]

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Reg, how about a few more billboards

    1. Promoting atheism on America’s Bagram Air Force Base
    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/12/hitchens-theocracy-200912?printable=true

    2. Or how about trying to BE an atheist on an American council?
    http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/12/15/north-carolina-fundamentalists-are-on-the-offensive-to-oust-atheist-councilman/

    3. Or a poster supporting homosexuals outside Jesus House Church in Barnet
    http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/12/13/london-mayor-draws-fire-for-attending-crazy-exorcist%e2%80%99s-christmas-carol-service/

    4. Or being the archbish and opposing death penalties for being gay. As if.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/dec/06/rowan-uganda-homophobia-lesbian-bishop

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    I am an atheist but I support their right to take this action.

    What right?

    You don’t have a right to vandalise something which you find offensive. If I found the cross on a church offensive, would you support my ‘right’ to climb up there and pull it off? Of course not. Have some principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. fishe (143 comments) says:

    Great post David. Keep up the good work.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “You don’t have a right to vandalise something which you find offensive”

    Maybe you cede them that right by posting something designed to provoke such a reaction, and then being unable to defend it when the expected reaction occurs.

    [DPF: That sounds like the arguments Muslim extremists used against the Danish cartoons. I believe the rule of law is paramount]

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (8169) Says:

    December 19th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
    “You don’t have a right to vandalise something which you find offensive”

    Maybe you cede them that right by posting something designed to provoke such a reaction, and then being unable to defend it when the expected reaction occurs.

    What happened to your mantra of individual responsibility? To be offended is a deliberate choice, to act on that perceived offence is another deliberate choice.

    What about letting the law prevail? How about we find these knuckle dragging stone age god botherers and throw the full weight of the law at them?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. joe90 (273 comments) says:

    Perhaps the vicar should have chased the offender and stabbed her.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    @Redbaiter

    Maybe you cede them that right by posting something designed to provoke such a reaction, and then being unable to defend it when the expected reaction occurs.

    No. There’s no right to be ceded. Vandalism of private property isn’t a right. It a crime, plain and simple and so it should be. Anyway, we don’t have rights which vary as a function of your ability to infringe or defend them.

    I’m surprised how eager you are to abandon the basic tenets of a free society in order to make common cause with conservative Christians. You’re generally pretty consistent in your defence of property rights, the rule of law, free speech and the ability to say things which might offend people.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. dime (9,607 comments) says:

    “Rebaiter, fuck off. My bigotry and hatred extends to all religious fools, morons and knuckle draggers. Christians, catholics, jews, moslems, hindus, bhuddists, jains and all blacks barrackers.”

    and any mentally impaired children. you make me sick borker.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Semper Vita (5 comments) says:

    “if the Catholic Church beatifies Pope Pius XII, then it must be legitimate for Jewish activists to vandalise Catholic cathedrals to protest such an offensive move (Pius XII refused to publicly condemn the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews)”

    Come on David, this attack on Pius XII lacks any scholarly credibility.

    Pope Pius XII is now credited by JEWISH organisations and scholars as being responsible for the saving of hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives by issuing fake passports to Jewish people to allow them to escape their Nazi persecutors, and by ordering Catholic religious convents to harbour Jews, among other things.

    Not only that, but recent documentation indicates that he even offered to act as a go-between for an Allied plot to have Hitler assassinated.

    Before the war began Pius was outspoken in his unwavering opposition to Nazism.

    It’s actually quite ironic that you bag Pius XII in an opinion piece about free speech, because one of the biggest reasons that Pius was silent during World War II was because the Vatican mail, newspaper and radio had been jammed and heavily censored by Mussolini!

    This isn’t Catholic propaganda, it’s being written about by Jewish scholars!

    From a recent article on this issue…

    “From the beginning of his papacy in 1939 until well after his death in 1958, Pope Pius XII was honored with unfeigned warmth by Jewish leaders around the world. Golda Meir was uncommonly effusive in her praise of him. Trees were planted in Israel in his honor. In 1955, the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra flew to the Vatican to give a special concert to show the nation’s gratitude. In 1940, Albert Einstein wrote a tribute in Time. At his death, tributes were universal and eloquent, especially by those Jewish groups closest to his efforts.”

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/pius-xii-as-scapegoat-11

    Oh, and if you want to talk about offensive, how about you talk about the recent documents showing that the Allied Generals knew about the concentration camps but did nothing to target them, even though Churchill requested that they bomb the camps.

    The following is from a 1941 editorial published in the New York Times…

    The New York Times wrote in a December 1941 editorial:

    “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe. . . . In calling for a ‘real new order’ based on ‘liberty, justice and love’…the pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism. Recognizing that there is no road to open to agreement between belligerents ‘whose reciprocal war aims and programs seem to be irreconcilable,’ Pius XII left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.”

    [DPF: You have an opinion. Many Jews have a different opinion. The point I am trying to make is that one should not use violence to suppress the opinion of someone else]

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Fletch (6,094 comments) says:

    Fletch, one major difference. Hilary lived, Mary & Joseph are characters in a work of fiction.

    billy, actually they were and are real people.
    There is more written evidence to support the people, places and history in the Bible than there is to support the existence of Caesar, but I bet you believe that Caesar existed.

    [DPF: I agree there is little doubt about the existnce of Mary, Joseph and Jesus - just about whether Jesus was the Son of God. I disagree that there is more evidence than there was for Caesar - we actually have Caesar's own war diaries]

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Komata (1,139 comments) says:

    As a Christian I personally found the poster offensive, but as it was St Matthew’s in the City that posted it, I am not surprised in the least.

    Sadly that specific church has a very long record of being ‘trendy’, hip. cool, avant-garde and so out there, liberal and with it, (add whatever other ‘freeing’ words you may care to ) dating back to the late 1960′s when a parish priest (name sadly unrecalled – it was a little while ago – with what we would now call ‘liberal tendencies), decided to ‘get with it’ and engage with the flower people, presenting the gospel (as he perceived it) in a new and exciting way to embrace all and everyone – especially the homosexuals, lesbians and homeless.

    (It was at the time that the same church was becoming a leader in anti-American and anti-Vietnam War protests, with the same priest being at the forefront of said protests)

    The fact that he was diluting the essential Gospel message (that only through a personal acceptance of and relationship-with Jesus Christ as your personal saviour can you have eternal life) was irrelevant – cool was all and he fervently went all out to embrace the hippies, their culture and their ilk (pot, drug use – the whole circus) in the name of ‘Liberal’ and ‘Revolutionary’ theology – enthusiastically supported by his Bishop (Brown?).

    His actions were totally acceptable to the new Zealand Anglican Synod since it was after all, another means of outreach and a chance to reach the ‘lost’. That, at least was the reason why the church (St Mathews) suddenly became a leader in liberal Christianity in New Zealand, and touted itself as being at the ‘cutting edge’ of Christianity in New Zealand. They were also totally ‘accepting’ (ie condoning-of) of the lifestyle of homosexuals and lesbians.

