大象传媒

I have no problems with the Pope coming in a pastoral role to visit his flock but I believe the following mistakes have been made.

Financially, we the tax payer should not be paying for this visit, it should be funded entirely by the Roman Catholic Church, it is certainly not short of a few bob.

Morally: HM government should not be meeting him, in light of the pedophile scandals that have gone right to the top of his organization.

Constitutionally: HM the Queen should not meet him, as she took an oath to defend the Protestant faith which is totally at odds with the Roman Catholic religion. See a few listed below.

To Christ鈥檚 word, RC tradition is added.
To Christ鈥檚 headship, the pope is added.
To Christ鈥檚 unique role as mediator, Mary is added.
To Christ鈥檚 finished and complete sacrifice, the Mass is added.
To Christ鈥檚 high priestly office, the confessional box is added.
To Christ鈥檚 righteousness, self righteousness is added.
To Christ鈥檚 grace, self merit is added
To faith, works is added
To heaven and hell, purgatory is added.

鈥淎nd I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: 鈥︹�� Rev17.6

Pope Benedict this morning received in private audience the archbishops of Westminister and Edinburgh and Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor to discuss his forthcoming State Visit to Britain. Sadly, news of Dr Paisley's comments will not have reached them in time to get on to the agenda but I'm sure they would at this stage agree with him that accepting the invitation to make a State Visit was a mistake.
Even if one believes the worst of Joseph Ratzinger he hardly ranks amoung the scoundrels the Queen has had to welcome on State Visits to Britain over her long reign.
Pope Benedict was most gracious to Charles and Camilla when they visited the Vatican and has shown great cordiality on several occasions to Rowan Williams. It is only to expected that these courtesies will be reciprocated when he visits their country. Many Catholics will be looking forward to the Queen's State Visit to Ireland next year, but maybe not quite so many if the Pope gets roughed up in Britain.

There is no reason to suppose that the Pope is in any danger of being "roughed up". No-one, as far as I know, has threatened violence.

However, as the head of an organisation which conspired to hide the rape of children by its staff, he may be arrested and charged with crimes arising from that conspiracy. Given the seriousness of the crimes, any citizen would be justified in making a citizen's arrest and trying to ensure that justice is done. No-one is above the law, not even the head of a state which was created by the fascist dictator, Mussolini, in 1929.

Certainly Dr Paisley has never threatened violence against Catholics.

The Government should be doing everything in its power to see that paedophile priests are brought before the courts; not spending taxpayers money on the Pope's visit. Important questions still need answering about the precise role of the Pope in the paedophile priest scandal that has engulfed the Catholic Church. Is there any organisation in the world that has had more paedophiles than the Catholic Church?

I find it completely daft some of the arguements put forward in this blog.

lets look at the following.

1. The pope is actually visiting as head of state, not as a religious leader as every head of state has the right to do so, and as every head of state gets govermnment funds to aid the security of the trip, what the hell is unusual. Even those we regard as tyrants and corrupt are given this priviledge and have been seen weekly galavanting with the queen, like the chinese officials for example, who are not regardeed as fair and open.

2. Many people like to rake up history of abuse, we all have abuse on our hands, the sovereign states and the british empire which used drugs to sell to expand the empire and forcing millions of Chinese into dependancy on opium, the knighthoods and awards givem to tyrants like in Zimbabwee. How far do we want to go! come on, are we all just so naive we go for the ususal " oh they must be child abusers stance"

3. I could talk for hours on wrongs and horrors I have seen in my travels around this world yet we focus on the horrible acts of evil men just in this catholic organisation, why? is it easy or is it fashionable! beats me.

kierantherock,
No head of state has the right to visit, they have to be invited.

Why do, admittedly few, catholics continue with this attempt to deflect from the crimes of their church by trying to point out everybody elses failings or to blame it on everyone else.

Is

"loads of other people rape women"

a valid defence in court, no, so let your church and the guilty people within it stand up and pay the price for what they have done.

The authorities will catch up with the rest too, that is their issue not yours.

I am against the visit for two reasons

1) the unanswered questions around Ratzingers involvement in the cover up of cases of child abuse and rape within the catholic church and

2) His actions to subvert democracy in other countries including the UK by interfering with the law creation process and threatening people with hell if they do not do what he says.

Dr Hamilton, Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, seemed to have some breakfast marbles in his mouth during this morning's interview. When asked the question about whether he agreed with Dr Paisley he could not give a straight answer - instead he started talking about the Queen being for the visit and how he supported the Queen. Perhaps a lifetime of referring to the Bible for answers has rendered him unable to give one himself: his stock will have fallen dramatically after such a poor performance.

William loved the comment - *'so you're happy to have dinner with him but not communion'* - classic

'Constitutionally: HM the Queen should not meet him, as she took an oath to defend the Protestant faith which is totally at odds with the Roman Catholic religion'

Actually, I believe the title 'Defender of the Faith' was originally given to Henry VIII by the Pope for his defence of the Catholic faith against the 'heretic' Martin Luther. Ironic, isn't it?

Henry VIII was never a Protestant, just a rather Bad Catholic.

The Queen and other members of her family have been welcomed to the Vatican by successive Popes. Pope John Paul II was invited to afternoon tea at Buckingham Palace in 1982. Cardinal Basil Hume in 1999 was conveyed from his death bed to Buckingham Palace to receive the Order of Merit from Her Majesty. Good religion and good manners go together

Like all Catholic clergy Pope Benedict has taken various oaths over the years to defend the Catholic faith yet he seems really to enjoy meeting Jews and Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists, Atheists and Communists and, yes, even Protestants.

Sadly there are enclaves of sectarianisn in every religion, every religion seems to attract a nasty, noisy minority of adherents with personality disorders.

