General Debate 23 November 2010

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment120

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (120)

Login to comment or vote

Pete George

This doesn’t sound good.

North Korea attacks South Korean island
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 8:05pm
reid

“This doesn’t sound good.”

A South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff official said dozens of rounds of artillery landed on the island and in the sea… South Korea officials said it has deployed F16 jets.

No it doesn’t Pete but luckily they’re not very good at aiming if they can’t even hit the island and also our side has F-16’s (bless them). I wish NZ had F-16’s as well, but we can thank Jim for that, can’t we. Thanks Jim, most appreciated.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 8:19pm
big bruv

reid

I thought Klark fucked up the deal for the F-16’s.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 8:33pm
kaya

Pete – could be the opening salvos of WWIII.

Problem for the US is paying for this one. I love this video of the USA “credit card” in operation. Be very afraid!!!

http://dailybail.com/home/get-a-rare-look-inside-the-actual-us-treasury-auction-room-w.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 8:38pm
Pete George

At least we’re out of range of the Il Korean with a new career, inherited from his Jong father.

Kaya – anything like this is a worry, could easily escalate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 8:40pm
reid

“I thought Klark fucked up the deal for the F-16′s.”

I’d like to think so too BB but unfortunately it was Bolger who didn’t say Yes soon enough, before he was outed. He had plenty of time to lock it in. The US knew what it was doing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 9:04pm
reid

SK isn’t going to attack NK nor vice-versa anytime soon.

NK has about 36,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul as I type this. They are in caves and there is a 0.5 hour downtime before the SK radars can backtrack the ballistic shell-path to the gun.

This would cause in that time 1m+ casualties in Seoul. This is the first problem.

Second problem re: this particular thing is: Did you know the Vietnamese tunnels were designed and built by North Koreans? Imagine what they’re like now.

OTOH, NK doesn’t want to die, it knows it will face annihilation if it uses unreasonable force.

Where did this latest exchange come from, I wonder. What does this territory have, if anything, that caused them to do this?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 9:12pm
big bruv

Cheers Reid, I was living in the UK at that time and was unaware of how it all went down.

Guess that is another fuck up we can shed back to that moron Bolger.

How the hell did the people of NZ ever vote for Bolger, the guy was/is an idiot.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 9:15pm
kaya

Pete – still my favourite video of “dear leader” kim jong il, I must admit I admire his methods for dealing with bureaucrats and the UN in particular:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TEvacFETvM
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 9:26pm
reid

” the guy was/is an idiot.”

I actually rate him bb not cause he was a genius but cause he was, like Reagan, a good person to have in the chair. He not only hears but also listens to people who have differing perspectives is the impression I have always got and that’s not always common in a leader. This to me makes a difference.

The fact he wasn’t always right in his decisions, is where he lets me down and on the F-16’s in particular. Turning them down was just fucking nuts.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 9:26pm
kaya

reid – glad to hear this isn’t likely to escalate. I am so relieved I am going to grab a beer, get on my Xbox 360 and blow away some commie bastards!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 9:27pm
kaya

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/markets/news/article.cfm?c_id=62&objectid=10689469

Ouch – time for another revolution Ireland.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 9:30pm
Fletch

Yvette, but still I do not think this chiding from Paul affects Peter’s overall supremacy, which can be obviously seen in the Acts of the Apostles. He is seen very clearly as the leader there. As the writer at catholic.com points out –

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals.

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals.

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.

He also makes the points –

But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.

One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.

All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

Also, the Early Church makes many references to the primacy of Peter. The Church doesn’t just stop after the book of Acts, or the NT. What happened after? What was said? For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).

In other words, Yvette, where do you consider the authority of the first church ended? Or do you not believe that Peter and the other Apostles had any authority given to them by Christ, when it so very clearly says in the Bible Jesus gave them all this authority. Or do you believe it died with them? Not according to the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Jesus clearly asks Peter three times, and Peter alone to “feed my sheep, tend my lambs”, making Peter the shepherd since Jesus the Good Shepherd is no longer on Earth.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 10:23pm
Fletch

ps, if the Early Christians were to come into our modern world, which church would they recognize as theirs? It is obvious that the first church believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist as did the Early Church fathers. Jesus also gave authority to Peter and the Apostles to forgive sin.