    Predictably, with the accolades of liberals (mostly non-Christians, incidentally) St Matthews has since continued on that path with a succession of ‘liberal’ priests who have increasingly diluted the Christian message over the years, while still being supported by their local Bishop and moving even further away from the essential tenets of Christianity (along with the rest of the ‘Western’ Anglican church). All other faiths, especially Islam (a faith which is diametrically opposed-to and is always in confrontation-with Christianity) are of course welcome (as are Gays and Lesbians) and their beliefs incorporated into services (so that no-one feels left out)

    Evidently, at least one member of the congregation has at last decided that ‘enough is enough’ and decided to take things into her own hands – the fact that she is 70-years plus being an indictment of the church, since evidently the ‘younger’ members are so happy with the diluted faith they are being fed that they don’t see there is a problem.
    Others, evidently from other churches have also felt the same way, and have also defaced the poster, and since the ‘church’ hierarchy evidently doesn’t see that there is a problem, all power to the people concerned. But a ‘knife wielding Christian ‘FANATIC’? I think not – rather a devout, Bible-believing elderly Christian lady who has decided to take a stand. I wonder what she will be charged with?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Fletch and DPF – there are no accounts of Jesus that were written during his life. The accounts we do have are so full of inconsistincies, variances and sops to various power groups that they are useless. There is enormous doubt that any of these characters existed outside fiction.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Semper Vita (5 comments) says:

    “The accounts we do have are so full of inconsistincies, variances and sops to various power groups that they are useless. There is enormous doubt that any of these characters existed outside fiction.”

    What absolute nonsense.

    Genuine scholars are in no doubt as to Christ’s existence, and to the existence of figures such as Mary, Joseph and Peter, etc.

    There is far, far less documentation to support the crossing of the Rubicon, but no scholar doubts that it actually happened.

    Such a proposition has no place in a rational debate about these issues.

    [DPF: But the key question is were there any documents written at the time. Caesar himself authored his gallic and civil war commentaries. He is mentioned in historical documents of the time]

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. grumpyoldhori (2,412 comments) says:

    The Vatican helped save Jews, was it more or less than the number of Nazis helped by the Vatican to escape the rope ?
    All those good God fearing German troops with belt buckles stating God with us stuffing Jews into trains.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    EVERY account we have of Jesus is hearsay; as such, it would not be admissable as evidence in law.

    Where are the contemporary accounts of Jesus? The records of his trial and execution?

    For fuck’s sake, you don’t even know what DAY he was born, let alone the year or the location!

    Does anyone know who actually wrote the gospels? Scholars will tell you it wasn’t those named as authors, but they cannot say who.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Don the Kiwi (1,633 comments) says:

    Just to add to what Semper Vita said at 4.47 pm. the chief Jewish Rabbi of Rome was so impressed with Pope Pius X11 and the way he assisted jews escape persecution, that after the war he actually converted to Catholicism.

    No doubt you know about Otto Schindler, and that movie by Stephen Spielberg “Schindler’s List”, and the accolades that Schindler recieved – it is a historical fact that Pius X11 saved many more jews than Schindler did.

    Oh, and BTW, Otto Schindler was Catholic.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Even though he was a nutbar, a paedophile and a plagiarist, we do at least have the writings of Mohammed. Where are Jesus’s writings? Was the son of god illiterate as well as being ignorant and a thief?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 29 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Mar 11:15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
    Mar 11:16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
    Mar 11:17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
    Mar 11:18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

    I guess DPF, and others that agree with his take, would ALSO accuse Jesus of vandalism and assault.

    Part of the issue is central to who actually put the billboard up. This wasn’t a group of atheists, but rather those who identify themselves as Christian, but are clearly not according to their own website data.

    Christ condemned those that portrayed themselves as religious, but were just making money out of those who came to the temple to make sacrificial offerings. He cast them out (assaulted them), and overturned their tables and chairs (vandalism), and yet He sinned not – whether He broke the law is up for debate. Sometimes Christians need to make a principled stand, as Christ did. And sometimes the law is an ass, and people rightly or wrongly take the law into their own hands. Most parents are criminals now anyway – every time they smack their child to correct the child’s behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. LabourDoesntWork (286 comments) says:

    Gotta laugh at the conspiracy theories about the origins of Christianity. It’s amazing that such wisdom and insight came from religious Jews who were deliberately lying to their fellow Jews about the nature of God, rather than from sincere seekers of truth. These compulsive liars died for their lies despite no material gain to them whatsoever. They even had the first witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection be women despite their testimony literally not being admissible in Jewish court. Strange way to fake something when you’re trying to sucker people. And, despite Christianity being easily falsifiable, neither the Romans nor the Jewish authorities of the day did so. And they had more reason to do that than the most militant atheist spouting off about it today.

    One is free to interpret history however one likes. However, one must at least be *consistent* in applying standards. This degree of skepticism would surely have to question all that we know about the ancient world, except what is discerned directly from archaeological evidence. If the existence of the most influential human being that has ever lived can be called into question then it it invites the question: How many other historical figures are also fabrications or fables?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Kris, can you account for your whereabouts on Thursday evening?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    malcolm 6:17 pm,

    Kris, can you account for your whereabouts on Thursday evening?

    Not precisely, but reliable sources inform me I was observed somewhere in greater Wellington on the evening in question – nowhere near said billboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Billy
    Why are atheists so rude and intolerent- and in your case ignorant?
    A Contempory account of the life and Crucifixion of Christ was written by the Jewish Historian Flavius Joshephus. But I would warn you that reading it may unsettle your (un)belief system!
    Of course all the great regimes based on Atheism were a roaring successes and proved to be a paragons of virtue in the area of tolerance and Human Rights didn’t they?
    Like: Soviet Russia, Mao’s China and Nazi Germany to name a few.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Reg

    When was Jesus born? When did he die? When was Flavius Josephus born? When did he write about Jesus?

    He was not a contemporary of Jesus.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Billy
    Josephus’s writtings were first published around 77AD; approx. 48 years after the crucifixion. I guess anything you write about the early struggles of Neson Mandela would be regarded as contemporary in the year 3929.
    But be brave be strong be courageous Billy, read Josephus and if you want to take the risk, read the 4 Gospels too. We won’t tell your atheist mates.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Fletch (6,094 comments) says:

    billy, as far as the length of time between Jesus life and the Gospels, the number of years is seen as negligible as far as history goes. Let’s look at an interview with CRAIG L. BLOMBERG, PH.D who is widely considered to be one of the [United States] foremost authorities on the biographies of Jesus, which are called the four gospels.

    Lee Strobel begins the interview, questioning the amount of time lapsed…

    We know very little about Jesus. The first full-length account of
    his life was St. Mark’s gospel, which was not written until about
    the year 70, some forty years after his death. By that time,
    historical facts had been overlaid with mythical elements which
    expressed the meaning Jesus had acquired for his followers. It is
    this meaning that St. Mark primarily conveys rather than a reliable
    straightforward portrayal .

    Tossing the book back into my open briefcase, I turned to
    Blomberg and continued. “Some scholars say the gospels were
    written so far after the events that legend developed and distorted
    what was finally written down, turning Jesus from merely a wise
    teacher into the mythological Son of God. Is that a reasonable
    hypothesis, or is there good evidence that the gospels were
    recorded earlier than that, before legend could totally corrupt what
    was ultimately recorded?”

    BLOMBERG “The standard scholarly dating, even in very liberal circles, is Mark
    in the 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s, John in the 90s. But
    listen: that’s still within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses of the
    life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who would have
    served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus were going
    around.

    “Consequently, these late dates for the gospels really aren’t all that
    late. In fact, we can make a comparison that’s very instructive.

    ‘The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written
    by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after
    Alexander’s death in 323 B.C., yet historians consider them to be
    generally trustworthy. Yes, legendary material about Alexander
    did develop over time, but it was only in the centuries after these
    two writers.

