Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

โ† Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Digital image by Judy Green

It seems the biggest irony that Pope Benedict XV a German should be under pressure at this time because of the role the Catholic has played in covering up sex offences through the years. Perhaps now more than at any time in recent history the moral authority of the Church is being challenged. Other denominations may want to believe that they are absolved from the growing public perception that problems in the Church is confined to one or the other. The reality of the situation is that the perception of the Church is probably seen by many as having a more amorphous meaning. The Church still represents to many the moral anchor, the possibility that it maybe losing its relevance at a time when cultural relativism is on the rise continues to be a big concern to many.

In 1989 the dismantling of the Berlin Wall signalled the end of the cold war period, Reagan the Capitalist had triumphed over Gorbachev the Communist, from their current locations they both might agree it was truly an epiphanous event. Some are wondering at this Eastertide if Pope Benedict XV will demonstrate the courage to use his position to signal to the world once and for all that the Catholic Church is ready to exorcise the sex demon which continues to besmirch the work of the Church.ย  Twenty years after the felling of the Berlin Wall we live in a world which still wants to believe that there is someone greater, they maybe ready for yet another epiphanous event.

In any society there is always a place for the wise and intellectual among us. One thing we know is that to believe in God requires faith, no amount of debate whether in a docile or rancorous form can change this reality. While some may argue that religion has been used to brainwash the ignorant; there is the value position which some forget religion teaches of good and bad which has played its role in weaving modern day societies now under threat from moral degradation. If we are to believe that religion has no place in the emerging multicultural societies the question must be answered โ€“ What will replace it?

Last week a caller to a radio show who we identified to be Marsha Hinds-Layne, a call-in moderator in her own right, used the fact that there is now a growing distrust of the Church because of the sex scandals. She went on to make the point that many may feel disincline to send their children to Sunday School because of it. One would hope if a parent saw the benefit to be had of sending their children to Sunday School, there are simple remedies which could be put in place to counter the fear expressed by Mrs. Hinds-Layne.ย  More importantly what the argument has exposed are those who would say that they are Christians but would surrender at the first sighting of a challenge to their faith. What if Jesus Christ would have been so meek?

Easter represents an important event on the Christian calendar.ย  To quote Wikipedia,ย  The New Testament teaches that the resurrection of Jesus, which Easter celebrates, is a foundation of the Christian faith.[6] The resurrection established Jesus as the powerful Son of God[6] and is cited as proof that God will judge the world in righteousness.[7] God has given Christians “a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”.[8] Christians, through faith in the working of God[9] are spiritually resurrected with Jesus so that they may walk in a new way of life.[10]

Alluded to above, the Church is losing its relevance in today’s world and we can debate why. The pragmatists among us see the urgent need for the Church to give itself a chance by cleaning up its act. It will be hard enough for those who represent the Church to win the hearts and souls of the heathens among us without the distractions which have become part and parcel of religion nowadays. The sex scandals, the greed, the hypocrisyโ€ฆ

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety – Proverbs 11:14


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

201 responses to “Moral Authority Of The Church Under Threat At Eastertide”


  1. @Adam Sherman…

    If one can not respect another’s beliefs, then one should not expect others to respect yours.

    I do not *know* I am correct. Nor does *anyone* else.

    Even if they claim they do.


  2. Mr. Halsall states what he appears to believe is an absolute truth.

    Here it is: โ€œIf one can not respect anotherโ€™s beliefs, then one should not expect others to respect yours.โ€

    Leaving aside as marginal the attention-diverting grammatical tangle of โ€œoneโ€ and โ€œyoursโ€, this leaves us with the following ineluctable proposition:

    If โ€œoneโ€ disrespects anotherโ€™s belief that itโ€™s perfectly acceptable to regard Africans as subhuman and shove them onto slave ships (or to regard Jews as subhuman and shove them into ovens) then โ€œoneโ€ should not expect โ€œoneโ€™sโ€ beliefs to be respected.

    A quick hint, Mr. Halsall: the โ€œoneโ€ approach only ever works if youโ€™re willing to take it right through to the end. As in: โ€œIf one can not respect anotherโ€™s beliefs, then one should not expect others to respect oneโ€™s.โ€

    I wouldnโ€™t recommend your trying that at home.

    Iโ€™d always recommend โ€œcannotโ€ rather than โ€œcan notโ€.

    I wish you all the best.


  3. @Adam Sherman…

    I sit corrected on my grammar. Thanks for the corrections. My bad.

    Care to speak to my fundamental points?

    Gรถdel might help you here….


  4. @Adam Sherman: “If โ€œoneโ€ disrespects anotherโ€™s belief that itโ€™s perfectly acceptable to regard Africans as subhuman and shove them onto slave ships (or to regard Jews as subhuman and shove them into ovens) then โ€œoneโ€ should not expect โ€œoneโ€™sโ€ beliefs to be respected.

