You know who needs a serious fisking? Richard Dawkins. Let's get started, shall we?
What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders.
Let me congratulate Richard Dawkins for acknowledging the closed-minded, outdated notion of the binary system of Good and Evil. Nietzsche would be scandalised.
The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously: a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate.
Right, like how the Episcopal Church is now transferring funds from their charitable causes to funds dedicated to suing orthodox believers out of their houses of worship.
The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast;
If you mean we don't believe that Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, then you're just a tad off, Dick. And while you're at it, you might wish to have a word with the J-Man himself, as He didn't find His "cannibal feast" all that "dotty" in Mark 14:22-25, Matthew 26:26-29 or Luke 22:13-20.
nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite.
Since when have British men ever possessed testicles?
It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV.
Dick? Condoms are indeed ineffective when HIV is widespread throughout society. Even the United Nations admits that. God (or no God, in your case) forbid the Church promote "distort[ed]" moral values, like abstinence.
Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.
I'm afraid you've got it all backwards, Dick. It's Rowan who's an embarrassment, what with his kowtowing to the Brits' Islamic overlords, as opposed to Pope B-Unit (my nickname is better), who actually takes a damned stance on things, rather than simply letting society redefine Truth in the name of "tolerance".
Poaching? Of course it is poaching. What else could you call it? Maybe it will succeed.
If by "poaching", you mean "welcoming" then, yes, you're absolutely right. After all, who would want to stay in a Church where if you tell the Truth, you get called names?
If estimates are right that 1,000 Anglican clergymen will take the bait (no women, of course: they will swiftly be shown the door), what could be their motive?
See above.
For some it will be a deep-seated misogyny (although they'll re-label it with a mendacious euphemism of some kind, which they'll call 'an important point of theological principle'). They just can't stomach the idea of women priests.
I don't believe men can give birth because it's biologically impossible. Is that deep-seated sexism re-labelled with a mendacious euphemism, such as "an important point of medical principle"?
One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest.
Right. They're all unenlightened, backwards broads, you see, so they must be either ignorant or self-hating. Dick? My mother would like a word with you.
For some, the motive will be homophobic bigotry, and a consequent dislike of the efforts of decent church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury to accept those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste. Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.
Never mind what Jesus said about marriage. Never mind what the Bible says - in the New Testament mind you! - about improper sexual relations. Never mind the fact that the Catholic Church is hardly alone in the abuse of minors (not to condone their poor handling of it but Dick is wrong to single them out as somehow exclusively and rampantly abusive).
Turning to the motives of the poachers, here we find cause for real encouragement. The Roman Catholic Church is fast running out of priests. In Ireland in 2007, 160 Catholic priests died, while only nine new recruits were ordained. To say the least, those figures don't point towards sustainability. No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: "Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity."
Well, you're right about one thing, Dick. Catholicism is hurting badly in the West, where your special brand of anything-goes morality and secularism is gaining "converts", shall we say. But your math is off. If 1,000 new priests were to join the ranks of the Church, that would be a rather paltry addition to the over 400,000 priests worldwide. I won't even get into Dick's "pimp" reference, since he is, for all intents and purposes, a whore himself, but I find it delightfully twisted that he modified the immortal words of Emma Lazarus in "The New Colossus", perhaps the greatest poem in defence of liberty, to mock those who are indeed denied their liberty within the confines of the dying, failed experiment that is the Anglican Church. Oh, and fun fact: Being a super-liberal, happily heretical "church" doesn't win you many new members.
Archbishop Rowan Williams is too nice for his own good. Instead of meekly sharing that ignominious platform with the poachers, he should have issued a counter-challenge: "Send us your women, yearning to be priests, who could make a strong case for being the better-qualified fifty percent of humanity; send us your decent priests, sick of trying to defend the indefensible; send them all, in exchange for our woman-haters and gay-bashers." Sounds like a good trade to me.
If by "nice", you mean "weak, indecisive and duplicitous", then right on. Anyone who disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church is free to leave. Unlike some denominations, they have held true to the Faith as instructed by Christ to the Apostles and carried on by the Church Fathers and their posterity. Anyone who dissents from Scripture and Sacred Tradition as held by Catholic doctrine really has no case, insofar as Church policy has remained largely unchanged for over 2,000 years. Anglicans, however, have seen their Faith hijacked by revisionists, heretics and other malcontents of the worst sort. They have been marginalised, scolded, robbed and otherwise abused, all in the name of "tolerance" and "equality", contrary to any semblance of either.
Damian Thompson - I don't know him, I swear - is right. Dawkins needs help. But then again, so do we. And that is why we must turn to Christ, whose Cross is our only true Help, our only hope for Salvation. Would that the revisionists, in all of their progressive "wisdom", could look at that very Cross and feel just a touch of humility, rather than engaging in the self-aggrandising, destructive behaviour which has rendered their once-respectable Church a religious chimaera, hating, rather than loving, the Faithful; enabling, rather than ameliorating, sin; damning, rather than saving, souls.
What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders.