    “In other words, the first five hundred years kept Alexander’s story
    pretty much intact; legendary material began to emerge over the
    next five hundred years. So whether the gospels were written sixty
    years or thirty years after the life of Jesus, the amount of time is
    negligible by comparison. It’s almost a nonissue
    .”

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. MrTips (148 comments) says:

    DPF
    You are out of your league here, being woefully uneducated on Pius XII, and using that irrelevancy to justify your post. The actual majority of Xtian peoples don’t think defacing the billboard was the right, and in fact many exercised the proper action of calling for Cardy, or the billboard, to be removed. That action is no different to asking for a local business CEO to be removed for not following company policy or structure.

    Setting up strawman arguments so that idiots like borker and co. can rant is actually rather irresponsible. Does IN traffic mean that much more to you than honesty? Get a grip man.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Reg (418) Says:

    December 19th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
    Billy
    Josephus’s writtings were first published around 77AD; approx. 48 years after the crucifixion. I guess anything you write about the early struggles of Neson Mandela would be regarded as contemporary in the year 3929.

    Reg, since I have lived through mcuh of Mandela’s time, I am his contemporary. Josephuse was not Jesus’ contemporary.

    But be brave be strong be courageous Billy, read Josephus and if you want to take the risk, read the 4 Gospels too. We won’t tell your atheist mates.

    I have read all 4 gospels, which is how I came to see the inconsistencies in them; to see that Mark was the basis for both Matthew and Luke; that John talks about a very different Jesus.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. fatman43us (166 comments) says:

    DPF

    When the groups you mentioned produce definitive action within two days, I will use them. Menatime all power to those who took the direct action so often espoused by those of the Left persuasion.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. andrei (2,528 comments) says:

    Troublesome Christians

    Well it seems the good folks at St Matthews-in-the-city are not above a bit of vandalism themselves when it suits

    Within Christianity there is a long history of trouble making. This last week three, including Fr Peter Murnane who once preached at St Matthew’s, were at it again. They punctured a balloon covering intelligence-gathering equipment at Waihopai in the South Island. They also punctured the illusion that New Zealanders are far removed from American wars.

    It is well attested that Waihopai information is part of the global US eavesdropping network and that the Bush administration has admitted that intelligence gathering is the most important tool in the so-called war on terror. It is well attested that the American military invaded Iraq on spurious grounds. And it is well attested that the vast majority of casualties since that invasion have been Iraqi civilians. The Waihopai troublemakers see a connection between these statements and their faith. There are many Christians who not only see the preservation of all human life as fundamental but also believe that war, and all that aids and abets war, is anathema to their faith.

    The Waihopai trio are part of the international Christian organisation called Ploughshares. The name comes from the biblical verses admonishing the people to turn their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks.

    There are of course many people who, while sympathetic to condemnation of the Iraq occupation, find breaking the law and destroying public property reprehensible. Ploughshares however justify their actions in terms of the greater good. Do you worry, for example, about breaking down the front door of a house and illegally entering if there is a fire and children are trapped inside? Ploughshares would say that war like fire is raging out of control, children as well as others are trapped, and we need to help.

    Too funny

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. dave (985 comments) says:

    Ha, having read many of the above comments, it appears that public discussion around god is not happening as a direct result of the billboard as Glyn Cardy initally mooted, , its happening through the blog of someone who posted about the billboard who couldn’t care less about god. And that’s fine by me. The publicity of fringe minority opinions – ala St Matthews – always creates news and gossip, doesn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Reg (544 comments) says:

    Great Post Andrei, the St Matthews crowd sound suspiciously like a bunch of Religious extremists. Though it seems like they prefer to give but not recieve, when it come to a bit of wanton vandalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Will the “property rights” and “rule of law” people please get a life.

    These Progressive arseholes do not give a damn for anyone’s property rights and would erase them from the face of the earth in an instant if the opportunity arose. Neither do they give a damn for “individual responsibility”.

    In this case they’re reaping what they have sowed and its not too soon. Should have been happening years ago. These people abuse freedom to destroy freedom.

    Progressives commit acts of piracy, they burn property, they torch cars, they assault Conservatives and Christians, they invade private property, they betray our defence forces and they commit a myriad of other such acts that demonstrate they don’t give a tinker’s damn for the rule of law.

    Don’t think we are not in a war. The motives are well hidden, and the methods (outside of the confrontational acts above) are sly and gradual, but the outcome they seek is the same old totalitarian socialism that Joe Stalin would have imposed on the world if he had been able.

    I say fuck em. They’re getting what they’ve had coming for a long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Pedantic (2 comments) says:

    Intolerance? You want to see intolerance? Go and erect a similar billboard mentioning Allah in a Muslim country!
    Bunch of hypocrites really.

    Disciples of Jesus have every right to react this way, and worse! St. Matthews is living up to all we have learned to expect from mainstream churches. No surprises there. Also no surprises in how non-believers have reacted.

    The problem today is that so-called Christians don’t have back-bones, and can’t stand up to what they are supposed to believe in. They make easy targets of themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Jack5 (4,780 comments) says:

    Great old blog brawl, DPF.

    I find the “progressives” or whatever you like to call the type of Anglicans who put up the poster an interesting group. They seem to paddle the same Waka as Lloyd Geering, the Presbyterian theologian charged with heresy.

    As an agnostic I don’t object to the secular views of Geering and the St Matthews Anglicans. However, why don’t they just out themselves as agnostics instead of trying to drag the entire Presbyterian Church and the entire Anglican Church respectively into an agnosticism under a thin cloak of “Christianity”. If they want to retain the emotional security of being members of a religious-type group they could revive atheists unanonymous, the old Rationalist Association. If the association hasn’t died they could re-invigorate it.

    The reluctance of Geering and the St Matthews type Anglicans to make the final break from religion can’t just be for the rates-free status of churches. Perhaps it’s the careers, and the status. Perhaps it’s more satisfying to be a Christian rebel or heretic than just another agnostic or atheist. Perhaps they feel they piss off serious Christian believers more by protesting as church members than as agnostics or atheists. Or perhaps they just like the company of PC fellow travellers.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. LiberalismIsASin (288 comments) says:

    I have followed this debate and refrained from commenting, I mean what is the point? If you are a christian you are considered a legitimate target, liberals consider it a duty to denigrate the beliefs of all religions, epecially christians, or at least its a gallant protest. But seriously DPF is a hypocrite of the highest order. If a church put up a billboard that was as offensive to sodomites, who he champions, he would be lecturing us about the limits of free speech. St Matthews is the kind of church that can no longer be considered a church, everywhere and always they battle against the cause of Christ.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,819 comments) says:

    backster says on December 19th, 2009 at 1:14 pm:

    Your fanaticism in taking every conceivable opportunity as an Atheist to attack the Christian faith is every bit as extreme as those you condemn.

    Judging by David’s posts his real beliefs are in that of Gaia. Can he interest you in the teachings of Global Warming?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    If you are a christian you are considered a legitimate target, liberals consider it a duty to denigrate the beliefs of all religions, especially christians, or at least its a gallant protest.

    Please stop feeling sorry for yourself. If you want your religion to be respected, then make a case for why it deserves respect. No special pleading and no playing the victim card. There is no automatic respect for ideas just because they’re special to you. And be careful with the victim mentality; it stops you thinking about your faith in a rational way and helps to keep you inside the bubble.

    Do you have automatic respect for Islam, Scientology, Church of LDS and witchdoctors? Of course not. You probably think they’re deluded or mad. And you’re most probably right.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Redbaiter

    I’m confused, which side are you saying “fuck’em” too?

