General Debate 14 September 2010

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment94

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (94)

Login to comment or vote

MikeNZ

Is thin end of the wedge.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4114463/Boy-caught-up-in-clash-of-cultures-over-adoption

Even with the h8umanitarian aspect of this heartbreaking story, the issue is Sharia law trumping our bill of rights.

Both sides in the court accept the guardianship was honest and open, did not involve child trafficking, and did not come under the Hague Convention. “The real issue is over a word, and the word is adoption,” Mr Orlov said.

Immigration NZ had failed to consider the rights and best interests of the child. New Zealand had “a case of tunnel vision” by not recognising Sharia law’s view of a child’s identity and guardianship, Mr Orlov said.
Ad Feedback

If Justice Allan rules that Sharia law on guardianship equates with New Zealand law on adoption, Immigration NZ will need to reconsider its refusal to grant a visa.

A Social Development Ministry spokesman said New Zealand did not have an adoption programme with Pakistan and, “as far as we know, Pakistan does not have adoption legislation”.

An overseas guardianship order was not enough to allow Internal Affairs to grant a child New Zealand citizenship.

Not give NZ citizenship to someone who is not part of a NZ family legally because they aren’t owned/part of an overseas family.
legal beagles anyone?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 8:55am
mattyroo

The 20th Century was a horrible litany of absurd experiments and atrocities committed by intellectuals, or by elite groupings that claimed a higher knowledge. Simple folk usually have enough common sense to avoid the worst errors. Sometimes they need to take very stern action to stop intellectuals leading us to ruin.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 8:55am
YesWeDid

Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett.

Could ACT be a bigger bunch of hypocritical blow hards if they tried?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 8:57am
Inventory2

Hasn’t Rahui Katene got more important Maori issues to sort out than a gang family with a bad case of entitleitis?

http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2010/09/mate-your-dreaming.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:03am
Murray

Yes they could be Trevor Mallard.

Being punchy is ok for the left though because they are the intelectual elite and the rules don’t apply to them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:06am
Murray

Don’t forget the gang affiliations Inv. Would she be making an issue of this if they were not Maori?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:07am
MikeNZ

I suspect this case revolves around their not being enough evidence or people too intimidated to “get involved” to ensure a charge laid so there would have been a legal audit to follow.

Interestingly he left his patch in the car.
Why? was he ashamed of it or was it because he knows people don’t approve of gangs and he needed/wanted sanctuary?

Not knowing all the facts makes it difficult.
Sad to say the Maori party is there for their kin but not all Kiwis.
Sooner we get rid of the racist seats the better.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:10am
mattyroo

Jesus YWD, that story has got to be one of the biggest media hash-ups of recent time.

More concerning is the fact that Garrett was assaulted by a Doctor, but then again, the doctor is an islander, and should one be surpirsed by that…… You only have to look half sideways at the mongrels around South Auckland for the pricks to be threatening you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:11am
Pete George

A couple of examples yesterday of people being drawn into the blogging world beyond their normal positions.

Trevor Mallard: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/09/trevor_being_slaughted_on_the_facts.html

Duncan Garner: Anderton’s toast, pull out now Jim – blog

The political news and comment landscape has changed considerably, and everyone is learning how to play the game. Mistakes will be made, and I think these are examples of that happening.

I guess the more a politician gets in touch with “ordinary” people the better, but getting too much into the rough and tumble won’t always reflect well on them.

More interesting is the journalist – can they appear to be an unbiased deliverer of news on screen at the same time as they openly promote political preferences and try to influence the democrat process in blogs? It probably always happened (with some media people), it just becomes more widely seen via the reach of the Internet.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:12am
YesWeDid

‘Being punchy is ok for the left though because they are the intelectual elite and the rules don’t apply to them.’

At least Mallard isn’t pushing for tougher sentences for criminals while busy covering up his own criminal past.

Could someone please remind me what ACT stands for again?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:13am
mattyroo

Katene says that the treatment of the Martin family was “disgusting”.

Most kiwis have been treated disgustingly by the mongrel mob. Should we be expecting an apology from them all forthwith?

Fuck the racist bastards, mongrel mob or not, Katene and her ilk included.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:15am
peterwn

YesWeDid – I am no fan of David Garrett, but note that following the brawl in Tonga, he was fined $10 for assault and the other party $100. David has an appeal on the table in Tonga but but says he is having difficulties pressing it.

On what I have read, he seems to be the victim of the incident, suffering rather serious injuries. I would regard the matter as remaining ‘open’ until he can get his appeal heard.

In any event even if he were guilty, the culpability on his part seems no more than to warrant ‘wet bus ticket’ treatment (as reflected in the fine imposed), and should be considered no more seriously than say a speed camera ticket.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:16am
Murray

At least Mallard is a consistant liar and bully. at least he only a mid to bad range thug. At least he hasn’t actully killed anyone. What sort of shit defence is that?

BTW yes have you seen me say anything in support of Garrat? Sycophantic support for shit MP’s is definately your strong suit though isn’t it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:18am
Fot

YesWeDid

Are you forgetting Len Richards?

Or does it not matter if a low life left assaults somebody?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:25am
Inventory2

It would be highly ironic if Trevor Mallard was to lead Labour’s faux outrage about David Garrett – just sayin’ …
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:33am
kowtow

Al Jazera reporting the Fidel and Raul dictators plan to sack 500,000 state workers.
Aren’t “socialist”dictators great? Any whimsy becomes law,and if you don’t like it we’ll lock you up or shoot or exile you.Brilliant.So after some 50 years these fuckers realise they were wrong and nasty Uncle Sam wasn’t that bad after all.Or do they realise that w/o the Soviets propping ’em up it’s just not workable?

And AJ had a piece on the North Korean dictators chef,he defected some years ago. Those fuckers live well while the people starve .Why don’t our Viva Palestina drive up there to deliver food aid?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 10:17am
krazykiwi

The story US secures record $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia piqued my interest in who’s spending proportionally more on their armed forces. This from Nationmaster:

Military spending as % of GDP:
# 1 Eritrea: 19.32 %
# 2 Oman: 12.25 %
# 3 Saudi Arabia: 8.2 %
# 4 Israel: 7.92 %
# 5 Jordan: 7.67 %
# 6 Liberia: 7.5 %
# 7 Brunei: 6.62 %
# 8 Syria: 6.22 %
# 9 Kuwait: 5.74 %
# 10 Yemen: 5.6 %

A geographic theme appears to be present.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 10:28am
Luc Hansen

Surely the best ever, political speech from a Republican candidate – obviously one of the saner ones!