Eunice
There is a big difference between the Lord's Supper and the Mass.
Lord Supper is for those you have repented (turn from sin) and put their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ ONLY as their Saviour. It is a symbolic remembrance service of the Lord鈥檚 death, I personally thank the Lord for living for me, dying for me, rising again for me, keeping me, forgiving my sins and giving me eternally life. Thanking Him for going through all that physical, mental and spiritual torture, so that I may life and be saved.

The Mass however is an attempt to repeat the once, unique, completed sacrifice of the Lord at Calvary for the forgiveness of sins for people alive or dead.

How can a priest call the resurrected Lord Jesus down from heaven and into bread and wine?
Why does this sacrifice need to be repeated, was Calvary not enough?
How can drinking bread and wine forgive sins?

Jesus said 鈥溾�t is finished鈥� (the work of redemption) John 19:30

Peter said 鈥�...but by his own blood he entered in ONCE into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.鈥� (only one sacrifice for sins) Hebrews 9:12

It's just a ritual. Nothing actually *happens*. I refer the honourable collective to the piece Will did with PZ Myers, whose antics with a cracker caused such fun last year. The worst people could say about it was that some people might have their feelings a bit hurt coz they believe absurd things about some foodstuffs.

savedbygrace: thanks for the info. I understand your perspective but I have a different view. To my understanding we can only save ourselves by how we live each day and the choices we make - and Jesus showed/demonstrated how to do this and live the ways of love. If I 'sin' to use your terminology that has consequences for me irrespective of whether I 'believe' in Jesus or feel I am 'saved' by Jesus - everything we do has a consequence that plays out in this lifetime and future ones.

Eunice, I understand where you a coming from here, but it does raise some further questions. If we can be saved by our own choices, why did God sent his Son to die on the cross? How do you know if you have made enough good choices to get to heaven. What if you are 2 short?

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not 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, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"

Lord Bless

Savedbygrace: I understand you are coming from a traditional understanding of Christianity but again I have different understandings. For me, God did not send his son to die on the cross - but Jesus was killed by those who did not recognise him as the true and soulful master that he was. For me, every human being is a son of God, with the same potential to live as Jesus lived and do what he did - to embody the love of God ie. Christ. Jesus knew who he was and claimed it and lived it and was more evolved than most of us are currently - because he had lived many previous lives and saved himself by his choices and come to know God and Truth and lived it. Everyone will end up in heaven eventually......to my understanding there is no hell, there is nothing to fear for God is love and nothing you can do or say will make God love you more or less. Again, to my understanding we each live many lives on the return journey to God - and for me that is consistent with a God that is all loving that says take as long as you like - I will always be here for you - but we have free will and have to return by our own choice and by living the ways of love because that is our true nature.
It is about empowering people to know that they are a son of God and that the kingdom of God/love is within each person - that they can live according to the ways of love and save themselves - knowing that they are love. "have I not told you these things and more you shall do'
'Ye are all sons of the most high"

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Read the rest of the chapter.

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations"

Why would a God that is only a God of love in your view, curse men to death and judge the earth?

Yes God is love and He has loved us all equally.

"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation (payment) for our sins." 1John 4:10

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13

But God is also a Holy and righteous God who will punish unrepentant sinners who have rejected the sin sacrifice of his Son.

"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation" Hebrews 2:3

Ian Paisley's antipathy to Roman Catholicism, the Roman Catholic
Church and the Papacy has been well to the fore throughout his public
life, political and religious.

In a Sunday Sequence interview on 3rd October 1999 he stated that
Roman Catholicism was idolatrous and non-Christian because it
celebrated the Mass and believed in Transubstantiation.

This raises serious questions:-

By Mr Paisley's definition, that Roman Catholicism is idolatrous and non-
Christian because of the practice of the Mass and belief in
Transubstantiation, the Lutheran Church, the Anglican High Churches,
the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Coptic and Ethiopian Churches
are equally idolatrous and non-Christian. Was/is he seriously pontificating that Martin Luther, who apparently continued to exercise his priesthood after his public disagreement with Rome, was an idolator and not a Christian? (Martin Luther was a priest of the Roman Catholic Church.)

Has it never occurred to Mr Paisley and others that Christianity in any form, Re-formed or un-Re-formed, is idolatrous and blasphemous? Endowing
the concept of "God" with an anthropomorphic image and deifying a man, no matter how virtuous or inspired, blasphemes against the first and second Commandments of the Old Testament; and nothing can be more fundamental to Judeo-Christianity than those two Commandments.

Mr Paisley also claimed in that interview that his brand of fundamentalist Christianity was a reflection of "primative early Christianity".

The Fundamentalism to which he adheres is no doubt derived from the more extreme forms of the Re-formation of Western Christianity inspired by Calvin, Knox and others. One and a half millenia after the beginnings of the Christian Church where did these extreme Re-formers, or later Fundamentalists, get their image of "primitive early Christianity" which Mr Paisley says that Protestant Fundamentalism is? Surely not from the corrupt Scriptures of the despised Roman Church, which would have been the only available source of information. (John Calvin and John Knox were also priests of the Roman Catholic Church.)

Were Luther, Calvin and Knox idolatrous non-Christians prior to the
Re-formation?

Did Christianity lay dormant and not come into being until the
Re-formation?

Mr Paisley's views then sounded similar to those expressed by some
members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland at their General Assembly
a few months earlier in 1999, and discussed by their newly-appointed
Moderator in a Sunday Sequence interview on 13 June 1999. The present
Moderator Norman Hamilton's evasive replies to a repeated direct question on Sunday Sequence on 4th July 2010 suggests either that such views are still held by a substantial number of members and clergy of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland or that he holds such views contrary to more enlightened views possibly now held by some members and clergy or by the Presbyterian Church in general.