    The Vandals or the Victims?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    And Billy, you need to know that Mohammed was illiterate.

    The project now known as the Quran was not commenced until long after his death.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. krazykiwi (formerly getstaffed) (9,189 comments) says:

    If you want your religion to be respected, then make a case for why it deserves respect

    Name me the largest Buddhist, Islamic and atheist global aid/relief agencies and then I’ll answer your question.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    getstaffed

    Islam IS a relief agency. Giving alms is a pillar of their belief.

    Most major aid agencies are non-religious

    So what’s religion got to do with aid?

    Can’t we just do what’s right and forget about religion?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    I’m with Reg (419): , scrubone (137): , Redbaiter, Komata (196): , Semper Vita (5):, Kris K (1178), LabourDoesntWork (111), MrTips (39), fatman43us (23), fatman43us (23), Jack5 (1311), LiberalismIsASin (151), OECD rank 22 kiwi (2127),

    Jack5′s comment is at the nub of why action was taken by Christians and good on them.

    My $100 is still available for their legal fund, should it be needed, I also intend to write to the Archbishop and the Bishop of St Matthews so all avenues are covered.

    I’m fed up with the lies and deceits of the Glen Hardy’s, Lloyd Geering’s of Churchianity and the backward smears of the DPF’s of this world when those of the faith stand up to the hypocrites and their behaviours and smart words.

    The DOMPOST used to have an article called “Honest to God” that was anything but, even with a photo of a guy who looked like a vicar. Just shows the deceitfulness of the type.

    I respect Billy Borker and others who are so rabid for at least they are straight up in where they stand even if in their blindness they spout rubbish.

    dimmocrazy (236) Says:
    December 19th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
    Your insight may be on the button and Billy’s ability to not get pinged is something I have wondered about for ages.

    Jesus was speaking for Yahweh as well as Himself here – This is a judgment on all our hearts – whether you acknowledge Him or not.
    Rev 3:16
    http://hubpages.com/question/18873/what-does-this-mean–i-will-vomit-you-out-of-my-mouth
    http://bible.cc/revelation/3-16.htm

    Billy Borker you are right to denounce the hypocrites amongst us in the Church and especially those who have protected them and even assisted them to damage others.
    This is part of what motivated the Old woman (fanatic) I am sure.

    Matt 18:16
    http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=mat&chapter=18&verse=6
    http://www.faithtrustinstitute.org/drupal/blog/marie_fortune/62

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Biomag83 (94 comments) says:

    David,
    you seem to have a chip on your shoulder with regards to the Catholic Church. Your Ignorance regarding Pope Pius the 12th must be corrected.
    1, Pope Pius 11th condeemed the heresy of rascism towards Jews in an encyclical, that encylical was drafted by his Secratery of State Eugionio Paccelli, the future Pope Pius the 12th
    2, Pope Pius the 12 directed that church buildings and property be used as safe haven for the Jews, he even used his own papal summer residence to do this. He devoted a Papal service to the issueing of false baptism certificates for Jews to have
    3, He was going to explicitly condeem Hilter in an encylical but was told not to as it would anger Hitler and do more damage to the Jews, he was told not to this by the Italian Jewish Community. He ripped up the document and threw it in the fire in fustration.
    4, The leader of the Roman Jewish Community was so impressed by Pope Pius the 12th and his efforts to help the Jews that he converted to the Catholic Faith and took the name Eugenio, the actual christian name of Pope Pius the 12th.
    5, Isreal in honour of all the work Pope Pius did on the Jewish peoples behalf created and named a garden for him in Isreal and exist to this day.
    David you are quite balanced when it comes to the Catholic faith ( a chip on both shoulders) so I dont expect your ignorant veiws to change

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    Newsflash: MikeNZ a humble Kiwi man has discovered irrefutable evidence that JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY ROSE FROM THE DEAD!

    Once upon a time, a lawyer (of course not a Christian, good chance he was an Atheist, with a great legal mind) concluded the following:

    “it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . .”

    I am converted!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Tassman (238 comments) says:

    The billboard’s message is a direct attack on Christian principles. Mr. Cardy and his followers have a right to their belief, but when that right imposes on another’s belief that Mr. Cardy is in violation. He has brought the whole of Christian believers into public disrepute.

    Now if some people have reacted violently against Mr. Cardy, it is a reflection of his own violent intention where violence begets violence. The logic of terrorism…. Some would see the reaction as provoked and deserving.

    I don’t know how the Jews’ got into this extreme but in Economic terms, the market has to be expanded as the opposing barrier removed … It was justified in English law where the needs of the majority is greater than the needs of the few. If you look at the ruling class in US, it might teach us that Hitler saw something in advanced that we didn’t ..

    Funny in a same way, some Christians didn’t want their belief to be deviated from the principle act accordingly. Their act too is in agreement with their belief!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. mike tan (433 comments) says:

    Porker, if you made that slimy, disgusting remark about my kid, i would most definetly offer a handsome figure to whoever could trace your physical address for me, what would happen next is best left for one to contemplate

    Be grateful that your sitting there behind the screen you piece of **** wank

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Seán (397 comments) says:

    I can’t see anything for the haze of flint after all the axes DPF just ground….

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Pete George (23,149 comments) says:

    I am still very puzzled as to why this billboard has attracted so much opposition. It seems to have struck a raw nerve, but why? I haven’t yet seen a decent explanation of why.

    The Anglicans who have provoked all this “thought and discussion” have been accused of being non-Christian. What are the minimum beliefs that qualify someone as being Christian? Who has a right to define those minimum beliefs?

    The billboard issue does seem to have brought to the surface a major intolerance of Christians having varying beliefs – amongst Christians. That suggests to me there is no one obvious Christian belief system. Is it that open to interpretation?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    [DPF: But the key question is were there any documents written at the time. Caesar himself authored his gallic and civil war commentaries. He is mentioned in historical documents of the time]

    E.g. the Letters of Cicero.

    In addition, the existence of historical figures like Caesar or Alexander the Great, has a lot of other verifying evidence. For Caesar, there is also numismatic evidence, and archaeological verification of battlefield sites (eg. the work initiated by Napoleon III). Hellenistic cities established in Asia in conformity to the accounts of Alexander’s conquests tend to be fairly compelling.

    The best evidence outside of the bible for the existence of Jesus is that of Josephus in the Jewish Wars. This however, is a fairly minor remark just noting the existence of this sect. It does nothing to establish the existence of the other New Testament characters described in the 4 gospels.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. andrei (2,528 comments) says:

    I am still very puzzled as to why this billboard has attracted so much opposition. It seems to have struck a raw nerve, but why? I haven’t yet seen a decent explanation of why.

    This is the season of Advent. Pete George where Christians prepare to celebrate the birth of Our Lord.
    This poster has taken a giant dump on that – it is the metaphorical equivalent to placing a pigs head in a mosque during Ramadan.

    The consequences raising this poster have been positively restrained compared to what would have happened if that were to be done.

    What are the minimum beliefs that qualify someone as being Christian?

    The Nicene Creed


    I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; True God of True God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made;
    Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.
    And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried.
    And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
    And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
    And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.
    And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the prophets.
    In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
    I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
    I look for the resurrection of the dead;
    And the life of the world to come. Amen.

    Which is professed by the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, Lutheran Church and the Anglican Church as well as many others as a statement of Faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    So which part of the Nicene Creed does the billboard reject?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. andrei (2,528 comments) says:

    So which part of the Nicene Creed does the billboard reject?