Check it out: the fun starts 1m 40secs into the clip.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 11:16am
kowtow

Luc “Auspicious 9/11” Hansen dares talk of sanity.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 11:29am
Rodders

Tariana Turia has advised John Key that they’ve lost one of the sheep in the flock

In Hone’s case, such a comparison is demeaning to sheep.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 12:28pm
minto57

It would appear the lefts attempt to smear Garrett has been ineffectual(bit like the left generally)with people still trying to paint him as misleading the public.
The smearer’s credibility gap only widens with the continuation of the campaign
I also would be more concerned with vote rigging as noted on an earlier post.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 1:20pm
Luc Hansen

I have just taken the time to follow the link in the opening post. This should be cut and dried – if the guardianship is recognised in Pakistan law and is equivalent to our adoption (forget the Sharia sideshow) then the child should enter New Zealand and become a New Zealand citizen.

Later, if the real birth parents want to come and stay close to their child, they should also be permitted residency.

It’s just fair.

kowtow, put aside your ridiculous ad hominems for a mo and follow my link. The politician is sincere, passionate and very, very funny!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 1:34pm
Pete George

Blogger Cameron Slater has case to answer

This morning at a hearing at the Auckland District Court Judge David Harvey said after considering evidence given at an earlier hearing he had decided Slater had a case to answer on all charges.

Judge Harvey will deliver his decision at 2.15 this afternoon.

At today’s hearing Thwaite told Judge Harvey he should assess whether the suppression orders in question should ever have been applied.

Thwaite also argued that New Zealand’s official language were English, Maori and New Sign language.
Any mention of a person’s name which occurred in other languages or through pictures was not a breach of law.

The official language point seems to be very optimistic – saying someone’s name with a French accent would not be a breach? If the person whose name was suppressed was Samoan you could reveal their name in Samoan but not in English? That’s more than a bit ridiculous.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 1:38pm
MT_Tinman

Pete George (6,942) Says:
September 14th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

Blogger Cameron Slater has case to answer

I’m hoping for life without parole.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 1:49pm
Fot

Is it just me or is Kennedy Grahams plummy speaking voice bloody annoying.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 2:05pm
kowtow

Luc “Let’s open the gates” Hansen,there is nothing “ad hominem’about what I posted. Luc likes the term ad hominem,it gives him a sense of moral superiorty as he is pretending to be substantive when in fact he is simply a pro Islamic,Ameriphobe.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 2:11pm
Kris K

Luc Hansen 1:34 pm,

I have just taken the time to follow the link in the opening post. This should be cut and dried – if the guardianship is recognised in Pakistan law and is equivalent to our adoption (forget the Sharia sideshow) then the child should enter New Zealand and become a New Zealand citizen.

Later, if the real birth parents want to come and stay close to their child, they should also be permitted residency.

On that basis, Lucy, we should be able to get the whole village NZ residency: All the birth parent relatives, all the relatives of those awarded guardianship. Heck, why not just create an open border for any Pakistani Muslim who may wish to come here.

“It’s just fair”, afterall.

Is it just me, or do these pandering apologists of Islam make everyone else want to Puke (Hansen) as well?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 2:19pm
Pete George

It’s realism, the world has hardly been overwhelmed by an al-Qaeda onslaught.

Post-9/11, we’re safer than we think

The real threat of al-Qaeda was that it would inspire some percentage of the world’s 1.57 billion Muslims, sending out unstoppable waves of jihadis. In fact, across the Muslim world, militant Islam’s appeal has plunged. In the half of the Muslim world that holds elections, parties that are in any way associated with Islamic jihad tend to fare miserably, even in Pakistan, which has the most serious terrorism problem of any country today. Over the past few years, imams and Muslim leaders across the world have been denouncing suicide bombings, terrorism and al-Qaeda with regularity.

This campaign to spread a sense of imminent danger has fueled a climate of fear and anger. It has created suspicions about U.S. Muslims — who are more assimilated than in any other country in the world. Ironically, this is precisely the intent of terrorism. Bin Laden knew he could never weaken America directly, even if he blew up a dozen buildings or ships. But he could provoke an overreaction by which America weakened itself.

The tools of terrorists are the over-reacters. And those with their own agendas.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 2:23pm
Kris K

Pete G[e]orge 2:23 pm

It’s realism, the world has hardly been overwhelmed by an al-Qaeda onslaught.

Post-9/11, we’re safer than we think

“The real threat of al-Qaeda was that it would inspire some percentage of the world’s 1.57 billion Muslims, sending out unstoppable waves of jihadis.”

The tools of terrorists are the over-reacters. And those with their own agendas.

You are joking … aren’t you, Pete? – I mean you must be, or else you’ve been off-planet for the last 9 years.

You and Puke are like two peas in a pod – Lying apologists for the satanically driven death cult which is Islam. You and your ilk are in fact just as dangerous as the Muslim scum which perpetrate their atrocities on the rest of the world. No one is as duplicitous and deceitful as those who wish to see the destruction of the West at any cost; those who are prepared to work in partnership with whoever and whatever will attack Western values and freedoms – whether that be socialism/Marxism, or the equally hate filled, satanically inspired Jihadists.

People like you and Puke really do make me want to retch my guts up!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 2:50pm
Kris K

For Pete, Puke, and other doubters of the genuine risk Islam presents to the non-Muslim world.

Please note – this was written back in 1916, and shows that the threat Islam presents to the world has been an issue since its inception.

Some Americans even knew the danger Islam represented prior to 9-11 …

Teddy Roosevelt On Islam

The following passages were written in 1916 in Teddy Roosevelt’s book, “Fear God and Take Your Own Part”, reproduced in “What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an” by William Federer.

Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Africa at this moment solely because the seventh century Christians of Asia and Africa had trained themselves not to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to fight.Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, an on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated. Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared. From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor. …..The civilization of Europe, American and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today, nobody can find in them any “social values” whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influences are concerned.There are such “social values” today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do — that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 2:56pm
Chthoniid

Kris, that’s just histrionics.

The spectre of this Muslim jihad you frequently campaign on, is a tiresome extension of your religious perspective.
The Washington Post article makes some excellent points about the confrontation between the West and Islam, and it’s certainly possible to debate them on a rational and informed basis.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 2:57pm
eszett

it’s certainly possible to debate them on a rational and informed basis.

Rational and Informed? With Kris K? You got to be kidding.

Just look at his wording. “satanically inspired Jihadists.”
Actually they are religiously inspired. Very much the same way Kris K is, just by a different book.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 3:12pm
Pete George

You are joking … aren’t you, Pete? – I mean you must be, or else you’ve been off-planet for the last 9 years.