Would Moderator Hamilton please enlighten us?

Dennis Golden

Savedbygrace: The God that I know is all loving and does not punish.It is not possible to be all loving and punish. Either one is not all loving and can punish or one is all loving and just loves. THe God of my understanding and experience is the latter. I do not adhere slavishly to every word in the bible as you seem to do but accept that it was written by men approx 2000 yrs ago and who did not all live as Jesus lived and who did not all embody the love and light of God as he did. So I use discernment to decide what is wisdom and what is not, what resonates with my heart as being true and consistent with a God that is all loving and what does not. God does not judge and does not condemn - death is not the end or the great tragedy that we perceive it to be. In my view we are all held in the utmost love that we reject on a daily basis - it is not God that punishes but we who punish ourselves by not realising how truly glorious and amazing we all are but instead prefer to denigrate and rubbish/criticise ourselves at every opportunity or on a frequent basis at least!

From a Roman Catholic perspective, here's why this Pope, not just his visit, is a mistake.

Eunice from your own words, you don't believe the bible to be the Word of God, you pick and mix passages that suit your on heart and carve a image of a god in you own heart that is in contrast to the God of the bible.

Imagine a guy how had abused and killed some children and he was brought before a judge. The judge says I am a judge of complete love, its okay go free, theres no case to answer.

Would that really be a good judge, a loving judge, a righteous judge would that be justice? No that would be an evil and corrupt judge!

If I tell my kids not to play on the road and I find them on it I punish them because I love them and do not want them to be knocked down and killed.

SBG, you punish your kids (I hope humanely and appropriately) because you want to change their behaviour in the future. You want them to learn. What is the purpose behind god sending people who don't believe in Jesus to hell? It's not a deterrent, because no-one here on Earth gets to see it. It's not even clear that not believing in Jesus can be regarded as "wrong" in the sense of even needing punishment in the first place. Or are you a universalist - ALL are saved? After all, if you believe your moniker, that salvation is an act of god's free grace, then you *have* to accept that it's god who makes the call, and he can fill heaven with as many atheists and Muslims as are available. There can't possibly be anything *we* can do to influence that process, whether we "believe" (or pretend we believe, as many people such as Mother Teresa do/did) or not.

Savedbygrace: I knew you would come back with the parental example teaching their children and you have! You are making the classic error in my view of projecting human behaviour and reasons onto God. God is not human but the kingdom of God is within the human being. DIvine love far exceeds any form of human love - it is boundless, without restriction or reason - it loves because that is what it is and it can just love - all of the time without exception. LOve is not love if it sits in judgment - it is then conditional - requiring certain conditions to be fulfilled before it loves - this is human love, not divine love. For me God is not a judge - there is no judgment by God. We judge ourselves and punish ourselves by our own lovelessness and acts of evil that have consequences for us. You have presented a linear snapshot of a scenario and in that scenario it is right to stop the abuser and the behaviour - this can be done whilst also recognising there is a much bigger picture at play for truth is spherical and not linear - it is all encompassing. Thus it is possible to know that the essence of that person is still love and that evil acted through him because he was in separation to that essence and empty of love - it is possible to love him, his essence and also stop the behaviour and the manifestation of evil through him. BTW - for me it is not an image of God in my inner heart but God.

Helio: if one accepts that the kingdom of God is within then there is plenty one can do re salvation! Self -salvation is the way....in my view. :-)

It,s now too late for the big man to try and go back to his fundamentalism and attack the pope, maybe one time, when there was people who used to listen to his words but now they are just hollow and no true Fundamentalist would take him seriously after he has shared power with those who waged a campaign of terror for over thirty years upon the Fundamentalist Protestant Communities.

Most people now know that the big man just used fundamentalism to get where he is today.

Dear Savedbygrace,
As a response to all your comments (particularly your first of July 2nd)
I would suggest that you would do well to do a little studying before passing any further comments. You sound to me as though you are in ministry, if not a Pastor so I venture to suggest you look at the following:
'Where does it say that in the Bible' by Patrick Madrid.
'The Lambs Supper' by Dr Scott Hahn. There you will find biblical exegesis to explain Catholic doctrine in scriptural terms that you would understand.
Further you should also find out who (and where) decided what made up the canon of scripture which makes up the Bible (the inspired Word of God.
Then read what Calvin and Luther had to say about Sacraments.
Then for good measure read all the early Church fathers.
Finally the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas....
Remember that all those who belong to the church (in its widest sense) are all sinners, including you and me.
Finally pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten you as I will.
In His love, maryclare.

Maryclare: just to enlighten you a little - calling people sinners separates them from their essence of love and is really quite harming, not helpful and definitely not healing. You might wish to reconsider your terminology unless you deliberately wish to continue harming people - which I'm sure you don't! :-)