    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; True God of True God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made;
    Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    I don’t get it sorry Andrei.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    krazykiwi (formerly getstaffed) (4565) Says:

    December 20th, 2009 at 12:20 am
    If you want your religion to be respected, then make a case for why it deserves respect

    Name me the largest Buddhist, Islamic and atheist global aid/relief agencies and then I’ll answer your question.

    Are you stupid, or just wilfully ignorant?

    I know nothing of bhudist organisations, but no doubt they exist in countries where bhuddists predominate?

    Have you not heard of the Red Cresent? Its the Islamic Red Cross and the two work closely together. Of course, you don’t see Red cresent collecting on strret corners in NZ but that’s because we have the red cross doing it.

    Atheism is simply a lack of belief, or a rejection, of gods. it has no organisations. And yet there are many atheists who work in relief organisations, some even in religiously named ones. And there are many other relief agencies that do not require a belief in a fairy at the bottom of the garden. Perhaps you have never heard of Medecin sans frontiers? Lions? Rotary? Masons? UNICEF?

    You really are wilfully ignorant, aren’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I don’t get it sorry Andrei. ”

    What the hell is there to get?? Waffle about the Nicene Creed or whatever is just a diversion. The fact is the billboard was designed to insult and offend conventional Christianity, and the thing is that if it were anybody but Christians who were the target of the insult, the Progressives would be endlessly whining about how “inappropriate” the sign was.

    They scream ‘abuse’ and ‘offence’ and ‘appropriateness’ at the drop of a hat, and if this sign was saying something nasty about queers, (for example) the very people decrying the actions of those who defaced it would be cheering them on.

    If this was a sign saying something nasty about Maori, and it was defaced, you’d be saying that it was deserved.

    This feigned outrage is just a demonstration of the bigotry towards Christians that is such a large part of NZ life since Progressivism became politically ascendant. The gullible masses have been politically manipulated by leftists (as usual) to sneer at Christianity, and the reason the left have worked so hard to inculcate this bigotry is that traditional Christianity, like the nuclear patriarchal family, is recognised as an obstacle to the growth of socialism.

    It irritates the hell out of me to witness those who profess to hold liberty in some regard joining forces with those who would enslave us, and denigrating Christians. Thinking they are advocating for freedom while they are in fact assisting the left in fitting the shackles that will one day bind them so securely. Fucking idiots need to wake up.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Oh fuck off Borker you droning narcissistic bore.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Pete George (23,149 comments) says:

    The fact is the billboard was designed to insult and offend conventional Christianity

    That is not a fact. That is your opinion. That you manage to claim that this is part of your major conspiracy theory is not surprising, because that is what you do, but that does not make any of it factual (thank Christ for that), it sounds like the rantings of a narcissistic bore.

    What is conventional Christianity?

    Andre, that explains nothing to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “That is not a fact.”

    It is a fact. The intent of the billboard was to offend conventional Christianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Red, fuck off yourself, you knuckle dragging, cross dressing, anti humanity, palin worshipping, 14th century, biggoted fag.

    The world has moved on and left you and your troglodyte mates behind.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    Redbaiter (8173) Says:

    December 20th, 2009 at 9:07 am
    “That is not a fact.”

    It is a fact. The intent of the billboard was to offend conventional Christianity.

    Even if that was the intent, so what? Offence is all around, if you want to look for it. Grow up, little boy, grow up.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    I think at a minimum, if you are wanting to convince me that the billboard is offensive you have to be able to articulate why it is offensive.

    Simply asserting that those who erected it are not Christian- and intended to offend- go to motive and belief, not fact.

    If the billboard is offensive, then please explain why it is incompatible with the Nicene Creed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Pete George (23,149 comments) says:

    It is intended to challenge stereotypes about the way that Jesus was conceived and get people talking about the Christmas story.

    Obviously a lot of Christians don’t like their beliefs being challenged. But why shouldn’t they be challenged? It seems that some Christians are trying to find a way to become relevant in a modern highly scientific world, knowledge has moved on a lot in the past two thousand years. Even Christianity has changed a lot in that time.

    A minor questioning of Christianity by Thomas Aitkenhead 1696 resulted in a show of Christian intolerance and his subsequent execution by the church. That was one catalyst in the Scottish Enlightenment. Perhaps, after the furor has died down, the billboard will lead to a little more enlightenment. I think that was the aim of the billboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I think at a minimum, if you are wanting to convince me that the billboard is offensive you have to be able to articulate why it is offensive.”

    I’m not “wanting to convince you” Clint. If you are so full of self deceit as to seek refuge in the claim that a billboard that so obviously mocks the regard that conventional Christians have for their religious and spiritual icons is not offensive, then you are beyond help. Think what you like.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” I think that was the aim of the billboard. ”

    The aim of the billboard, no matter what arse covering garbage the owner comes up with, was to offend. He knew it would, and that is why he erected it.

    And why don’t you for once tell the truth about what you think, which is that Christians need to go down, and the sooner the better so that the Marxist political construct you obsess over can achieve the complete social ascendancy you want it to.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. TCrwdb (246 comments) says:

    DPF you are drawing a long straw here – they targeted the offending item and did not widen their actions to include other people/property. Those who defaced/vandalized the billboard need to be ready to accept the consequences of thier actions. However comparing them with islamic extremists is liberal hand-wringing at its finest.

    When are we going to see similar headlines from yourself re the intolerance of warmists (the new fundamentalist religion)?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Pete George (23,149 comments) says:

    No sign of enlightenment in some quarters.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. andrei (2,528 comments) says:

    I think at a minimum, if you are wanting to convince me that the billboard is offensive you have to be able to articulate why it is offensive.

    You do appreciate that the Virgin Mary is a very highly revered figure in Christianity and that she amongst other things represents purity and that sexualizing her is bound to arouse ill feeling.

    Do you have no sense of the sacred at whatsoever?

    Do you ever ask yourself why people feel the need to paint her in excrement, to put her in a condom or to generally trash her?

    Good old Pete George, who has less intelligence than a dead mouse, seems to think doing these things is in some way “enlightened”.

    I personally think they are crass and symptoms of a decaying and degraded culture.

    In the parts of the world where my Church predominates the raising of a poster such as that would almost certainly lead to riots, quite possibly the burning down of the Church concerned and the absolute certainty the defrocking of the Priest.

    Red would approve.

    In “enlightened” New Zealand we leave it up to little old ladies with knitting needles to do the deed and DPF in his wisdom equates such people with Islamic beheaders.

    That being said, since this is New Zealand where such displays are passion is frowned upon I would have preferred the utterly disgusting thing remain on display to condemn those who put it up.

    And the cretinous “clergyman” who put it up is primping and preening about dialogue, respectful engagement and the other such wiffle. Well he’s just an overblown pansy IMHO, a weakling who couldn’t get a real job so he hides behind the skirts of the Anglican Church, who haven’t got the cojones to deal with him even though he denies the most basic tenets of the Faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    My $100 is still available for their legal fund.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    @krazykiwi

    If you want your religion to be respected, then make a case for why it deserves respect

    Name me the largest Buddhist, Islamic and atheist global aid/relief agencies and then I’ll answer your question.

    Are you suggesting that the respect due to the stories and tenets of a religion should be determined by the amount of good done by people of that religion or in it’s name? Presumably on a per-head basis and normalised for income etc?

    How much respect do you have for the golden tablets, the Angel Moroni and the advanced pre-Columbus civilisation described by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon? Not much, I’m guessing. Yet the Church of LDS does a lot of good work and lot of young people get a fully-funded university education at Brigham Young University on their dime.