Apart from a few isolated instances of terrorism carried out by isolated pockets of jihadists the last 9 years haven’t been bad.

al-Qaeda won a major battle – they provoked the US into committing huge resources and much easier targets into two ME wars. But they have failed in their more important aim – to inspire a heap of Muslims to join their jihad. If anything their reach has most likely diminished, they manage to raise a few nutters but little more.

They have won some other small battles, like creating a climate of fear and over-reaction especially with airline security, but that seems to be relaxing a bit, my wife got away with taking knitting needles on holiday a few months ago. And they enabled “free world” governments to introduce draconian security laws limiting the freedoms of their own citizens more than anything.

And they have stoked up a few opposing religious extremists who seem hellbent on talking up Armageddon, but they have been about as successful as al-Qaeda.

Yes, a few Muslims are a continuing treat, and a few more are a potential threat. But until the second Jesus is proven to have arrived I don’t think I’ll get too paranoid about anything. I certainly won’t get sucked into joining a church through fear. Nor will I condemn a billion and a half people I have never met and who have never threatened me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 3:33pm
Rodders

Re Kennedy Graham’s accent – it runs in the family
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 3:38pm
Jack5

New topic for a mo…

The bid for Crafar farms by the murky Chinese enterprise, Natural Dairy, becomes stranger.

May Wang in debt for millions and whose creditors are likely to receive only 6.5c in the dollar, is behind the re-fitting of a milk processing plant in Tauranga, reports NZ Farmers’ Weekly.

Wang is under contract to Natural Dairy.

She also faces charges under the Companies Act related to previous ventures.

The story:

http://www.nzfarmersweekly.co.nz/article/8467.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 3:44pm
jaba

I hear a school in Manurewa is in lockdown??
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 3:50pm
Lucia Maria

Kris,

The civilization of Europe, American and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century.

Both men mentioned were Catholic. I know for certain that Jan Sobieski III heard Mass the morning he and his army fought the Muslims laying siege to Vienna.

So, they both must be burning in Hell right now, huh?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 4:48pm
MikeNZ

Maybe, do you know definately not?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 4:52pm
Lucia Maria

Mike,

I won’t know until I’m dead. But I admit I’m being deliberately provocative. On the one hand Catholics are the bane of the world that would create a one-world government if we could, and on the other we are touted as the saviours of Western Civilisation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 5:24pm
MikeNZ

As a non Catholic who’s salvation is in doubt according to the Pope, presumably because I’m not in the Catholic Church of Rome, yes you are being deliberately provocative. 😉

My own position is words and actions have power and they should be stood behind or rescinded as clearly as they are uttered or seen to be done. In that I am still under the anathmas of Trent as you read this.
There I’m being deliberately provocative too 🙂

I believe that according to the NT scripture and the words of Jesus/Yeshua I will be in Heaven (wherever that is) with Him providing I stay in the vine and don’t fall away.
That I realise is an offensive statement to some, but I’m not being provocative.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 5:36pm
Don the Kiwi

MikeNZ.

Your opening sentence is not correct. Where did you hear that? More anti-catholic misinformation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 5:43pm
Lucia Maria

Mike,

Salvation for everyone alive in the world right now is not definitive, as we are expected to persevere until the end.

For anyone who does not hold to the Catholic faith out of ignorance, ie not knowing it is the true faith and living accordingly, those people still get a final chance at death. Of course, the further you are from truth, the harder it is for a soul to choose well at death, but still a final choice is there for all.

They dwell on God’s great mercy in granting final perseverance, and even in the case of notorious sinners they do not lose hope: God suffuses the sinners’ dying hour with an extraordinary light and, showing them the hideousness of sin contrasting with His own infinite beauty, He makes a final appeal to them. For those only who, even then, obstinately cling to their sin does the saying of Sirach 5:7, assume a sombre meaning “mercy and wrath quickly come from him, and his wrath looketh upon sinners”.

~ Final Perseverance
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 5:58pm
Kris K

Lucia Maria 4:48 pm,

So, they both must be burning in Hell right now, huh?

Provided their faith was in Christ alone, and not in some man made religious system, then they will most definitely be in heaven according to the word of God.

Remember, Lucia, salvation is knowledge, and occurs at the instant one places their faith and trust in Christ alone. That one believes Christ completed the work of salvation on the cross – “It is finished”.

1Jo 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1Jo 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1Jo 5:13 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.

I will always believe God’s word over that of any man (pope, priest, pastor). For those in Christ make up the priesthood of all believers, and it is only Christ who mediates between sinful man and a holy God (the Father).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 6:02pm
Kris K

Lucia Maria 5:58 pm,

Got any actual Bible verses to back that up, Lucia?
And by “Bible” I mean non-apocryphal books – the 66 books as in the King James Version.

It’s Christ through whom we gain salvation, not the RC church (or any other church for that matter).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 6:11pm
Kris K

Don the Kiwi 5:43 pm,

MikeNZ.
Your opening sentence is not correct. Where did you hear that? More anti-catholic misinformation.

Actually, Don, Mike IS correct, and Lucia (one of your fellow Roman Catholics) backs that up when she says,

“For anyone who does not hold to the Catholic faith out of ignorance, ie not knowing it is the true faith and living accordingly, those people still get a final chance at death.”

Mike and I are not regarded as ignorant. And because we knowingly reject the authority of Rome and the pope we are anathema according to RC teaching. The only thing worse than a Protestant (or Bible believing Christian) who rejects Roman Catholicism is a Catholic who decides to leave the RC church. Luther would be one such individual – a Roman Catholic who left the RC church and headed up the reformation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 6:25pm
Luc Hansen

OH, Kris has calmed down.

I’ll have to find some bait to throw him.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 7:11pm
Pete George

Throw him a fish, he’ll make a meal of it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 7:18pm
kowtow

Luc and Pete,
The posters who like to pretend to be rational,reasonable and balanced.
Just can’t help themselves.

Why not enter a cartoon competition and see how many embassies get burned down or rioters shot?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 8:19pm
Jack5

Further to my 3.44 post on Natural Dairy and the Crafar farms….

Want to know why a flaky Chinese company wants to swoop up prime NZ dairy land?

It’s happening all over the place:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7997910/The-backlash-begins-against-the-world-landgrab.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 8:52pm
Lucia Maria

Kris,

Mike and I are not regarded as ignorant. And because we knowingly reject the authority of Rome and the pope we are anathema according to RC teaching.