Which modern Church still has authority to forgive sin? The Catholic church alone claims this authority in the Sacrament of Confession, and no other church would dare to. Which modern church claims the Body and Blood of Christ present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist? Only the Catholic Church – again, no other would dare to make such a claim.

I believe that only the Catholic Church would satisfy the requirements to be recognized by the Christians of the first church as the church that Jesus Christ established.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 10:35pm
tom hunter

I know this may sound crazy but I’m not too worried about the North Korean “incident”. In any given year there’s several of these and it’s actually not as bad as the earlier torpedoing and sinking of that South Korean ship.

My reasons for saying that, is that you have to combine the event with two others:
– the announcement, earlier this week, of a new nuclear processing plant in North Korea. It’s a centrifuge cascade for enriching U235.
– the pending handover of power from Kim Jong Il to one of his sons.

The latter has been slowly moving forward for months now and it’s hard to know what ructions it’s causing within North Korean military and political circles. Maybe the political side wants to rattle some sabres to show that the new leader won’t yield to those people down South, or to the Americans. Maybe the military wants to stir things up to put him in a box, see how he reacts, and then game out the result. You would not know.

The former is a classic piece of NK attention getting. An article I read on it the other day had one of the senior US guys saying that they were “stunned” that 2000 centrifuges had been put together in an existing processing plant in just 18 months, which suggests outside help (Iran being one of the more obvious candidates). What’s more, they did this in full view of US spy satellites so secrecy was the last thing they were concerned about.

It all adds up to another cup-rattling exercise for money from the rest of the world: Hand over the dosh or there’s no telling what we’ll do with this stuff!

But a real shooting war? No. Their regime would be dead in two weeks, they know it, and they’re not quite that desperate – yet.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 10:44pm
MikeNZ

I believe that only the Catholic Church would satisfy the requirements to be recognized by the Christians of the first church as the church that Jesus Christ established.

Fletch I’m sorry but I must beg to differ.

The control and serfdom the RC has put over people, that’s put a man made wall between Christ and believers, the so called confessions whereby only the clergy had control.
The not allowing parents to read the bible to their kids in centuries past and even excommunicating mums and dads who did.
No Fletch that church is not of Christ.

Besides which the church was never meant to be a standing army but a guerrilla army with no vertical hierarchy, that moved in unison as a group under the leading of the Holy Spirit in the places it found it self, forever moving with what the Spirit was doing.
That same church who’s human structure (horizontal) was based on relationship and anointing of God, with H/S leading. The only vertical hierarchy was meant to be between believers and the Holy Spirit.

We thankfully have been given a priesthood of all believers and a plurality of elders, we confess our sins to one another (those we are in relationship with). We break bread and drink the cup in remembrance of Jesus and what His sacrifice did for all mankind.

Please Fletch, the monstrance does not become the body of Christ or the wine blood and if you really mean to state that, please explain exactly when in the ceremony does the Priest’s actions change it from biscuit to body and wine to blood?
Please also explain why only a priest can make the biscuit become the reserved sacrament?

If the RC really was the church of Christ why do they still own such palaces and riches and yet their people scrape by in so many places.

Why did so many popes and cardinals and some such live such immoral lives of debauchery and even now why does the RC not own up to the debauchery against children and especially young boys by it’s priesthood worldwide?

Why has the Pope not instructed every diocese to release all information they posses in their jurisdiction to the authorities so that priests and others who interfered with children can be prosecuted?

Why hasn’t this glorious divine church handed over the Bishops and Cardinals who hid and protected the offending priests to the same authorities?

You are on such sticky ground as essentially Fletch, you are saying that all others who claim Christ as their saviour are in error as they aren’t in the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore their salvation isn’t of God.

I would ask you to prayerfully think through where was the Holy Spirit of Christ in all the places and with all the clergy of the RC whilst they were rampaging themselves upon the little children?