    Just wondering…

    Where in my above did I mention African slaves or Jews?

    Do you have agenda Adam?


  5. @GP

    Peters residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of of distinct testominies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries.Peter arrived in Rome around the year30.His death was around 67/68 of the4th century.It seems to me that in the christian world the zealots never miss a moment to tear other religions down.
    Yes Jesus did choose Peter as the one to lead the Church .


  6. @ac: “Peter arrived in Rome around the year30.His death was around 67/68 of the4th century.

    So, just for clarity…

    Did Peter live for approximately 37 years?

    Or approximately 437 years?

    If the former, how could Jesus have chosen him?

    If the latter, what kind of life support was available back then???


  7. Mr. Halsall,

    I can tell you for a certainty, and immediately, that Kurt is no help. I could see your Gรถdel
    and raise you a Chomsky. You could bluff on a Russell but Iโ€™d always be flush on Berlin (for others reading, thatโ€™s not Irving).

    Abstract logistics doubtless fascinate those who are fascinated by abstractions. I am, too, from time to time. But I live in a place that Iโ€™ve chosen to call the Real World. And there, itโ€™s perfectly acceptable to be ignorant of the distinction between โ€œisleโ€ and โ€œaisleโ€. Whatโ€™s important is to acknowledge that itโ€™s ignorance if you fail to make the distinction. Complete ignorance.

    I would certainly like to โ€œspeak toโ€ your โ€œfundamental pointsโ€. Can you give them to me again in 45 words or fewer? Iโ€™ll definitely โ€œspeak toโ€ them then. Iโ€™ve never โ€œspoken toโ€ points before, but I promise to make my best effort.

    All best wishes.


  8. @Adam Sherman… I suspect now that you’re playing a game under an alias…

    @AS: “I would certainly like to โ€œspeak toโ€ your โ€œfundamental pointsโ€. Can you give them to me again in 45 words or fewer? Iโ€™ll definitely โ€œspeak toโ€ them then. Iโ€™ve never โ€œspoken toโ€ points before, but I promise to make my best effort.

    Prove to me (beyond *any* doubt) that *any* and *all* God(s) *cannot* exist. Or that any God(s) must.

    Bonus points — prove that any of the possible God(s) are mutually exclusive.

    You gave me 45 words. I used 30.

    I look forward to your response….


  9. Just to be perfectly clear โ€ฆ

    Mr. Halsall had two questions. Here they are:

    โ€œWhere in my above did I mention African slaves or Jews?
    Do you have agenda Adam?โ€

    Answers, in reverse order:

    1. No. What a very bizarre question.

    2. No, you didnโ€™t mention African slaves or Jews. Sorry if this is difficult for you, but that was the point. What you DID say, was this:

    โ€œIf one can not respect anotherโ€™s beliefs, then one should not expect others to respect yours.โ€

    Then I said (to paraphrase) that such was an historically illiterate and morally bankrupt argument, given slavery and the Holocaust. I was trying to be polite to you, while making it evident how morally comical was your assertion that:

    โ€œIF ONE CAN NOT RESPECT ANOTHERโ€™S BELIEFS, THEN ONE SHOULD NOT EXPECT OTHERS TO RESPECT YOURSโ€.

    It doesnโ€™t even make grammatical sense. I was simply pointing out what an utterly, morally bankrupt thing that is to say.

    Would you care to โ€œspeak toโ€ that?

    All best wishes.


  10. @Adam Sherman… I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong…

    But are beliefs not different than actions?


  11. @CH

    If you have a problem with theyears,go fight with the historians . I did not write the history.


  12. Mr. Halsall has a demand. Itโ€™s a very disappointing demand and doubtless I will always think less of him for his having made it.

    Here is Mr. Halsallโ€™s demand:

    โ€œProve to me (beyond *any* doubt) that *any* and *all* God(s) *cannot* exist. Or that any God(s) must.โ€

    As Mr. Halsall used to say when he was being unusually tiresome: (โ€œsighโ€).

    I cannot prove a negative, Mr. Halsall. I cannot prove that Zeus is still not sitting on Mount Olympus, governing your love life. I cannot prove (beyond *any* doubt) that the Nordic god Thor is not responsible for thunder. I cannot *prove* that that itโ€™s a lie that George Bush invaded Iraq because he heard a voice in his hair-dryer.

    You have become deeply disappointing, Mr. Halsall.

    Nonetheless, I wish you all the best.