You would have to know the Catholic Church is true and then reject Her, or you’d have to realise She may be true and purposely ensure that you never properly investigate (that is culpable ignorance where you do have some responsibility). If you don’t know Her to be true, then there is no proper rejection in the first place, therefore I’d have to put you in the ignorant category. You cannot be held to account for what you don’t know.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 8:52pm
Viking2

noisy sheep
So Hone has broken ranks with the maori party over the bogus repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed legislation. Good – he has done it early. I wonder how he and his other maori party mp’s feel about being described as sheep? If that isn’t an insult I don’t know what is – but watch and see, first tariana will say she never said that, then key will say she did and that will be the end of it because they don’t even need to try and spin it, they don’t even care.

http://mars2earth.blogspot.com/2010/09/noisy-sheep.html

From Stuff

“Mr Key said Maori party co-leader Tariana Turia told him this morning that “they’d lost one of the sheep in the flock.”

“It’s highly predictable and quite frankly we would never be able to pass legislation that would satisfy Hone Harawira,” Mr Key said. “Nor should we, because that would not reflect the views of the majority of New Zealanders.

“If he doesn’t vote for it, I don’t care.”

Such a big man is mr key, he doesn’t care – but I bet he will care when his pack of cards fall due to the destruction of the maori party/gnat top and tail. It is getting closer every day.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:08pm
Viking2

Oh the irony. I can’t stand it!

“Mr Key said Maori party co-leader Tariana Turia told him this morning that “they’d lost one of the sheep in the flock.”

sounds like another shepherd who regularly features in the pages.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:11pm
Luc Hansen

Kris K (3,050) Says:
September 14th, 2010 at 6:25 pm

The only thing worse than a Protestant (or Bible believing Christian) who rejects Roman Catholicism is a Catholic who decides to leave the RC church.

Ah, that’ll be me…ex-alter boy.

Hi Kris, so nice of you to think about me!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:47pm
wat dabney

Provided their faith was in Christ alone, and not in some man made religious system, then they will most definitely be in heaven according to the word of God.

Which still leaves the millions of children who have died over the centuries, all burning in Hell…

In my religion, your invisible pixie sucks my dick.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:48pm
Lucia Maria

Luc,

Just wait till you become an ex-er that came back…. that’ll be me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:49pm
Luc Hansen

O Lucia

Peace be upon you…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 9:58pm
Lucia Maria

Now you’re winding me up!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 10:05pm
Luc Hansen

Who?

Me?

(poses with a winningly innocent glance)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 14, 2010 10:32pm
Viking2

Why don’t you just accept who you are instead of living a life dominated by someone else and their supposed morals?
Its very liberating.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 7:01am
MikeNZ

wat dabney

If a child does not know what they are doing do you honestly think a being who is so much greater than us is going to send them to hell.
Kids love God, its what they do, until adults get into their minds.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 7:41am
MikeNZ

Don
I had the cutting from the Dompost up on my notice board for a year to remind me that Catholism is not of God anymore.
The Pope stated that the Salvation of non-Catholics believers in Jesus was in doubt.

Since the council of Trent I and all other believers who aren’t in the RC are cursed by them and because they have never rescinded the curses they still stand.
I suspect that those RC’s who do not repudiate the Council of Trent and it’s anathemas might have an interesting conversation with their St Peter on the Last day.

That view is held by many outside the RC to include all RC’s, as they have the opportunity to look at the witchcraft practiced in the name of Jesus by elements of their leadership and remonstrate with it or leave.
I’m not sure of that exactly as I have met and prayed with many Catholics who move in the Holy Spirit.
However the mass re-crucifies Jesus again and again supposedly and the act of transubstantiation is witchcraft as they hold to it officially.

Further to answer your statement this fits with the Roman Catholic church’s constitutional position that as I am not in the Catholic church I cannot have salvation as salvation is through the church.
This position is heresy/blasphemy as salvation is only found in Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, died and resurrected for our sins.
There is only one advocate before the father and he very definitely isn’t on earth anymore accept through his Spirit and his disciples providing they are in the vine whereby He and His father come and sup with them.

If you’re a Catholic Don and got half a brain you can study this for yourself, but I caution you, when you do and you find the truth of the constitutional and historical position of the RC, you will have NO excuses on the last day except that which the Holy Spirit gives you.

I write this in love not condemnation so please don’t get het up.
The anathemas of Trent still stand and no council has ever removed or rescinded them ever.

Further most Catholics I have spoken to (educated and not) either deny it by not knowing history and refuse to acknowledge the constitutional position or want to know why we don’t just join them, thereby taking part in the perfidy.
For that they will answer on the last day sadly.

Jesus did not die on the cross for the Catholic Church of Rome and it’s hierarchy of splendour, but for all mankind who will believe he is the son of the Father and came to undo the works of the devil.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 8:04am
MikeNZ

Viking2

I have.
because I have accepted that I was made by a creator.

For fellowship with Him and to love and experience His creation.
It is a Joy and a wonder some days but mostly a Joy.

(If you want a logical explanation the best i can offer is that something cannot come from nothing and everything is too intricate/complex and detailed to have come from random chance. The size and weight of the universe nor the time it has been in existence makes that clear mathematically.)
I that all makes me a Fundi, then that is what I am, if that is what it means to be one.

I Love you and want the very best for you and your kin.
Even saying that I am not going to blow myself up, nor put a sword to your head or your child’s to get you to submit.

Similarly I do not view other human beings as chattel and worth less than I and will not subject them to laws that treat them as subhuman and second class in the societies that they live in.

Know this You have free choice and will spend eternity with the god of your choice.

If you truly want to know God you will.
Just do’nt be lukewarm but be hot or cold as He hates lukewarmness, it makes Him sick.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 8:13am
Kris K

Luc H[a]nsen 9:47 pm,

Ah, that’ll be me…ex-alter boy.

Hi Kris, so nice of you to think about me!

Actually, Luc, I do think of you (and many others who comment and read this blog); for I know that each of us will stand before God and give an account for our lives. My hope is that ultimately each one genuinely repents and receives Christ as Lord and Saviour. I am a realist, however, and know that many will reject Christ. As I have said before, each of us have been given free will – the ability to either receive or reject Christ (on His terms according to God’s word).

I can only presume, Luc, that your strong dislike for Christianity is born out of your Roman Catholic background. The RC church has driven many away from the one true faith by perverting the gospel of Christ, and by preventing seekers from finding true Christianity.

And, in fact, it is those who promote a false gospel (of works), like the RC church, to whom the apostle Paul gave the following warning:

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed [anathema].

So in actual fact it is the Roman Catholic church whom God regards as anathema – NOT those who reject the false doctrines of Rome, and instead embrace the biblical gospel.