Dear Eunice,
If you would prefer it in 'new-age-speak'...none of us including you and me are perfect, neither our motivations or most of our intentions, and certainly many of our actions. Of course we desire to be good and the best that we can be, but sin does separate us from God, and we need to acknowledge that we are sinners. What is healing is to be united with Jesus who alone is 'The Way, the Truth and the Life'. He also said that 'no-one comes to the Father except through me'. Only He, through His sacrifice for us on the cross, by which He took upon Himself to undergo the punishment we deserve because of our sin, can reconcile us to God, because we are washed clean by His most Precious Blood, if we acknowledge Him as our Lord and Saviour, and receive baptism to signify this. When He died on the cross He was thinking of each one of us individually - He died for each one of us. This salvation is available FOR ALL mankind...how grieved He is that so many think that they can are able to reconnect with God or some notional 'essesnce of love' as you put it through their own efforts, or if they experience some 'warm and fuzzy' feelings that somehow this will be enough to see them to Heaven. This is the myth perpetuated by new age spirituality. I speak from experience having tried to live this liberal agenda...I dabbled in Reiki and yoga healing, I was in a sexual relationship out of marriage and I justified all this to myself by saying never mind God loves me (which indeed He does) BUT I had entirely separated myself from Him through my disobedience. It became a path into the outer darkness, and away from God and any sort of peace of mind. I longed for the peace that being a true child of God had brought me, and that loving relationship with Him, and yes an absolute awareness and sense of His presence around and within me. And believe me there is nothing at all that can compare with being held in the mercy and love of the living God...NOTHING!
So I mean no harm through what I said, but only that others might open themselves to the grace, peace , love and salvation offered by Jesus to all.
I commented originally because the Savedbygrace was making statements about the Catholic Church (as sadly does Dr. Paisley) which is the Body of Christ, that are untrue. However if he/she reads this comment I am sure that it will be apparent that we share more in common than not.

In His love,
maryclare :-)

MAryclare: I have read in that field and been there briefly but no longer do I follow new age. Each has their path and you are happy with yours and I wish you well on it. However, Jesus does not mind one bit about me talking about an essence of love. I know this is not a myth but you can beleive it to be one if you choose. I never mentioned anything to do with 'warm fuzzies'. My understandings do not come from reiki or yoga as it is today.
It is very clear to me and my understanding of the human condition that we can only save ourselves - because we are responsible for all our thoughts/words and deeds - all of which have consequences. In my view a dead Jesus or a living Jesus cannot alter those consequences - only us by our choices. We separate ourselves from God when we do not express (think/say/do) with love. This is just part of being human. It is our lovelessness that separates us from God. To heal that we need to make choices that are from love, with love and in love. Calling people sinners as it is used in the church only makes them feel guilty and adds to the lovelessness that is already there. Instead in my experience people respond better/heal to knowing that they have an essence of love and are just disconnected from it and by taking responsiblity for their choices and making loving choices can heal. SO I will not be calling my self or others sinners because I know it is harming and not healing. You can ignore this of course and carry on using it - just don't expect all of us to agree with you :-)

Savedbygrace

You have to admit, surely, that maryclare's comments sound pretty much like she's... saved by grace.

Maryclare, hi. :-)

Hi there too 2manypeters! Thanks for your comment.

Thanks for your response also Eunice. A thoughtful reply which deserves an equally thoughtful response.

I can agree with you only up to a point...we are responsible for our salvation ONLY insofar as we either accept or reject Jesus' way to salvation as I have outlined above. Otherwise we cannot earn our way to Heaven or back to God. There are two points I think that bear consideration here. All of us fall short of Gods perfection...His perfect Love, and however we try in our human strength, our imperfection cannot ever allow us to be raised us to the same level as God, however hard we try. That said, it is an attitude so filled with pride to think that we can, and many would say that this is the ultimate form of rebellion against God, particularly in these times. I've been there, I speak from experience.
It is the great deception of the New age movement, and although you say you no longer follow new age, you seem to have absorbed its message...the idea that if we are cool enough, loving enough, open enough, that somehow the world will be automatically be a better place. I described this as the 'warm and fuzzies' as associated with this is the quest for a 'feel good experience'. Along with that is the 'fluffy' spiritual language, a bit like the hippy use of 'peace and love' in a attempt to be humanly all inclusive. Jesus offers salvation to all IF we are prepared to accept Him, but because He wants us to come to Him freely, He gives us free will to either accept or refuse Him - to be obedient to Him and to take up the cross He asks us to carry, or to walk away. So many try to live their lives without acknowledging Jesus, who is alive today which is exacly what you have done when you said "In my view a dead Jesus or a living Jesus cannot alter those consequences." This the difference between the false gospel of the new age one world religion, and the real Gospel or Good News of the salvation offered by Jesus. Yes God loves us, but if we choose to exclude ourselves from His salvation then we remain excluded. Sadly that means that there will be folks excluded from the kingdom of Heaven.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave His only Son so that everyone believes in Him may not be lost but may have eternal life. For God sent His Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that so through Him the world might be saved. No-one who believes in Him will be condemned; but whoever refuses to believe is condemned already, because He has refused to believe in the name of God's only Son." John 3 16-18. In fact if you can read the whole of chapter 3 of St.John. These are the words of Jesus...
I can only love in the way that you suggest, through the grace and strength that God gives me, He enables me to love those that humanly speaking I probably ordinarily would not even like let alone love. It is through Him that I can forgive others when otherwise I could not or indeed sometimes would not. He permits and abundantly blesses our human love when it is accordance with His will for us. I cannot love, cannot do this in my own strength. I used to think that I could, and I fell in love in the wrong way, with the wrong person,
in total disobedience to Gods plan for my life. It wreaked havok in my life and in the life of the other person, and though I know I am forgiven for what I have done, I remain very sorry for the damage. I have had to acknowledge and admit my fault and sin before God in order to receive Gods forgiveness and healing in my life, rather as an alcholic needs to declare this before he/she can begin to try to be sober. Failure to acknowledge that one is a sinner leaves one in a state of denial...how does this facilitate healing? Clearly it does not, as my own experience demonstrates.

To conclude...I wrote to address comments by Savedbygrace and also the opinions of Dr Paisley on the Church. I also wrote to address some of your comments. Jesus did not found a divided Church, He founded the one True Catholic(i.e.universal)Church, with St Peter as His first Vicar on earth.
He commanded us to preach the Gospel to all nations. I try to do that wherever I can in the blogsphere. I love the Church as it is His Body - the Body of Christ.