    What about the personality cult called Destiny Church? They apparently do a lot of good work in their community and have helped a lot of people who were off the rails. Scientology? It’s a pure money-making scam, but a lot of people credit it with changing their lives. Tom Cruise says it helped him overcome dyslexia. That may be true, but it doesn’t mean we should be respectful of the spaceship stories.

    The good done by church and it’s members and the respect due to it’s stories and tenets are two separate things. It’s possible for a church to be based on a complete load of rubbish, but still be a force for good.

    Anyway, my point was, if you question the veracity of the stories or tenets of Christianity, a certain group of Christians fall into automatic victim mode. We’re being ridiculed. We’re being mocked. Where is the automatic respect we’ve come to expect for our faith? But they’re just feeling sorry for themselves. There is no automatic respect for beliefs just because you hold them dear. Respect people yes, but not patently absurd stories and ideas.

    And they’re reacting in a way which helps to perpetuate the religion. It’s fantastically convenient. If someone points out an inconsistency in a core tenet of your faith, it is better for the religion if you get defensive and angry. This stops you from thinking about what the person has said. You’re too busy getting offended. This is Controlling Peoples’ Minds 101. Keep the group looking inward by maintaining a state of siege.

    If you want respect for your ideas and beliefs, then get some which command respect. Absurd stories from pre-history don’t really cut it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Reid, do you consider Mosques, Hindu Temples, Mormon Churches etc to be an affront to the tenets of your faith?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. reid (16,062 comments) says:

    No, I just think they’re mistaken in their views, malcolm.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Fair enough.

    If a gentle poke at the virgin birth story is so offensive, I would have thought a church devoted to teachings which deny Mary, the Virgin Birth, Jesus, Jesus as God etc would be a complete affront and warrant rather more than just “I just think they’re mistaken in their views”. It seems to be all out of proportion.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Ryan Sproull (7,056 comments) says:

    If a gentle poke at the virgin birth story is so offensive, I would have thought a church devoted to teachings which deny Mary, the Virgin Birth, Jesus, Jesus as God etc would be a complete affront and warrant rather more than just “I just think they’re mistaken in their views”. It seems to be all out of proportion.

    I suspect the difference is one of sincerity.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    Thankyou Andrei for your explanation, that does help.

    Nonetheless, I don’t see how the billboard violates the Nicene Creed. The Creed does not assert that the Virgin Mary was a perpetual virgin. The NT makes reference to Jesus having brothers (and a sister)- James is mentioned with regularity. Unless human reproductive biology has changed dramatically in the last 2000 years, I’m guessing that Joseph might have been around at the right time for these later conceptions.

    If the offense is that the billboard implies that Joesph and Mary had sex, then, there seems to be decent documentary antecedents for that. And it certainly doesn’t make it an anti-Christian message. The Christian message is a story of a sacrifice, resurrection and forgiveness. And it is also a story that says the most important event nearly 2000 years ago, was the birth of Jesus. (Which did seem to me, to be the point of the billboard).

    So how exactly did the billboard violate the Nicene creed? What tenet of Christianity has been attacked?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. thedavincimode (6,578 comments) says:

    Great to see borker into training for ANZAC Day.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. andrei (2,528 comments) says:

    Chthoniid;
    I hold with the perpetual virginity of Mary, of course, the idea that she was not is a very recent one that arose in Protestantism – the counter arguments are linguistic and cultural and can be discussed by Christians without rising to much passion. That is not the reason why this billboard has caused upset and outrage.

    The reason it has caused such upset is that “joke” is the implication that God the Father had sex with Mary and St Joseph does not measure up in bed compared to God – but you get the “joke” I didn’t really need to explain it to you.

    The good vicar had this to say in a press release issued before the billboard went up

    In its ongoing effort to provokeconversation about spiritual matters, St Matthew-in-the-City will be putting up a Christmas billboard on Thursday that lampoons literalism and invites people to think again about what amiracle is. Is the Christmas miracle a male God sending forth his divine sperm, or is the miracle that God is and always has been among the poor?

    It will feature an illustration that may disturb some. Mary and Joseph are in bed. Joseph looks down dejected. Mary looks sad. The caption reads: “Poor Joseph. God is a hard act to follow.”

    It is intended to challenge stereotypes about the way that Jesus was conceived and get people talking about the Christmas story.

    A clear rejection of the conventional Christian belief in the incarnation of Christ and a rejection of the Nicene Creed.

    I am unsure just how you see the birth of Jesus in anyway reflected in that billboard – rather it seems to be about an act unsatisfactory copulation .

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. billyborker (1,102 comments) says:

    andrei, never could understand why xtians get so hung up on sex. Surely M&J did it; a sexless marriage is unnatural and against god’s command. Do you also believe Jesus remained a virgin his entire life? If so, what was the point of his incarnation if it wasn’t to be a Man and all that entails, including sex?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    Thanks for trying to explain things Andrei.

    Nonetheless, you haven’t exactly shown that the billboard contradicts the Nicene creed- only that the version of Christianity you follow. Clearly there are many Churches who hold to the Nicene Creeds but not to perpetual virginity. Now I take the point that the siblings referred to in the NT may have been brothers in a metaphorical sense. The language of the bible is of course, rich in metaphor and symbolism.

    As an outsider however, the view that the virgin birth was meant in a literal sense- but siblings in a metaphorical- is no more compelling than the view that the virgin birth was meant in a metaphorical sense and siblings in a literal sense. So I’m not convinced that St Matthews is in conflict with doctrine, merely some Christian groups’ interpretation of the same.

    Given that Christianity uses the language of myth and metaphor a lot, I saw the billboard in that context. There was a superficial meaning, and a deeper meaning. The parable of the Good Samaritan afterall, isn’t a story about the first-aid skills of Samaritans. So I looked for these other meanings.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    What’s missing in this thread is the reality that:

    there was never a Joseph (in terms of husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus)

    there was never a Mary (in terms of mother of Jesus)

    there was never a Jesus (in terms of a literal Jesus)

    There is no God (note: the word “probably” is a redundancy in this sentence, regardless of what you may see on the odd bus about town)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    It is absolutely abbhorent for anyone to judge anyone else because of their religious beliefs or FAITH.

    Oh but hang on isn’t that exactly what THEY do behind their closed doors?

    Those SINNERS those NONE BELIEVERS will burn in Hell for all eternity! Kill those Heathens! Burn them alive.

    Conversation with the average Christian:

    “I am better than you?”

    “How do you know?”

    “I have faith.”

    Conversation with average Robert Black:

    “I am better than you.”

    “How do you know?” (Christian).

    “You are a weak or creepy or illogical or all three. Nature decides everything.”

    “I will pray for your soul.”

    “I will buy you a beer.”

    END.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    The Billboard doesn’t have to contradict any creed.

    So called-christians who have control of a church deliberately denigrated the sincerely held faith of many thousands here and billions around the world.
    They chose to make light/lampoon the central position of the faith that God chose Mary to bring our saviour to earth.

    He did not have sex with her as is alleged by the so called-christians.
    This is a sacred thing as the creator of the Universe (all that is seen and unseen) chose to enter this time/space continum
    to offer us a way back to Him as he loves and cherishes us.

    Knowing this they then made light of the relationship between Jospeth and Mary, a man who brought up Jesus as his own and defiled the divine with a puerile and tasteless opinion. (this by so called sensitive and caring people acting with love!)
    They then lied about their reasoning as they lie about their faith position.