Revelation 18:4 warns those caught up in the false religion in the final chapter of history to “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”
This is, of course, a warning to all of those who are in a false religion.

And especially to Luc; you have achieved the first part by leaving the RC church, you now need to find the one true religion, and the salvation it offers through Christ alone. No one will be forcing your hand, though, this is very much your choice alone. I genuinely wish you well in your search for truth.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 9:53am
MikeNZ

I’ve sometimes pondered my own life and behaviour in relation to this Kris.
Who so offended LUC only he will know, I suspect it was a dripping tap, at least I hope it was as I wouldn’t wish severe abuse or grief on anybody.

As i said all kids Love God until the adults (and or their demons) get at them.

KJV: 6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

CEV6It will be terrible for people who cause even one of my little followers to sin. Those people would be better off thrown into the deepest part of the ocean with a heavy stone tied around their necks!

NASB: 6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

AMP: 6But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in and acknowledge and cleave to Me to stumble and sin [that is, who entices him or hinders him in right conduct or thought], it would be better (more expedient and profitable or advantageous) for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be sunk in the depth of the sea

GNT: 6If anyone should cause one of these little ones to lose his faith in me, it would be better for that person to have a large millstone tied around his neck and be drowned in the deep sea
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 10:16am
Kris K

MikeNZ 10:16 am,

I’ve sometimes pondered my own life and behaviour in relation to this Kris.
Who so offended LUC only he will know, I suspect it was a dripping tap, at least I hope it was as I wouldn’t wish severe abuse or grief on anybody.

As i said all kids Love God until the adults (and or their demons) get at them.

Me too.
Christians have a big responsibility to NOT cause others to stumble spiritually – our Christian testimony is always under the spotlight. We are to be, afterall, Christ’s representatives on earth; the sons of God – the lense through whom others see God.

One thing that brings me comfort regarding young children (and unborn babies who die or are aborted) is that I believe the Bible implies an age of accountability. That one must be sufficiently mature to understand the gospel message before one can either accept or reject the offer of salvation. Just another reason why the RC practice of infant baptism makes no sense – belief, and therefore understanding, must come before salvation is possible. And water baptism only follows salvation, and is a picture of being baptised into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit (no water here) which happens at the time of salvation.

Also, in the OT David knew he would see his son who died (who was a result of adultery with Bathsheeba) as a baby when he went to be with God in heaven. But in contrast he knew he would not see Absolom, who as an adult had obviously rejected the Lord.

Keep up the good fight, Brother.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 12:59pm
Pete George

As i said all kids Love God until the adults (and or their demons) get at them.

That’s totally wrong – kids have no knowledge of religion until adults with their demons teach them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 1:10pm
eszett

As i said all kids Love God until the adults (and or their demons) get at them.

What a load of bollocks.

If that were true, then you wouldn’t have to teach them anything about religion until they become adults.
But of course it is not. You have to get them when they are young and gullible and indoctrinate them with your religion.
Once they start thinking for themselves it’s a lot harder.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 1:22pm
RightNow

Luc Hansen (1,901) Says:
September 14th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Who?

Me?

(poses with a winningly innocent glance)

I just threw up a little thanks to that mental image
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 1:30pm
MyNameIsJack

Hoobloodyray – Kris K finally gets it.

Kris K (3,054) Says:

September 15th, 2010 at 12:59 pm

I believe the Bible implies

Yes, exactly. It implies. it isn’t a book of facts, it isn’t a guide to living life, it isn’t a self help manual nor an owners’ manual or the holy word of god. It is a book of implications.

🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 1:54pm
Kris K

MyN[a]meIsJack 1:54 pm,

Actually, MNIJ, I used the word “imply” only because the Bible doesn’t use the phrase “age of accountability”. The fact that salvation is dependent upon belief, and belief is dependent upon understanding, and understanding only comes with sufficient maturity, reveals that only those ‘old enough’ can possibly accept the offer of salvation – or, on the same basis, reject it.

But I’m sure you understood me first time round. While I may consider you a proverbial pain in the butt, I do not believe you are stupid.

Oh, and just in case I didn’t make it plain before; whatever the ‘age of accountability’ may be (let’s say in the 5-7 age range for the sake of argument), those under this age will return to God in heaven from whence they came. As a result of this I believe those 18,000 odd babies we abort in thise country each year likewise go straight back to God upon their deaths.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 3:26pm
MikeNZ

Kris
Which we can’t say for certainty for their mothers to be sadly.
Rest In Peace
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 3:35pm
MyNameIsJack

Kris, salvation from what? not that whole apple thing again?

and belief is dependent upon understanding, nope, understanding removes the need for belief and opens the mind to truth, beauty and gnosis.

As a result of this I believe those 18,000 odd babies we abort in thise country each year are aborted in accordance with god’s will and his plan for that individual.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 6:10pm
Kris K

I’ll leave you with it, MNIJ.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 6:30pm
Lucia Maria

Mike,

I had the cutting from the Dompost up on my notice board for a year to remind me that Catholism is not of God anymore.
The Pope stated that the Salvation of non-Catholics believers in Jesus was in doubt.

My experience with the Dom Post’s religious reporting is that they never fact check. They reprint the most horrendous lies from other papers (Times UK, one of the worst) without ever looking into what is being asserted.

Have you got an online reference for that? A date of audience or address? I’d like to check what the Holy Father actually said.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 15, 2010 7:08pm
MikeNZ

Lucia
No, I will look.
It said “the salvation of non-catholics was in doubt” as part of it’s text.
I wrote a letter to the editor repudiating it, which was published the same week.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 7:59am
Kris K

Lucia September 15th, 2010 at 7:08 pm,

Some light reading for you by a former Roman Catholic Nun:

Ecumenism and the Council of Trent

Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)

http://www.CatholicConcerns.com
December 2001

There is a hidden agenda behind the ecumenical movement. Official Catholic documents from the Second Vatican Council show that the purpose behind ecumenism is to bring Christians who are not Catholics (i.e., Protestants and Orthodox) back into the Catholic Church.

The Council of Trent anathematized every Christian who disagrees with any detail of Catholic doctrine. These anathemas have never been cancelled. An anathema means that the Pope has ritually placed someone under a solemn ecclesiastical curse which is intended to send them to hell. (Anathemas will be explained more fully later in this paper.)