In His love,
maryclare :-)

Maryclare: I only have time at the moment for a short comment. There is absolutely no denial in my approach - nothing less than full and complete responsibility for all our actions/thoughts/words and deeds. There is no passing the buck, no blaming of others and equally no-one saving me but me by my choices - with love or without love. The role of Jesus for me is one of a person who set an example - but we have to live it for ourselves - just saying "JEsus saves me" does not alter the consequences of our actions etc. I appreciate you come from a different understanding and perspective and just as you don't agree with me, I don't agree with you! :-)
So I'm happy to leave it there as for me it's not about persuading you 'my way' is the right way -I'm just sharing my views/understanding and don't need you to agree. Equally I appreciate you doing likewise.
BTW you mentioned a couple of times that you were just addressing comments to savedbygrace - however, writing on a blog does mean others can offer opinions/respond etc to comments you make even if they are addressed to one other person. :-)

Dear Eunice,

Thanks for you reply, however short.
I can 'agree to disagree', but I am not asking you to 'agree' with me per se, but to try Jesus' way and thus I do try to present the Good news of the salvation offered by Jesus Christ...and you have done me the courtesy of reading what I have written. I can no more make you accept it any more than God can...you have the free will to accept or decline.
That there are concequences to our actions I do not deny but God can and does use them and He can 'write straight with our crooked lines'... I did not just 'shout that Jesus saves' but did acknowledge the concequences of my sin. I confessed my sin and was forgiven, because my debt was paid by Jesus, so that I am reconciled to God and His holy Church. An 'acceptance of responsibility' is not quite the same and there is no forgiveness and healing, so the sin remains unresolved...your way indeed does not alter the concequences of our actions, but Jesus' way does.
Your 'denial' is of Christ Jesus as both God and man, Redeemer and Saviour, and your not wanting to acknowlege that we are all sinners. Jesus was not merely a person/man (as one of many) who has 'set an example'
C.S Lewis in his book 'Mere Christianity' said; "A man who was merely a man and said the things that Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was and is the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any
patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

In His love, and bye.
maryclare:-)

CS Lewis missed out the fact that the gospels are not accurate. Lewis has been vastly overrated.

"... the gospels are not accurate."

Well, if you keep saying it for long enough and on as many different threads as possible...

:-)

BTW: "HEE HAW" - very funny.

C.S. Lewis is a much better writer than ever I am or indeed ever will be: that quote just happened to explain what I wanted to say. He was not writing a historical document and neither is the Bible a stricly historical document because it operates on so very many levels. I am not sure what you mean about the Gospels not being 'accurate' or indeed how you arrived at that opinion.
More than that though, 2manypeters and heliopolitan (and everyone...veil tip to Eunice for that), I joined in this thread to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I did not think that it was a forum for individual point scoring or sarcasm. It really matters to me that people come to know the salvation that Jesus offers to all...separation from God is not a matter for levity, either in this life and particularly in the next.
In His love,
maryclare :-)

is he not dead yet, surely if he would move aside and let Gerry Adams
or Martin McGuiness be King of Ulster for Once.
surely Ian can move aside then it would be Gerry
then Martin, then Ian Jr then peter, then
Iris, then Catrina, then maybe we can Have Liz Windsor, then Little William. then Margret Richie, be intresting if there was a King of Ulster surely picking our politicans to be Kings or Queens would be a real laugh we would probelly look for weeks for someone worthy then at the end go across the Irish Sea pick up Queen Lizzie and ask her to be Queen because we couldint find a Worthy Monarch im an Irish Nationalist but it sure sounds funny to me. on the Toppic the Pope aint coming to the North of Ireland so i guess Ian Paisley can just keep his nose out of English, Scottish and Welsh Business surely. if the Pope comes to Ireland then its Our Peoples Business, as long as i dont have to pay for the pope going to great britain since i wont get to see the Holy Father
as the old saying goes ''no taxation without representation'' i wont get to see the pope so why should i pay for it out of my Taxes.




GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
AND THE PRESIDENT
AND OUR HOLY FATHER.

maryclare

I joined in this thread to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I did not think that it was a forum for individual point scoring or sarcasm.

The internet is not a church and this blog is not a pulpit. Unlike your church when the sermon is being given it is usual and even expected that people will stand up and say 'oi mate - that's a load of codswallop' in the middle of the sermon.

Have a look at the /blogs/ni/2010/07/are_you_offended_by_evangelism.html to see what I mean.

You may well be very well intentioned but you will discover that some find your views and your sharing offensive or even laughable.

Do not expect respect for your gospels just because you hold them in high regard, they are not sacred to everyone.

MaryClare, I appreciate your beliefs, but they are YOUR beliefs; I do not believe them to be true. Indeed, with specific reference to CS Lewis, while he writes moderately well, his historical scholarship was very poor.

As for blogs being venues for point-scoring and sarcasm - that is *precisely* what they are for! Welcome on board - it's great to have you along, and I hope you stick around. You may wish to share what you perceive to be the "gospel", but do be aware that many of us have looked into the claims of Christianity and found them to be false. Many of us feel otherwise, and we end up debating these issues endlessly, but despite the performance art, there are not very many people who post here who would not very happily buy a drink for anyone else here, or go out of their way to render assistance, comfort or companionship if such was required.