  13. @CH

    Sorry my bad!I forgot you are a little slow

    Here it is in more detail

    Peter born c. 1BCin Bethsaida

    Died AD67 in Rome by crucifixion


  14. @Adam Sherman: “I cannot prove that Zeus is still not sitting on Mount Olympus, governing your love life. I cannot prove (beyond *any* doubt) that the Nordic god Thor is not responsible for thunder.

    Thank you for confirming my point Adam.

    This is why I respect *all* beliefs.

    Actions are quite another matter.


  15. @Technician

    Posed a question to you under the LIME blog.

    Thanks


  16. @ac: “Sorry my bad!I forgot you are a little slow

    Yeah. Sorry about that. It is probably genetic…

    Good to know Peter was not claimed to have lived over 400 years….


  17. Next project by Sir Hillary, erecting a multi-faith facility to uplift the moral fibre of the student population and surrounding population.


  18. Mr. Halsall addresses me directly and then poses a question.

    Here is Mr. Halsall:

    โ€œ@Adam Shermanโ€ฆ Iโ€™m sure youโ€™ll correct me if Iโ€™m wrongโ€ฆ
    But are beliefs not different than actions?โ€

    Again, in reverse order.

    1. Yes, beliefs are not action.

    2. Almost always, and without question in your context, itโ€™s โ€œdifferent fromโ€, not โ€œdifferent thanโ€.

    3. Have you ever noticed a correlation between people who write badly and people who think poorly? Donโ€™t want to tax you too much on that one. A simple yes or no is enough.

    All best wishes to you.


  19. David why are you allowing Halsall to talk to himself?


  20. Itโ€™s important to get this straight.

    Mr. Halsall says: โ€œThank you for confirming my point Adam โ€ฆ This is why I respect *all* beliefs.โ€

    This means, unavoidably, that Mr. Halsall respects Afrikanersโ€™ belief in apartheid.

  21. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Peter born c. 1BCin Bethsaida
    Died AD67 in Rome by crucifixion
    Christ died AD 33
    Church started in AD 33 in Jerusalem according to Acts 2

    Peter arrived in Rome AD 30 and started church before Christ died?
    RC organization started in AD 313
    How could he be the first Pope?

    Also the early church never had a single leader. Note that the โ€œchurchโ€ i.e the body ie the membership gathered together to make decisions.

    If the early church had a single leader (and it did not) it would seem to have been James from reading the account of the church council meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15 verses 6 et secq
    We need to read the Word for ourselves and check out things. Donโ€™t go by what your church says. Go by what the Bible says like Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and Knox et and others did
    6. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
    7. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
    8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
    10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11. But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
    12. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
    13. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
    15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
    18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
    19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
    21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
    22. Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23. And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

    The early church had a plurality of leaders as all churches are supposed to have if we go by the NT. Read the NT again and you will see that church leaders were always in the plural.
    Nowhere in the NT will you read of pastor X or bishop Y or elder G, lording it over anyone you always read about the saints (or membership) and the bishops and deacons.

    It is noteworthy that Peter himself taught with respect to church leadership in 1 Peter 5:1-2 that The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3. Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock
    Bishop = elder = pastor. All are designations for the same person. And a bishop does not stand at the top of a hierarchy in the church of our times. Now we gone into the realm of Church Administration now

    If all church goers of all denominations would all follow the Scriptures that we say that we are all going by we would all be closer together, and the holes about which Islander speaks would not exist. Or at least they would be fewer.


  22. @Adam Sherman: “Itโ€™s important to get this straight.

    Indeed it is.

    @AS: “This means, unavoidably, that Mr. Halsall respects Afrikanersโ€™ belief in apartheid.

    I respect the right of everyone to hold their own beliefs. This includes, for example, Negroman’s right to hate everyone.

    And I reserve the right to disagree with them.

    And I reserve the right to support the “state” to oppose any *action* which negatively impacts anyone else based on these beliefs.


  23. I agree with Donville Inniss (and I am NOT a D. I am NOT a B either), I don’t think that we need to spend scarce tax money to build a multifaith center on the Cave Hill Campus. There are literally dozens of Christian churches, a mosque, and a place where Rastafarians gather for fellowship within a 20 minute bus ride of the UWI, Cave Hill campus. I am sure that all of these congregations would love to welcome UWI students and faculty. Some UWI folk worship at my church from time to time and we are always glad to see them. We would be happy to see Sir Hillary and Minister Inniss as well. However most congregations should do a bit more outreach to the university community.


  24. @GP
    In your paragraph which referenced Peter as speaking to Leadership. He could have only done that if he was in a more influential position them .Therefore he was able to command their respect.

  25. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    J
    I agree with you wholeheartedly.

    Maybe Hilary wants to set up a beautiful church building like the Chapel at Mona.