VATICAN II AND ECUMENISM […]

The Council’s “Decree on Ecumenism” states that ecumenical activity cannot result in changing any aspect of the Catholic faith. […]

For example, Post Conciliar Document No. 42 says that the purpose of ecumenism is to transform the thinking and behavior of non-Catholics so that eventually all Christians will be united in one Church. It states, “This unity, we believe, dwells in the Catholic Church.” [Note 2]

In other words, “unity” means that all Christians will become Roman Catholics. […]

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) was the Roman Catholic Church’s response to the Protestant Reformation. It took every single doctrine that Protestants believe, one at a time, and declared that anybody who believes even one of them is “anathema” (officially and ritually cursed in an attempt to condemn them to hell). (The ritual will be described later in this paper.)

It also defined Catholic doctrines, detail by detail, and declared that anybody who denies even one of these details is anathema. These include the authority of the Pope, the practice of indulgences, veneration of Mary and the saints, and the use of statues. So the Council of Trent anathematizes all non-Catholic Christians, both Protestants and Orthodox.

Following is an example of one of these declarations: “If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, let him be anathema.” (“Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist,” Canon 8). What does “really” mean? Canon 1 declares that the communion bread is “truly, really and substantially” the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. (And if you don’t believe this, then you are anathema.) [Note 3 gives links to articles which have extensive quotations from the Council of Trent, including a web site that has the entire document.]

ANATHEMAS

According to “The Catholic Encyclopedia,” the word “anathema” means “cursed and devoted to destruction”. When the Roman Catholic Church anathematizes someone, it officially declares that the person is condemned to hell. [Note 4 gives a link to the article, which describes the ritual and gives quotations from it.]

There is a solemn written ritual for doing this. The Catholic Church believes that God has given it the power and the authority to keep people out of Heaven, and to condemn them to hell.

In pronouncing the anathema, the Pope wears special vestments. He is assisted by twelve priests holding lighted candles. Calling on the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Pope pronounces a solemn ecclesiastical curse. He ends by declaring, “We judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate”. The priests reply, “Fiat! Fiat! Fiat!” and throw down their candles. […]

CONCLUSION

The present preference for a gentler approach to people who disagree with Catholic doctrine may explain the apparent discrepancy between the Council of Trent and the ecumenical movement.

The Catholic Church is engaging in ecumenical dialog with Protestants and Orthodox, calling them “separated brethren,” and speaking as if it respects their beliefs. But at the same time, behind the scenes, it still officially declares that they are damned to hell because of their beliefs. It still believes that the Roman Catholic Church has the power and the authority to damn people to hell, and it has an official written ritual for doing so.

Emphasis mine.
I just love it when ex-Roman Catholic Nuns do my work for me.

So, Lucia, don’t tell me that the RC church doesn’t condemn both Mike and I (and all other Protestants, etc) to hell.

When, in fact, it is God’s word which condemns those who preach a false gospel (of works), as the RC church does:

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed [anathema].

It is so sad the irony of the RC church proclaiming anathema on all those who reject the false teaching of Rome is lost on it and its adherents. For it is they who are anathema, and it is they who do not know the Christ of the Bible.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 11:14am
Put it away

Kris, this fundy celebrity ex-nun publishing phenomenon “Mary Ann Collins” has never given out any verifiable biographical information, never said which convent she attended or even which order, never been seen in public, photographed, or interviewed. There’s a lot of doubt that she even exists.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 12:28pm
Kris K

Put it away 12:28 pm,

Of course, PIA, I also have not “given out any verifiable biographical information”, “said which [church I] attended”, “been seen in public, photographed, or interviewed”. And no doubt some here “doubt that [I] even exist”. Nonetheless, we judge people by what they say, and how they support what they say. Are you saying that the information put forward by “Mary Ann Collins” is inaccurate? Much of what she cites is from Roman Catholic sources – are you denying the accuracy of this material?

The Roman Catholic church condemns itself by its own words and claims – as “Mary Ann Collins” highlights so well above.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 12:57pm
Put it away

Kris, you are not being cited by anti-catholics all over the net as an actual inside source, the whole premise of which is that she actually was a nun. Your true biography is not relevant to your claims. Her claims are entirely dependent on her biography being true in order to give them weight as “inside information”, whithout that she’s just another random catholic hater and no-one would quote her on anything. The vague details she does give out often contradict themselves, at one point her story was that she was raised catholic and later rejected it, version 2.0 of her life story was that she was raised with no religion and got interested from a catholic boyfriend. Which is true ? The inconsistencies of story and tone in “her” works strongly suggest she’s a pseudonym used by more than one person.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 1:10pm
Lucia Maria

Kris,

The formula for anathema in your comment is missing most of the words. Here it is in it’s entirety, from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Anathema:

“Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N– himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”

NOTE: the last sentence gives the purpose of the anathema – so “that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment”. Doesn’t sound like a condemnation to Hell to me.

Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent. The Pontifical gives the form for absolving him and reconciling him with the Church. The promulgation of the anathema with such solemnity is well calculated to strike terror to the criminal and bring him to a state of repentance, especially if the Church adds to it the ceremony of the Maranatha.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 1:46pm
Lucia Maria

These anathemas do not apply to today’s Protestants. As David MacDonald (who has pages and pages of info for Protestant’s major misunderstandings of the Catholic Church) explains:

The anathemas were only declared against people who already belonged to the Church. They did not apply to someone say in Japan who had never heard the Gospel. They did not apply to Protestants who never belonged to the Catholic Church, which means it almost never applied Protestants after the Reformation. Anathema was the most severe form of excommunication. Someone can’t be “ex-communion-icated” if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place. And those who were “anathemized” could be reconciled to the Church at any time through the sacrament of confession and reconciliation. I think we have to take into account the distinction between what the Church called a “material” heretic and a “formal” heretic. The Church considered a “material” heretic to be someone who never belonged to the Church and never knew what the Catholic Church taught. They did not fall under Trent anathemas.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 1:51pm
MikeNZ

In terms of the RC, I was baptised as a baby in the RC by my father. A very lapsed Catholic with a sewer for a mind, rather like many of the priesthood.

That I don’t believe in baby baptism as they can make NO decision for themselves before God is immaterial.

But as you know words and deeds have power in the spirit as well as the Physical and they certainly do in the psyche.

So the anathemas may well apply to me, though thank God I wasn’t confirmed a Catholic so didn’t have to be delivered of that.

Saying the anathemas were only declared against people who were already part of the church is a misnomer, whether you do it deliberately or from ignorance I don’t know Lucia, but I adjure you in the name of Jesus to not hide behind words.

It was against people who loved Jesus and didn’t want a bar of the corruptness of the RC of Rome.
They were Christians and the RC of Rome cursed them and has never rescinded it to this day.

The RC of Rome is the the church of Christ and has never been and never will be. Christs church transcends man’s visible church and much of it is outside of it as well.