Can you handle that? I hope so :-)

Cheers,
-Helio

Dear Dave and Helio (et al),
Thanks for your comments.
I stand by what I have said. I accept that not everyone will welcome my views. I had already read most of the thread that was linked.
Sarcasm is often condescending, patronising and unkind, and because of that I try (not always entirely successfully) to avoid using it wherever possible. It smacks of the perpetrator thinking that they have some kind of intellectual superiority over the other. On some of the blogs I frequent, it is used as a tool to silence and stifle, rather than encouraging the sort of witty banter which I think you were referring to re blogging. No-one is won into the Kingdom of God by being beaten in an argument.
I relish honest debate, including that with agnostics and athiests about Christianity and the Catholic Church. Often folks have erroneous beliefs about what the Church believes and teaches...(see savedbygrace 2/07/10) which was what drew me to take part in the first place and why I challenged SBG to go and find out the truth. Dr Paisleys' comments arise from a similar position though I do not doubt their absolute sincerity.
Helio, when you say that you have examined the claims of Christianity and found them false, on what grounds did you judge them and find them wanting? Is it that you found them intellectually untenable and not logical? Have you attempted to use reason to 'prove' the existence of God. Further, have ever you challenged God to reveal Himself to you?
I have to stop here but will continue later on this pm.
Regards maryclare:-)

Am not able to continue commenting tonight Will look tomorrow.
Regards maryclare :-)

Hi Maryclare,
It's not that the claims are illogical - it is that they are untrue. Jesus did not rise from the dead; the resurrection stories are false. He was not the messiah (the whole concept is vacuous nonsense anyway). The non-existence of god is a separate matter, but an *unnecessary* god is as pointless as a non-existent god, and a god who needs me to infarct half my brain in order to "believe" is not worth believing in. If he wants me, he knows where he can find me.
-H

Maryclare,

I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I find the claims of any religion untennable. Mainly because they all rely on faith as their central pillar. Whenever someone begins to talk to me about God, I replace every utterance of the word 'God' with 'Odin', or 'Zeus' or sometimes even 'Magical Sky-monkey'. Once you eliminate the fact they're using terminolgy that is culturally acceptable, you realise that it sounds silly.

Plus, as a scientist and rationalist, the evidence is stacked in favour of a god being irrelevant to the universe. A god might exist, however, if he cannot be proven, has no discernable effect on the universe and belief in him makes no difference to existance, then he may as well not exist.

maryclare
Have you attempted to use reason to 'prove' the existence of God

I think you will find that religion is a failed attempt.

Why would you apply reason to prove something which you want to be true but for which there is no evidence except that you do not have the intelligence to explain it. The only thing you will achieve is a fabrication to support a fiction.

Helio: a god who needs me to infarct half my brain in order to "believe" is not worth believing in.

where do you get the idea from that God needs you to do that?

In my view that happens because we have lived lives in separation to God, not with God, not with love. It is not God's will that that happens - we bring it upon ourselves. That said, these consequences are able to be viewed and understood from a healing perspective - to get us to stop and take stock and re-prioritise. There are plenty of people who will say that cancer was the best thing that ever happened to them precisely for those reasons - it awakens them to a deeper truth about themselves and their lives. However, it doesn't have to be discovered that way - we can learn by wisdom or woe.

Eunice,

You ask:
where do you get the idea from that God needs you to do that? [i.e. infarct half your brain]

And then you go on to say:

There are plenty of people who will say that cancer was the best thing that ever happened to them...

THAT is where I get that idea. Come and sit in one of my clinics some morning, and you will see plenty of people who think that cancer is not really the best thing that ever happened to them, any more than Katrina was the best thing to ever hit New Orleans.

Dear All,
Apologies for the hiatus...I started a trend and then did not get back.

Natman as a scientist...surely the evidence is all around you. The universe did not just happen, neither was the earth some random event let alone the creation of human life. Don't tell me it started with the big bang because something CAUSED that to happen... and God is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Sir Isaac Newton wrote as much about scripture as he did mathematics and science, (and it could be argued that he was the father of modern physics,science and maths) a fact that many are ignorant of. "God is in space without space, and in time without time". (Emmanuel Swedenborg 1689-1772).
"Boundless, endless and sublime. The image of eternity." Lord Byron 1788-1824.
Dave - Religion is an expression of mans' search for God, and mans' wanting to worship him, not a failed attempt to prove His existance. Just because you/we have not got the intelligence to expain God, however imperfectly, does not mean He does not exist.
"The truth is that God alone is wise, and wise omniscience is letting us know that the wisdom of most men is worth little or nothing". Socrates 470-399 BC.
The reason I asked if you/anyone had tried to use 'reason' or intellect to prove/disprove the existance of God is that many have said that intellectually, because they could not conceive of God, ergo He did not exist. I presume that was why Helio said that it required half of his brain to be infarcted...yep He knows where you are, and he loves you where you are, but He respects your your autonomy to live without reference to Him, so it is for you to invite Him in. He is only 'irrelevant' because so many choose to make Him so as far as their own lives are concerned. The handle is on your side of the door....once you do ask Him to come in to your life though, and you finally experience the Presence and love and peace of God, you will wonder what took you so long. You can know Him through the way He speaks through those who are His servants, through His Word (the Bible). Jesus is not a philosophy, but a person who you can know and talk to...you can know Him through prayer, and eventually through receiving Him in the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and in receiving Him in the Eucharist which is His Body and Blood, and in the miracles signs and wonders He works through His servants, once received into His Church.
The other issue is that because of the free will I talked about earlier, many live their lives entirely without reference to God, don't bother asking for the gift of faith or even asking Him to reveal Himself to them.
I meant it when I said there is nothing to compare with feeling and being invaded by the Holy Presence of God...the depth of peace and liberty, and utter love is beyond what my poor words can describe.
As to proof of Jesus existence, there is good support outside of the Bible... Josephus (a Jew), a friend of the emperor wrote about the facts of Jesus life when he wrote his "History of the Jews" in 90AD. Thallus (a non-christian) writing in 52AD mentioned the darkness over all the earth at the time of the crucifiction, was seen in Rome and that people tried to explain it. How many poor Nazarene carpenters do you know that folks are still passionately arguing about, 2000 years after they lived?
I challenge you guys to ask for God to reveal Himself to you,and to simultaneously give you the gift of faith, plus that He uses that great intellect you all have.
Love and prayers,
maryclare :-)