Let me congratulate Richard Dawkins for acknowledging the closed-minded, outdated notion of the binary system of Good and Evil. Nietzsche would be scandalised.
The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously: a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate.
Right, like how the Episcopal Church is now transferring funds from their charitable causes to funds dedicated to suing orthodox believers out of their houses of worship.
The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast;
If you mean we don't believe that Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, then you're just a tad off, Dick. And while you're at it, you might wish to have a word with the J-Man himself, as He didn't find His "cannibal feast" all that "dotty" in Mark 14:22-25, Matthew 26:26-29 or Luke 22:13-20.
nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite.
Since when have British men ever possessed testicles?
It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV.
Dick? Condoms are indeed ineffective when HIV is widespread throughout society. Even the United Nations admits that. God (or no God, in your case) forbid the Church promote "distort[ed]" moral values, like abstinence.
Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.
I'm afraid you've got it all backwards, Dick. It's Rowan who's an embarrassment, what with his kowtowing to the Brits' Islamic overlords, as opposed to Pope B-Unit (my nickname is better), who actually takes a damned stance on things, rather than simply letting society redefine Truth in the name of "tolerance".
Poaching? Of course it is poaching. What else could you call it? Maybe it will succeed.
If by "poaching", you mean "welcoming" then, yes, you're absolutely right. After all, who would want to stay in a Church where if you tell the Truth, you get called names?
If estimates are right that 1,000 Anglican clergymen will take the bait (no women, of course: they will swiftly be shown the door), what could be their motive?
See above.
For some it will be a deep-seated misogyny (although they'll re-label it with a mendacious euphemism of some kind, which they'll call 'an important point of theological principle'). They just can't stomach the idea of women priests.
I don't believe men can give birth because it's biologically impossible. Is that deep-seated sexism re-labelled with a mendacious euphemism, such as "an important point of medical principle"?
One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest.
Right. They're all unenlightened, backwards broads, you see, so they must be either ignorant or self-hating. Dick? My mother would like a word with you.
For some, the motive will be homophobic bigotry, and a consequent dislike of the efforts of decent church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury to accept those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste. Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.
Never mind what Jesus said about marriage. Never mind what the Bible says - in the New Testament mind you! - about improper sexual relations. Never mind the fact that the Catholic Church is hardly alone in the abuse of minors (not to condone their poor handling of it but Dick is wrong to single them out as somehow exclusively and rampantly abusive).
Turning to the motives of the poachers, here we find cause for real encouragement. The Roman Catholic Church is fast running out of priests. In Ireland in 2007, 160 Catholic priests died, while only nine new recruits were ordained. To say the least, those figures don't point towards sustainability. No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: "Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity."
Well, you're right about one thing, Dick. Catholicism is hurting badly in the West, where your special brand of anything-goes morality and secularism is gaining "converts", shall we say. But your math is off. If 1,000 new priests were to join the ranks of the Church, that would be a rather paltry addition to the over 400,000 priests worldwide. I won't even get into Dick's "pimp" reference, since he is, for all intents and purposes, a whore himself, but I find it delightfully twisted that he modified the immortal words of Emma Lazarus in "The New Colossus", perhaps the greatest poem in defence of liberty, to mock those who are indeed denied their liberty within the confines of the dying, failed experiment that is the Anglican Church. Oh, and fun fact: Being a super-liberal, happily heretical "church" doesn't win you many new members.
Archbishop Rowan Williams is too nice for his own good. Instead of meekly sharing that ignominious platform with the poachers, he should have issued a counter-challenge: "Send us your women, yearning to be priests, who could make a strong case for being the better-qualified fifty percent of humanity; send us your decent priests, sick of trying to defend the indefensible; send them all, in exchange for our woman-haters and gay-bashers." Sounds like a good trade to me.
If by "nice", you mean "weak, indecisive and duplicitous", then right on. Anyone who disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church is free to leave. Unlike some denominations, they have held true to the Faith as instructed by Christ to the Apostles and carried on by the Church Fathers and their posterity. Anyone who dissents from Scripture and Sacred Tradition as held by Catholic doctrine really has no case, insofar as Church policy has remained largely unchanged for over 2,000 years. Anglicans, however, have seen their Faith hijacked by revisionists, heretics and other malcontents of the worst sort. They have been marginalised, scolded, robbed and otherwise abused, all in the name of "tolerance" and "equality", contrary to any semblance of either.
Damian Thompson - I don't know him, I swear - is right. Dawkins needs help. But then again, so do we. And that is why we must turn to Christ, whose Cross is our only true Help, our only hope for Salvation. Would that the revisionists, in all of their progressive "wisdom", could look at that very Cross and feel just a touch of humility, rather than engaging in the self-aggrandising, destructive behaviour which has rendered their once-respectable Church a religious chimaera, hating, rather than loving, the Faithful; enabling, rather than ameliorating, sin; damning, rather than saving, souls.
3 praise(s):
NICE job, dude.
Checking in, steered here from a "gaycon" list on Twitter! I'll add you to my blog.
Looks like he's even started to alienate other atheists with that hateful tirade, look.
Post a Comment