For it is the Spirit that gives power to the church not man and certainly not man’s corrupt political structures.
Where man is in charge witchcraft soon occurs and after that sexual depravity as you are very aware.

I point you to the Catholic Encyclopedia that is held in every bishopric if you need to read the history of the RC from centuries ago to this present day.

They may not have vestal virgins serving the pope and cardinals but they have scores of children throughout the world on every continent and country.

So please don’t play word games, this is a salvation issue of Math 18.6 level, there are lurkers reading our words.
Matthew 18:6 (New International Version)

6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 2:28pm
MikeNZ

Just for clarity.
http://www.olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml

The Catholic Church has solemnly defined three times by infallible declarations that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The most explicit and forceful of the three came from Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, who proclaimed ex cathedra: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

The other two infallible declarations are as follows: There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved. Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII, (Unam Sanctam, 1302).

This means, and has always meant, that salvation and unity exist only within the Catholic Church, and that members of heretical groups cannot be considered as “part” of the Church of Christ. This doctrine has been the consistent teaching of the Popes throughout the centuries

Further, it is dogmatically set forth that no authority in the Church, no matter how highly placed, may lawfully attempt to change the clear meaning of this (or any) infallible dogma. Vatican I taught: “The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding.” This same Vatican I defined solemnly that not even a Pope may teach a new doctrine.

The greatest act of charity that one can perform is to bring others to the truth. The Catholic Faith is a gift from God, one that can be shared, one that gives life and salvation. Mother Church, being solicitous for the welfare of all mankind, has always sought to bring all into the One Fold (John 10:16), and to unite all in the profession of the one Faith given to us by Christ through the Apostles. If She were to hide the truth, or be content to leave others in their error, She would be cruel and indifferent.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 2:33pm
Kris K

Lucia Maria 1:46 pm,

NOTE: the last sentence gives the purpose of the anathema – so “that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment”. Doesn’t sound like a condemnation to Hell to me.

Lucky for me MY salvation is subject to God’s judgement of me, not the judgement of the RC church and its papacy. In fact Bible believing Christians were judged with Christ when He died on the cross on their behalf, and for their sins. Remember, Christ Himself proclaimed “It is finished” just prior to Him giving up the ghost while on the cross.

You continue to expose the heresy that is the Roman Catholic church, Lucia.
More un-biblical proclamations such as:
• the RC mass (which re-crucifies Christ again and again and again – the ultimate perversion and heresy).
• the un-biblical concept of suffering in purgatory for ‘unpaid sins’ – Christ paid completely on the cross.
• praying/paying for the dead to lesson their ‘time’ in purgatory – more post death abominable heresy.
• the existence of some imaginary ‘keys’ which only the RC church has the authority to use.

Biblical Christians have been judged (past tense) at the time of Christ’s crucifixion. Everyone else will be judged at the Great White Throne judgement in God’s/Christ’s presence; but their eternal destiny is fixed at the point of physical death. Read the account of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16 – this clarifies that there is no further hope after physical death.

And regarding the statement in your 1:51 pm comment:

These anathemas do not apply to today’s Protestants.

“The anathemas were only declared against people who already belonged to the Church.”

The fact that any Christian outside of the RC church is not regarded as saved, and by (RC) definition cannot be saved unless they come into the RC church, especially if they acknowledge the many and varied heresies of Rome and reject her authority (as Mike and I do), reveals such individuals are already in a state of anathema according to the RC church.

And even if you argue that Trent anathemas DO NOT apply to those who have never been part of the RC church, there are many other Papal proclamations which condemn never-have-been-a-RC Christians. As if God makes such distinctions.

Go and ask the Huguenots, the Hussites, the Albigenses, the Waldenses, and many other Christians who were slaughtered by Rome for rejecting Rome’s heresies. No such distinction was made by Rome between those who were ex-Catholics, and those who came to Christ independent of Rome. Rome murdered all and sundry Christians who rejected its authority.

I restate again the closing portion of my 11:14 am comment:

“The Catholic Church is engaging in ecumenical dialog with Protestants and Orthodox, calling them “separated brethren,” and speaking as if it respects their beliefs. But at the same time, behind the scenes, it still officially declares that they are damned to hell because of their beliefs. It still believes that the Roman Catholic Church has the power and the authority to damn people to hell, and it has an official written ritual for doing so.”

There is no salvation for those who rely on the false gospel of works of the RC church, sadly.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 3:09pm
Pete George

It seems pointless arguing over whose beliefs will lead to salvation, there is no way of knowing who will be right and who will be wrong, there is no salvation guaranteed for anyone, if it is as finicky getting the beliefs right for salvation at best very few would have taken the right punt, and quite possibly there will be no salvation for anyone.

It’s a lot simpler trying to lead a good life and let death take care of itself.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 3:36pm
Lucia Maria

Mike,

Just at Put it away pointed out to Kris that the supposed nun he quotes is not a trusted source on Catholicism, and which I have backed up showing how the quote lies by omission, I have to point out to you that the site that you link to is also not a trusted source. I spent a bit of time reading the site and found a number of warning signs. I then searched for the site on Catholic Culture, and they concur with my assessment.

Unfortunately, the site is tainted by a lack of obedience and humility regarding the Liturgy. Much of the material found here directly rejects Vatican II and the New Mass. Additionally, the overall tone of the site subtly reinforces this stance. So, while there seems to be some useful information to be found here, other sources should be used when possible.

Fidelity : Danger!

There are heaps of these sites on the web. I come across them myself frequently, and have learned to recognise them by their harsh tone. Normally a quick read of the site then confirms my initial reaction.

I’ve not spent a lot of time researching this sort of material (just read up about the anthemas today, but I’m glad I did), but I’m sure, given enough time I could point out where they go wrong. It just takes more time than I have right now.

I also cannot deal adequately with the level of false assertions being made about the Church by yourself and Kris. It’s just too much. Can I ask, if you really, really want to know the truth of what you are accusing the Church of, that you at least read some of the links I have provided with an open mind. Pray, if you have to, to be protected from evil as you do so. But if you really want to know, you must start looking at the trusted sites rather than those by the capital “T” traditionalists (a holier than thou bunch, who would not feel uncomfortable doing a number of burnings at the stake) and heretics.

I’m just going to address two more subjects in this comment. First infant baptism.

My two children were Baptised at the ages of 6 and 10, because, being an ex-Catholic, I didn’t even consider Baptism for them when they were babies. As both were at, or around the age of reason, the priest was adamant that they both had to give their assent and they had to understand what they were entering into before he would do it. Quite honestly, it caused me no end of worry, as the whole process took months. And I’d already had a scare with my oldest son almost being strangled in a tug of war incident at his school soon after I had returned to the Church myself.