    Now when members of their own congregation take action against their perfidy all the antichrists rise up in support of them and moan about private property and rights.

    Because the Anglican church is compromised and has compromised the faith as we know it, the real Christians should throw out the so called christians as per 1 cor 5,6 using matt 18 principles.
    They won’t as they are man led not God led and most of the people in the Anglican church are, pew warmers not Christians, as if they were they wouldn’t tolerate their leadership being compromised by voting them in.

    Similarly they refuse to leave the Anglican Church as they would have to leave their Buildings as they aren’t owned by the individual congregations but by the different bishop/diocese and therefore they wouldn’t have a church to worship in.
    So showing their hearts controlled by religious spirits not freely given to God. (They need to repent of this)

    And yes Billy this includes many people in many denominations. The true church is within the visible church and rightly, that also means some in the visible church haven’t chosen God yet and could end up in hell like you.
    As no one will be in heaven who does not want to be with Him.

    One of the three things Jesus accomplished was to do away the OT church, so that no one need go to a holy building for a holy time with a holy man, who in our time in some of the houses dresses in a dress with his/her collar on backwards.
    This has been done away with, we are the priesthood of all believers truely, there is NO laity/Clergy that is a construct of man and controlling spirits. That people accept and allow to control them and theirs in error.

    This is churchianity not Christianity and my message to the people who call themselves Anglicans before Christians is cleanse the leaven or leave and join other fellowships or house churches who do respect and Love God and His church.
    If you honoured God before man He will honour you but whilst you are wedded to your buildings, prayerbook, icons, catechisms/dogma and things you are not really his.

    To all on this list there is no discussion or need to explain to you anything as you are heathen and have chosen to put yourselves away from God, you do not want to know at all, but seek to endlessly entangle, just as you support the defamers and those who ridicule our faith by pretending to be part of us.

    That is your choice and as nice a people as you are, you do not hold yourself to the brethren and therefore the brethren have no obligation to you in this. This is viewed as pearls before swine pictorially for those of you who are visuals.

    I respect your right to your faith position and your choice. But do not accept your protestations that our faith should not affect our positions nor prose with you and the wider world.
    Indeed our own NZBORA recognises this by stating very clearly that the right to exchange info on religion is enshrined as a basis of NZ law and supercedes all NZ law.

    Should you not accept that information that is your right and if you bring up the issue or similar then don’t moan if someone of faith responds, similarly a faith (even yours) is a 24/7 thing not a compartmentalised thing, that is a construct you cliong to to control dialogue and time/space and we reject this position utterly.
    Therefore all areas of life are subject to faith/worldview just as your own faith position affects and influences your thinking, decisions and actions too.

    So it will be natural for your worldview and ours to differ even clash because of that, as will our viewpoints and discussion, just as sometimes there will be points of convergence too.

    The long and short of this is so called christians deliberately inflamed and offended people over a special and sacred thing to them and actions were taken to remove the offending (from within the congregation as well it seems). The offenders should be thrown out and not be given access to the place/space to show them and the world that there is a line drawn and an expectation of behaviour.

    Personally I doubt that will happen for if it were then all the homosexuals, adulterers and other blasphemers would also have to be asked to repent or leave as per 1 cor 5,6 and as they are riddled with them that would be such a schism the like as not to have been seen ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Jesusonarollerbalde, Mike. Not sure I can follow any of that, sounds a bit like the crap spouted in churches to me,.

    And why would a loving god condemn me to hell?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Gulag (162 comments) says:

    Lets get things in proportion, two lunatics out of hundreds of thousands of peaceful tolerating Christians, the percentage of vandals is extremely low.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Gulag, you obviously haven’t read the bile above from these “tolerating’ Christians.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Gulag (162 comments) says:

    Christianity does need a lot of development.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    Lets get things in proportion, two lunatics out of hundreds of thousands of peaceful tolerating Christians, the percentage of vandals is extremely low.

    But they’re not lunatics, they’re not claiming to be insane and nobody who has endorsed their action is saying that they are insane.

    They are “real” or “conventional” Christians, who believe they’ve got a free pass to ‘go medieval’ on other Christians.

    It is an ugly and unpalatable snapshot of Christianity in NZ, that I suspect will accelerate the decline in religious participation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Scott (1,724 comments) says:

    Mike NZ — I think I know where you are coming from. My take on this is that the church in question — St Matthews in the city was keen to be provocative. They were very provocative and other Christians took offence.

    I understand what people mean by tolerance — in that this shows Christians to be intolerant. However tolerance is a weak virtue in my opinion. I think honesty and integrity are far more important. I cannot understand how ministers can draw a salary and claim to be ministers of the gospel, when they deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith. This seems to me to lack integrity. If they don’t believe, then the honest thing to do is to resign.

    Sadly this episode draws attention and gives publicity to the very liberal end of the church, which in my experience seems to be fading away. The liberal churches tend to be characterised by falling attendances and an ageing congregation. The growing and vibrant churches tend to be characterised by their strong faith in the reliability of scripture. In this light the billboard by St Matthews in the city might be seen to be an act of desperation by a declining church.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Scott (1,724 comments) says:

    Replying to Luc Hansen — “there was never a Joseph (in terms of husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus)
    there was never a Mary (in terms of mother of Jesus)
    there was never a Jesus (in terms of a literal Jesus)
    There is no God (note: the word “probably” is a redundancy in this sentence, regardless of what you may see on the odd bus about town) ”
    Those are pretty extreme statements. It is very hard to prove that there is no God. Especially for those who know him.
    However the statement that there never was a Jesus is one that is normally made by only the most extreme atheists. For those that are more open-minded the evidence for Jesus is not hard to find.

    We have four accounts of Jesus life, written by eyewitnesses — Matthew the tax collector who became a disciple of Jesus, Mark who was probably a teenager at the time but is generally regarded as recording Peter’s version of events. Peter was the fisherman who became a disciple of Jesus and was one of his closest friends. Luke the physician and historian, who appears in the book of Acts, who carefully investigated the events of Jesus life and wrote an historical account. And finally John, who along with Peter, was a fisherman who became a disciple and was one of Jesus closest friends and companions.

    Most scholars now believe these accounts were written in the first century, well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses, who could contradict any falsehood in these accounts.

    Other corollary evidence includes the rapid rise and expansion of the Christian Church which by 400 AD had spread across the known world and become the official religion of the Roman Empire.
    Also of course our calendar is based upon the birth of Christ as its starting point. We live in the year 2009 A.D., ano domini, which means “in the year of our Lord”.

    Those are genuinely interested in investigating this issue further — I would recommend the book by Josh McDowell “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” as a good summary.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. andrei (2,528 comments) says:

    It is an ugly and unpalatable snapshot of Christianity in NZ, that I suspect will accelerate the decline in religious participation.

    A little hyperbolic don’t ya think Chthoniid? An outraged little old lady with knitting needles – “ugly and unpalatable”.

    I see it as an example of robust debate myself – The good vicar himself said he wanted robust debate when he put up his billboard and he got it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Chthoniid (2,029 comments) says:

    andrei, I’m not sure that anyone is really reading these posts anymore, especially as I seem to have joined the routine negative-karma club.

    However, you made the effort to respond civilly and honestly to my queries around the Nicene creed, and I appreciated that.

    Let me just finish up with a number of comments nonetheless.

    As an “outsider” looking at this internecine squabble- seeing an elderly woman propelled by her dark-age superstitions to commit vandalism is a bad look. Perhaps if the incident was restricted to just one person, yes, I may have been hyperbolic. But the vandalism extended beyond said woman and was endorsed by others. It was an ugly and unpalatable look at the antagonism some conservative Xtian groups had towards their liberal brethren.