Was He in this blessed wonderful organisation called the Roman Catholic Church?

Why did the other leaders not get revelation from the H/S of this wholesale debauchery amongst their fellows and the little ones?
Surely out of the thousands and thousands of them one was open to hear the H/S’s quiet voice?

One of the stumbling blocks to my coming to faith was that I saw all Christians as hypocrites as their leaders lived in rich robes and houses whilst people lived on the street. In London alone in the 70’s when I was a teenager, it was said that the RC alone owned 200 Million quid worth of properties.

I’ll stop now as I can go on all night, the list is so long.
Please Fletch I adjure you, repent for what you’ve just said or else it will be part of your judgment on the last day.
Repent.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 23, 2010 11:26pm
Fletch

MikeNZ, A lot of questions and statements in there, but as far as the abuse scandal, do you think that when someone becomes a priest or a bishop, or a Pope that they are automatically and magically protected from sinning? Or that the Church should appear to be perfect? Which church (Catholic or otherwise) is perfect? Judas Iscariot was one of the Twelve, one of Jesus’ original Apostles, yet he betrayed him, just as some priests are guilty of betraying the Church today. As Jesus said, if this can happen when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?

But does that weaken what the Church believes just because some priests go against it? Using my example of the Governor General again: he represents the Queen and her laws but does that mean he never breaks any? Or never does anything stupid? Does that make him any less the Queens representative, or does it change the Queen’s laws? No.

Or if you are a supporter of a Rugby League team (let’s say the Bulldogs), and some of it’s players rape a couple of female fans and are found guilty, will you not support the Bulldogs any more because of it? Surely not. You will support them still because they are your team and the actions of a couple of players do not represent the laws and conditions that the Bulldogs follow as an organization.

Bishop Sheen said –

“If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself.”
-Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (1895-1979)

As far as the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, I believe it is changed during the words of Consecration. The first church believed this as did the Early Church Fathers. In Corinthians it says –

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

And of course from John 6 –

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Many people were shocked at his saying this and followed him no more. But he didn’t call them back and say, “hey, it was only a parable and I didn’t mean it literally”. He even asked the Twelve if they wanted to leave too, but Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus didn’t explain to them the meaning of the ‘parable’ as he often did, because he was being literal and they knew it.

Now, even the Early Church Fathers believed and preached on the Real Presence. For example, Ignatius of Antioch –

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Matyr –

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

And many more

So Mike, I have to ask, for you, when does the church, who in Jesus time believed in the Eucharist, and the church in the early centuries after Christ died who believed in the Eucharist – when does this church change into the one, that for you, does not believe in it? The Reformation? After?

I agree with a lot of things you write on here, but we probably won’t agree on these points, much like Protestants and Catholics have not down through the years.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 24, 2010 8:33am
Fletch

More writings of the Early Christians –

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ” (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 24, 2010 8:42am
MikeNZ

Fletch
you’ve got me, wow such a lot of bunpf, I’ll just take the bulldogs analogy you made.

Would I keep supporting the bulldogs, maybe yes if it was a one off.
With the RC it is not a one off, it is every year and every century since they were formed in so many ways it is endemic.

Plus here in my lifetime we have the situation of priests sodomising little boys and raping little girls and abusing them psychologically and emotionally.

Do we have this special man or even all the special men who do 7 yrs training to become the one who turns the bread into bones and the wine into blood, actually standing up for these little ones?
NO.

Do we have these many many thousands of special men handing over the wicked abusers to the authorities?
NO.

What we have is a whole group of people who claim to speak with the unction of the Holy Spirit and one of them who claims to speak for God doing sweet fanny adams.

Moreover we see them obfuscating tha hiding the perpetrators from justice and the grieving parents over decades and different special funny men including the one who claims to speak as God’s representative on earth.

So they are rotten to the core.
They have proven that over decades in my lifetime and thousands of years in history as an organisation.

The RC is NOT Christs church for if it was, ALL the perpetrators would be being investigated right now including those who hid or protected them.