A year or more after they were both Baptised, my older son told me that the shadows that he used to be afraid of that were in his room before he would fall asleep were not there any more. They hadn’t been there since the Baptism. He had seen these things ever since he could remember, but after he belonged to Christ, after his soul had been marked by Baptism, the shadows were gone.

I’ve never experienced the shadows myself, but I do know a number of unbaptised children due to the friends my children have. And seriously, some of these kids are really afraid of … something. One of my friends asked me to get my son (who is 9) to stop talking to her son about the end of the world because stuff like that terrifies him. While as my 9yo is not afraid.

I really wonder if my oldest son would have ever seen those shadows if he had been Baptised as a baby.

Anyway, as a parent it was my duty to have my children Baptised as babies, in other words it was my responsibility as a parent to have them marked by Christ as soon as possible so that they belonged to Him. Your father, whatever else you think of him, at least fulfilled his duty in this respect.

As to whether or not you are a “formal heretic” as opposed to a “material heretic”, it depends on whether you truly knew what you were doing when you left the Church. Having a lapsed Catholic as a parent would lead me to believe that you yourself were not taught the Faith, and therefore did not know what you were leaving. Going to a Catholic school wouldn’t have helped you because the last 40 years or so has seen a massive breakdown in Catholic religious education. Most Catholic children graduating from Catholic schools today leave as non-believers.

The other subject I need to comment on is the Mass.

We DO NOT re-sacrifice Christ in every Mass. However, we do, through Heaven, open a window into eternity that connects to the one Sacrifice of the Cross when it happened in time. Just as Jesus did at the Last Supper when he celebrated the first re-enactment of the Mass before He actually suffered on the Cross and died.

As an ex-ex-Catholic myself, I do note those that are ex-Catholics in my travels online and specifically pray for them. Count yourself added to that list.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 4:26pm
MikeNZ

Thank you Lucia for your kind words, I will look at http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=865.
What is the other site you are on?

I have been referring to the Roman catholic Church not the church.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 4:54pm
Fot

I wish you bible bashing idiots would take your war over to one of the religious blogs.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 4:56pm
krazykiwi

Yup, even this bible basher wishes that GD could sometimes be free from religious debate. An occasional joust is fine… an I’ll even join in, but having the GD become a daily theological bear-pit does get a bit tiring.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 5:00pm
Lucia Maria

Fot and Krazykiwi,

This is an old General Debate from a couple of days ago, in case you haven’t noticed.

Mike,

That Catholic Culture site has alot of information.
But an easier site to read is that of David MacDonald.

If there is anything in particular you’d like to discuss offline, feel free to email me at lucyna dot nz at gmail dot com.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 5:06pm
Kris K

Lucia Maria 4:26 pm,

My two children were Baptised at the ages of 6 and 10, because, being an ex-Catholic, I didn’t even consider Baptism for them when they were babies. As both were at, or around the age of reason, the priest was adamant that they both had to give their assent and they had to understand what they were entering into before he would do it. […]

A year or more after they were both Baptised, my older son told me that the shadows that he used to be afraid of that were in his room before he would fall asleep were not there any more. They hadn’t been there since the Baptism. He had seen these things ever since he could remember, but after he belonged to Christ, after his soul had been marked by Baptism, the shadows were gone.

That’s interesting that the priest felt it important that your boys were old enough to understand prior to being baptised. And, of course, this is what I’ve been saying to you for a while – genuine baptism can only follow after someone has understood the gospel, and subsequently received Christ as Lord and Saviour. Hence the term that many evangelical churches use when they describe baptism; “believers baptism”. This is consistant with NT theology where only those who believed and had received Christ were baptised. Infants were never baptised in the NT.

Of course I understand it unlikely that the baptism you describe above was “believers baptism” as I would understand it, as you have already said previously that no one can know if they are saved until they stand before God – which is what your (RC) church teaches you to believe (as opposed to what the Bible teaches).

And as far as your son seeing “shadows” before but not after baptism – have you considered that these might be satanic deceptions to lull you and your son into a false sense of spiritual security? That because he doesn’t see them now that that somehow proves he has been “marked” by baptism? (Whatever that means).

According to the Bible the only thing approaching your so called “marking by baptism” is something that actually happens at salvation (Remember, believers baptism follows salvation); where we are sealed by the Holy Spirit at salvation:

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Notice how we are sealed with the Holy Spirit [immediately] AFTER we believed [on Christ]. No mention here of water baptism. This ‘seal’ is in fact God’s mark of ownership; that we are His; that we have been purchased [by Christ’s shed blood]. This ‘seal’ of ownership holds us in good sted until our flesh is ‘redeemed’ by us receiving our glorified bodies.

Note: In a sense we are baptised at salvation – but this is not water baptism. At salvation we are immersed (baptised) into the one body; the body of Christ, by the Holy Spirit. This is purely a spiritual transactrion which God alone carries out:

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

But I’ve explained much of this to you before, Lucia.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 6:40pm
Put it away

“have you considered that these might be satanic deceptions”

Have you considered you might be a complete loon ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 16, 2010 9:32pm
MikeNZ

KK
This is an old thread 🙂

PIA
That is exactly what I thought.
Then I realised that you might be deceived too.

Kris’s supposition could be correct.
That through Her links Lucia has illuminated her family and it was targeted to drive/lead them into further bondage.
Again her reading is the opposite of that of course.

I take it you don’t accept the Spirit world as a reality?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 17, 2010 8:36am
Lucia Maria

Mike and Kris,

I’m not sure how a person could get “further into bondage” after being involved with Steiner education. I’ve experienced bondage, and what it’s like to see the truth momentarily before forgetting again. Case in point, when I was discerning whether or not we should leave the Steiner school, I would open up books on Steiner’s writings, asking for help in seeing whether we should stay or go. And the pages would fall open to Steiner explaining the “Luciferian principal”, how good and evil is necessary in order for a person to remain in balance and how his education system would achieve that. I’d read it, freak out and then forget it half an hour later. Just one example of many. It would have been very easy to stay there, and my children were happy there, it was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done to take them out.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
September 17, 2010 12:28pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« ICT in New Zealand: 50 Years On

The Canterbury legislation »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
Sharp departure in child poverty approach
Point of Order
Continuous Process Improvement
No Minister
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
Popuphobia’s Javier Milei Problem
Utopia
Woman of the day
Hompaddock
Open mike 22/11/2024
The Standard
Drawn
No Right Turn
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d