    Second, I don’t think vandalism is a debating technique, it is a censoring technique.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. A.J.Chesswas (4 comments) says:

    You might like this David ;)

    http://renaissancetwentyone.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/billboard-vigilante-facebook-group/

    After all, it is only a Billboard isn’t it. If it doesn’t offend you, who do you care so much about it? Maybe because it tickles your fancy, and you like to offend and insult for its own sake just liken Cardy.

    Grow up, and let us have fun vandalising billboards in the meantime ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Scott

    Sadly this episode draws attention and gives publicity to the very liberal end of the church, which in my experience seems to be fading away

    When we say we are His we are called to worship God not lampoon Him, you don’t lampoon someone you love to the whole world, especially those that hate Him.

    The hypocrisy of the Cardy’s of this world is truly wicked as they know the downside of what they do to the church per se. I don’t know what is worst, their deliberate offense against people of faith or the weak will and lack of leadership of the Anglican church. If I were part of an Anglican parish I would be mortified to be associated with hypocrosy like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Mike I gave you a thumbs up for your 8:49 am. I couldn’t really follow it to be honest but thanks for taking the time to write it. Cheers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Apologies Malcolm
    I’m sorry it came out not coherent, sadly it was a vent, I could have done better.
    I was angry at the posters not dealing to the intention of Cardy and his ilk, but trying to deflect into creeds and other stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Robert Black (423 comments) says:

    Why do 98% of Christians have that weird glazed look in their eyes? I mean they don’t do drugs or get drunk. I like the 2% with the clear eyes. I guess all the rest are just on auto-pilot, either that or certifiably insane.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. kiwichristian (15 comments) says:

    Please do not label anglicans as “christians”, nor catholics, etc.

    Modern denominations are so far removed from BIBLICAL Christianity, it is a joke.

    There is a difference between “intolerance” and biblical-inspired righteous judging and reproving of perversions of the gospel.

    A bible-believing Christian ought not to have fellowship with so-called “Christian” who is deliberately and blatantly disobeying the Word of God.

    We should not separate ourselves from those people living ignorantly in sin, and we should spread the truth of Gods word with them.

    “Condemn” is another great word that gets used far too much.

    A true Christian bases his opinion/feelings on the Word of God. We ought to love sinners, yet the the sin.

    When true Christians fight non-biblical false religious cults like islam, catholicism, destiny “church”, etc, this is not being “intolerant”. We are commanded in thee Word of God to rebuke and reprove false teachings. We do this with love for the members of these cults as we do not wish them to end up in Hell, which according to the Bible, is exactly where they re heading.

    Dean.

    http://christian-truths2.blogspot.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Grant Michael McKenna (1,156 comments) says:

    Ooooh- I’m not a Christian! I’m an Anglican! Thanks for clearing that up kc.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Grant
    if you consider yourself and refer to yourself as an Anglican before a christian then you might consider you have an idolatory issue.
    This is true of any denom not just Anglican :-)

    Christian first last and foremost, you just are part of an Anglican fellowship/parish would be ok.
    Anything else beware.
    If you are Jesus’s and only His then you have no worries.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. kiwichristian (15 comments) says:

    MikeNZ.

    You certainly have worries when you love the Lord Jesus Christ and then go ahead and dishonor and disobey Him by rejecting His word and actively practice heresy and blasphemies.

    You cannot bastardize the Word of God and call yourself “Christian”.

    Their own Official Anglican Statement of Faith condemns them! According to the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church of Canada from The Book of Common Prayer, 1959, pg. 698-714…

    XXVII. Of Baptism.

    Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church: the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” (The 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church of Canada from The Book of Common Prayer, 1959, pg. 698-714).

    Heresy! Damnable heresy! They state above, “…they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church: the promises of forgiveness of sin…” There is NOT one verse in the entire Bible that requires a person to be baptized to have their sins forgiven. When Jesus said to the man sick of palsy in Mark 2:5, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee,” He didn’t tell the man to get baptized. Jesus forgave and healed that sick man on the spot, without baptism! How foolish are those unscrupulous Bible teachers who fail to study the Word of God, to understand it’s true meaning. Many people fail to understand Acts 2:38. If you’d like to know much more about Biblical baptism, then I highly recommend A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION OF BAPTISM, by Pastor Max D. Younce, Th.D.

    Baptismal regeneration is of the Devil, i.e., the heresy that a person must be baptized to go to Heaven. Here is another helpful article, that I think really makes an excellent point concerning baptism. It is so simple folks. No one in the Old Testament was ever required to be baptized; but rather, we read in Genesis 15:6 that Abraham “believed God” and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Romans 4:5 plainly states, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” What is there not to understand? Listen my friend, you’d better forget, and forsake, the 39 articles of the Anglican faith, and rather obey the Word of God! In fact, there is a Scripture which tells us exactly that in Romans 3:4, “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar…” Men are liars, who tell you that you must be baptized in order to be saved. The entire purpose of 1st John being written, according to 1st John 5:13, was so that we could KNOW that we have eternal life … “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life…” Carefully notice–NO MENTION is ever made of being baptized. In fact, the words “baptize,” “baptism,” or “baptized” is NOT mentioned in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd John. If baptism were necessary for salvation, surely the Apostle John would have mentioned it.

    Just as the heretic Martin Luther, the Anglican Church teaches and rests upon the damnable demonic doctrine of baptismal regeneration. When Jesus witnessed the Gospel to Nicodemus in John Chapter 3, He never mentioned baptism. When Jesus witnessed the Gospel to the Samaritan woman, at the well, in John Chapter 4, He never mentioned baptism. In Acts 16, when a Roman prison-guard fell at Paul’s feet and asked, “What must I do to be saved,” Paul responded … “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Again, no mention was made of being baptized. How ridiculous is the notion, that God would deny someone access into Heaven, simply because they failed to perform some self-righteousness religious act. Salvation is of the heart, not by religious ceremonialism. Only by believing upon Jesus Christ, because of the precious blood which He shed for us, can we be saved. Jesus said He is the Door into Heaven (John 10:9). Salvation is as simple as walking through a Door, and that Door is Jesus. Simply trust Him now, to forgive all your sins, believing upon Him as your personal Savior.

    Dean.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Kiwichristian

    When Jesus said to the man sick of palsy in Mark 2:5, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee,” He didn’t tell the man to get baptized. Jesus forgave and healed that sick man on the spot, without baptism!

    Thus proving that Jesus was as pig ignorant as his contemporaries. Wouldn’t the “Son of God” have known the true cause of palsy? No, he wouldn’t, because 2000 years ago, nobody knew. Jesus was a fakir, an ignoramous and a grand pretender.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Hi Billy
    Hows your day going?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Dean
    My post was about the idolatry we allow ourselves to get into.

    John 3:1-5
    What does it mean to be baptised of the Water and Spirit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Mike, all my days are wonderul. One of the beauties of being a rational human is i know this life is all I get, so I enjoy it to the fullest. Food, wine, song, sex, good music and literature, a charming set of friends who don’t hassle me about fairytales, a good income that meets all my needs and a wonderful home. Isn’t it great not to have to worry about rewards and punishments to come?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Billy
    I am very please your day is going so well.
    Are you on holiday at present?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. visionfudge (1 comment) says:

    I would encourage you all to check out this clip from ‘visionfudge’:

    Are Christians just being intolerant?

    Cheers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.