For all those who claim to be Christians who also identify as Catholics or in the RC, if you have not written to both your local Bishop and the Pope demanding that both the perpetrators and those who protected them be given over to the authorities in your territory, then you also partake of their perfidy and sin.

The RC is a man made organisation without the H/S, in error, that looks after the RC before anyone else and least of all Christ’s message.
I know many Catholics and I have had this conversation with some of them and to a man None of them have ever sent said letters.
Sorry Fletch printing old sayings doesn’t convince me, only seeing the works to prove who’s you are will.

I say you need to leave the RC and maybe if enough of you do, then the politicians inside will take notice, because the H/S isn’t in you corporately or else in all your leadership of thousands and thousands of men have we not found 1 who will stand up and be counted.

Even you a layman have not written to the Pope and your Bishop because if you had you would have said so.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 24, 2010 6:37pm
Fletch

Sorry Mike, you just regurgitated the same tired stuff there that the leftist media does. How many priests have actually abused children, and how many are good upstanding men? You’re throwing every priest into the same category and making it sound bad. You’re singling out priests as abusers. How many teachers have abused kids over the years? According to the Shakeshaft Report, prepared for the U.S. Department of Education in 2004, “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” Why aren’t you sending letters off complaining about teachers?

And no, I am not prepared to send letters off about priests. And why? Because this whole sorry mess goes back 20 years or more and has since been cleaned up by the instigation of Pope Benedict. The Catholic Church is the safest place in the world for children now – they have only a few cases come up in the last 9 years. I would like to see how secular organizations (or indeed, other churches) compare.

You would have every right to be angry if it were as bad as you say, but you’re throwing up generalizations and lies perpetrated by the media. At least some are a bit more honest, like Newsweek, who report –

The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.

A Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests “frequently” abused children. Yet experts say there’s simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. “We don’t see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else,” said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. “I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others.”

As for the Pope, he has done more than anyone –

The latest target of this media smear is none other than the pope himself – Benedict XVI – formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The records tell the actual story and the press tells another. The records indicate that at least one official within the Vatican (Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos) did apparently encourage cover up of sexual scandal, or at least it would seem that way. However, they also indicate that no prelate was more active in uprooting this kind of corruption than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Ratzinger was appointed prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (or “CDF”) in 1981. Though he was given only limited authority over issues related to sexual abuse, Ratzinger went to work exploiting every ounce of the limited power he was given. As a result, within 20 years, he was able to reduce the occurrence of sexual abuse within the Church down to pre-1950 levels. This was done during a time when sexual abuse of minors was increasing in non-religious (secular) society. That’s quite an accomplishment for a man with limited power over this issue. In fact the late Pope John Paul II was so pleased with the results, that in 2001 he transferred full authority to defrock abusive priest away from Cardinal Hoyos over to Cardinal Ratzinger.

Even Richard Dawkins, before he recently got all fired up, says in his book The God Delusion –

“Priestly abuse of children is nowadays taken to mean sexual abuse, and I feel obliged, at the outset, to get the whole matter of sexual abuse into proportion and out of the way. Others have noted that we live in a time of hysteria about pedophilia, a mob psychology that calls to mind the Salem witch-hunts of 1692… All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affections for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was indeed reprehensible. Nevertheless, if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defense, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience).

“The Roman Catholic Church has borne a heavy share of such retrospective opprobrium. For all sorts of reasons I dislike the Roman Catholic Church. But I dislike unfairness even more, and I can’t help wondering whether this one institution has been unfairly demonized over the issue, especially in Ireland and America… We should be aware of the remarkable power of the mind to concoct false memories, especially when abetted by unscrupulous therapists and mercenary lawyers. The psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has shown great courage, in the face of spiteful vested interests, in demonstrating how easy it is for people to concoct memories that are entirely false but which seem, to the victim, every bit as real as true memories. This is so counter-intuitive that juries are easily swayed by sincere but false testimony from witnesses.

I can’t help wondering the same thing…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 24, 2010 11:24pm

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Wonder why Espresso Republic closed?

Joseph Dunbar »

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