Helio: My point was the illness and disease, the cancer, is not God's will for us. It arises in my view from the choices we make day in and day out in separation to God, to love. If we come to know and understand this then we can develop a way of living, a way of being that is more harmonious and better for the body such that we do not develop such conditions. However, should someone develop such a condition it can lead them to ask questions about life, about God, about their choices and cause them to make changes accordingly. The point being - let us not wait until we get the cancer to make changes in how we live - let us learn from wisdom and not woe - about how to live in a way that is harmonious for the body.

Eunice, whatever floats your boat. But it is YOUR boat. I prefer mine, thanks.

MaryClare, I would simply encourage you to look into these things a little bit further, and stop taking the word of people on trust. You are perhaps unaware that you have been misled about Josephus and Thallus. You can rectify that if you wish. As far as personal experience is concerned, Muslims feel they have a personal experience of Allah and Hindus have the same with their gods. I call this the "warm fuzzies" - it is the same feeling whichever religion you're in, which should (but never does to adherents, because they can't see out of their pit) point you to the conclusion that it is a purely psychological phenomenon.

But let's be a little more explicit - there is NO contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus; the earliest we even hear about this man is from several decades later. The Josephus passage is heavily contaminated with later Christian fabrication - indeed, the whole passage is probably complete fiction.

Thallus (a non-christian) writing in 52AD mentioned the darkness over all the earth at the time of the crucifiction, was seen in Rome and that people tried to explain it.

And that, I am afraid, is a total fabrication. We do not know when Thallus wrote (very unlikely to be 52CE, though), and we do not know WHAT he wrote; the only information suggesting Thallus had *anything* to say about "darkness" is a passage in the 9th century work of George Syncellus which does not say anything like you say above.

I am not saying YOU have been lied to, but someone way along the chain has made something up, and it has resulted in you passing on information that is not true. A bit like the gospels themselves, I suggest.

How many poor Nazarene carpenters do you know that folks are still passionately arguing about, 2000 years after they lived?

Not many, but it would be useful if some in the debate would actually look at the evidence; they would find that many of the stories about this carpenter were made up long after he was dead.

I suggest you get a copy of Mark's gospel and place it alongside a copy of Matthew's gospel; read them side by side, especially around the resurrection.

Eunice, many in this thread and in the other re evangelism both christian and agnostic and atheist have responded to your comments. I think you've invented your own sect/church with a congregation of one, having proclaimed yourself as your own saviour/god. All the best, but I will not be joining you. I would rather debate with the honest agnostics and atheists, than try to help you to at least see the others point of view, even if you cannot accept it. You have an immortal soul, please I beg you ask that God will enlighten you as to His real nature and mercy.
Helio,
You forget about the writings of St Paul who was alive at the same time as Jesus. Plus he was incredibly anti before His conversion. Probably adding to His street cred in your eyes I would venture.
The Gospels you refer to are known as synoptic (with the same eye). If the stories were all different, my guess is that you would point out the inconsistencies as a reason for not believing.
I don't only rely on the historical evidence which is more than a little sparse I grant you. I also have my experience of God (alone and in Church)
and 2000 years of tradition, plus scripture to rely on. Also the miracles that I have seen that are inexplicable humanly speaking. And yes I have been given the gift of faith. My parents were not church goers, though nominal christians, so my faith was, and remains a gift, and is most assuredly NOT a psycological phenomenon. When medical science has given up and given someone days to live...when through prayer and faith in God the brain tumour and lung secondaries have gone (proven on xray), that is my praying for an unbeliever who did not know I was praying for her...don't tell me my God does not exist.
Have to leave it there for now.
maryclare :-)

maryclare

Eunice, many in this thread and in the other re evangelism both christian and agnostic and atheist have responded to your comments. I think you've invented your own sect/church with a congregation of one, having proclaimed yourself as your own saviour/god. All the best, but I will not be joining you. I would rather debate with the honest agnostics and atheists, than try to help you to at least see the others point of view, even if you cannot accept it

Please do not include all the other posters in here in your diatribe. I may not agree with Eunice but she at least is honestly following what she thinks not slavishly following some book. I know which of the two of you I find more honest. Also if I want to make comments about Eunice's beliefs I am quite capable of doing it myself (as she well knows I am quite capable of throwing my dummy out) without you speaking for me.

I would also say that I find your dismissal of Eunice (and almost trying to create a collusion of all the other posters) very unchristian and bullying. I am not sure how you will exclude anyone you do not agree with from any particular debate.

I'd almost like to say it is nice of you to include an abomination such as myself in your little cabal but I suspect you don't really mean it and to be honest I don't want to be in it.

I am looking forward to some more sparring with good christian and political folk at Pride Talks back tomorrow night, maybe you might hear some differing christian views if you come along maryclare.

Dave: thank you :-)

Maryclare: I assure you I have not invented my own sect/church. The understandings I have are based on the wisdom of the Ages and have been understood and applied by many many people before me, including Jesus in my view. I share my views not to get people to join me but because this is a blog for sharing and debating such views with others of different understandings. I am well aware that my views challenge the traditional CHristian dogma and doctrine - some people find that challenging, some enjoy the debate and some don't like it at all. We all react to things for different reasons and that is for each person to work out if they so choose. I am quite able to see the other people's points of view - I just don't always agree with them. I can see them very clearly because I use to hold many of those views myself (atheist/agnostic). This is a blog where people are allowed to disagree and most do so without attacks (with some exceptions now and again!) on the individual person but on the ideas or arguments being put forward.
However, to suggest that I have not been honest on here is quite something else. Indeed it is quite shocking that you make such an accusation without any grounds whatsoever - other than my views do not agree with your views. That you hold yourself up as a "Christian' with some superior knowing or access to God than the rest of us and continue to make such an accusation - well, let's just say I know God hasn't given you that line.
So Maryclare - you do not need to worry about me or pray for me - I am well aware of God's true nature thank you and as I continue on my journey I certainly wouldn't be looking for advice or enlightenment from someone who makes such accusations nor would I wish to follow the teachings or church of that person if that is what they are taught to do.

Hi Maryclare,
"Miracles" happen every day. I have also seen people cured from cancer; sometimes their bodies do it themselves (in fact, your immune system acts to clear hundreds of potentially cancerous cells from your body every day); sometimes we give a helping hand (with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, gene therapy etc), and sometimes the diagnosis was not correct in the first place. So anecdotes really don't do it for me - also, ALL religions have these. You will find Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Pagans and many others, all of whom think that their Aunt Mildred's recovery from metastatic mesothelioma was due to the intervention of whatever cosmic pixie they prayed to.

Now, as for the historical evidence for the Nazarene, you'll not have been around when we discussed this previously, but I suppose I should repeat that there is NO contemporary historical evidence that Jesus existed. FWIW I *do* think he existed, and was crucified by the Romans, as were many similar Messiah pretenders. The bible provides very good evidence that he did NOT rise from the dead, whatever may have happened to his corpse.

Saul Paulus never met Jesus, and from the account in 1 Corinthians 15 (assuming it is genuine, of course), it is clear that Saul envisages the post-resurrection appearances as "visions", not physical appearances, which does of course render the accounts in the gospels (Matt, Luke and John) *extremely* suspect, but you knew that anyway.

As for Saul being "incredibly anti" (as you put it), that does not increase his street cred. *IF* we assume that the hagiography in Acts is remotely correct, what we have is a spoilt wealthy Roman-Jewish brat who gets fired up with a romanticised ideal of what Judaism is all about; he's all gung ho about finding his roots, so when Mummy ships him off to Jerusalem to study at the Temple, he's happy as a pig in; when he gets there, after a while he realises that life is a bit more complex than he had thought; he witnesses a couple of lynchings from afar, then while he is going to Damascus, he bangs his head, and switches from one set of screwy religious notions to another.

No, he is not a hero, and he does not have much street cred in my opinion (indeed, if you read the rest of 1 Corinthians, you can see that he really was a rather sick puppy, and viewed Jesus as a semi-mythical being, rather than a historical figure).

But leaving Saul Paulus aside, we are still left with the rather embarrassing (for Theistic Christians) situation that Jesus is really *poorly* attested historically; this is exactly what we would expect if the Christian fable was NOT "God's Great Plan of Salvation", but just another set of religious ideas that happened to hit the Zeitgeist (not a movie I would recommend, btw - full of guff), and get carried across the Roman Empire. It happened to be Jesus, but could just as easily have been Mithras or Serapis (both of whom did rather well for a while) or Isis or Jimmy the Amazing Fish Slapper of Asia Minor.

But my point here is simply that it didn't happen. Jesus (and I *do* think he existed) died, not for our sins, not to complete the victory of YHWH over a mythical Devil, but because he was yet another Messiah, traipsing up to Jerusalem on his donkey(s!) as dozens of them did before and since, and ended up being executed for challenging Roman authority. Same old same old.

I would encourage you, as I mentioned above, to get a couple of bibles, and read the gospels side-by-side. You'll see I'm right. I was surprised when I found this out myself; my Sunday School teacher sure as heck never mentioned it.

Cheers,
-H

Ok Dave point taken. If you think I'm a bully - over and out. I won't be commenting further.
maryclare.

maryclare ,

It's not what I think that counts.

Do you think that turning your back on someone and excluding them from the discussion while you carry on simply because you do not agree with them is an adult way to behave on a discussion forum or in any forum?

Plus Maryclare, don't be posting here under the illusion that we're all somehow just misguided individuals who've never really considered the truth of gods word and we're all waiting for the right words or moment to realise that gods loves us and we can be saved.

A good majority of the posters on here have thought long and hard about their spiritual beliefs and a good portion of them have reached the conclusion that there is no god, or if there is, his existance is irrelevant to their lives. No amount of anecdotal evidence, pleas to a higher authority or arguments of ignorance are going to convince us. The evidence, I'm afraid, is stacked against the existance of a god as literally portrayed within the current version of the bible.

Dear Dave, and also Eunice,
It had nothing to do with being adult or not (I am 53 by the way) but one can only answer the same point being put so may times. I used to hold similar view by the way.
I have accepted your/Daves view as being correct, and since I have breached 'nettiquette' I have deleted myself from the thread,by way of apology.
This really is my final word.
maryclare.

Hi maryclare
I don't think you have breached 'netiquette' in any way. You will probably notice that there is a wide diversity of views on here, we all have different ways of explaining the world and our place in it. I come from an evangelical background myself but have recently started questioning a lot of things I was brought up to believe (like the existence of hell for example) and I would describe myself as an ex-creationist (although God still does have a place in my world view). I find reading the other posts (especially Helio's) does challenge me and I think this blog is helping me in my spiritual journey. Debate is healthy - don't give up on it just yet!
Valerie :-)