    Students at Mona tended to go to their denominational churches in the contiguous Kingston areas, and even some distance away. Even the priests in training at UTCWI did this.

    I agree with you that most congregations should do a bit more outreach to the university community. But I suspect the church going students go to their denominational churches in the Cave Hill area and even further a field.


  26. GP has not accurately reported or understood my speculative reason why child abuse may seem more prevalent in the Roman Catholic Church than elsewhere.

    He wrote “… Annonymousโ€™(sic) argument that the leadership of the Roman organization is characterized by โ€œpedophile priests playing pouchie pokingโ€ because they do certain services or ministry does not hold much water.”

    He cites the SDA church as a comparable entity without similar cases of abuse. First I do not believe that the RC priesthood is characterised by pedophilic practices. There are unfortunately such priests in the RC church (and elsewhere) and because of the relative size of the RC Church there will be more cases of abuse assuming a similar degree of prevalence in the background population. Some comparisons to make the point.

    Membership: RC 1.15 Billion, SDA 16 million

    no.of primary schools: RC 91,694 SDA 5,666

    no. of secondary schools: RC 41, 210 SDA 1,470

    no. of priests: RC 408 024 SDA 15 813

    no. of hospitals: RC 5 500 SDA 168

    no. of nursing homes: RC 27 000 SDA 138

    Now for those who wish to be balanced in their assessment please view the following list of documented child abuse cases by protestant clergy including at least one SDA person. However it is notable the large number of pedophiles associated with “evangelical” churches.

    http://www.reformation.com/CSA/variousabuse.html

    Some have even stated that child abuse is actually more prevalent among protestant clergy than for RC priests. see

    http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

    an excerpt from this admittedly RC associated report : ” in the authoritative work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, ‘Pedophiles and Priests’, it was determined that between 0.2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent.”

    It should be noted that Jenkins is not RC.

    For a more balanced view of the North American situation:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex8.htm

    The Roman Catholic Church certainly has to answer for its covering up of criminal acts by some of its priests. However, the problem of pedophilia and clergy is not confined to the RC church. Contrary to the crass presentation of some on the matter (and I am NOT referring to Biblical interpretations, hermeneutics or exegesis etc), the theological position or claimed fealty to Biblical declaration of any particular church does not appear (to me) to correlate with the degree of prevalence of pedophilia among its clergy or membership.

    My final comment to posters with regard to the moral authority of any person or institution and in protecting one’s children from harm, is to echo my initial comments in this thread in particular that all persons “believe in their own intelligence and common sense and subject their own beliefs and actions as well as those of others to transparent and vigorous scrutiny.”

  27. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    OK Annonymous
    This time your apologetics is in order, and accepted. LOL

    Let me hear you now on holes in the bucket. And let me hear your definition of what the Evangelical Church is (that you like to attack!) LOL

    Onlookers let us understand that Christ is the head of the church, not the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury etc. The church has a libving Head who ever lives to make intercession for the saints. There have been several Popes and Achbishops in my life time.

    There are two officers of the church according to the NT. Pastor=elder= bishop and deacon. You will not see any hierachy in the early church. You will see that the apostles advised churches to appoint leaders in local churches acording to certain parameters. And one of those parameters was that the leaders be MEN and be married to ome woman!

    Let us understand by checking it our selves that the NT does not teach a clergy and a laity since ALL BELIEVERS are priests. Both Paul and especially Peter teaches this.

    It is Peter who set forth the concept of the pristhood of the NT believer in 1 Peter 2:

    At the church council in Acts 15 the apostles and the church, not the elders only or the bishops only or the cardinals or the Diocesan council- the church at Jerusalem and the apostles met to discuss some issues raised by Paul and Barnabas about Gentiles and thier acceptance into the church etc.

    Peter spoke but James seems to have had the final say.

    I am not saying that James was the head or the Arch bishop or that Peter was just a vicar or the reverse. I am saying that there was a PLURALITY OF LEADERS IN THE CHURCH. I am saying that in the Pauline epistles that Paul always addressed a plurality of church leaders.

    I am saying too that according to 2 Petert 3 that Pater saccepted the authority odf Pauls writings as sacred scripture.

    It seems to me that Peter was just another hurch leader in the early church and considered him self to be just a elder /pastor and refers to himself as such in relationship to the CHIEF SHEPHERD in 1 Peter 5:4.

    If you read Philemon you will see that Paul begged Philemon to recieve Onesimus rather than ordering him to do so.

    What the NT is treaching about these men is that they were not the autocratic one man show people that I have seen leading churches in the Baptist church especially and other assemblies.

    Peter and Paul were PROMINENT LEADERS IN THE EARLY NT CHURCH but neither of them sought to be nor were they PRE-EMMINENT. They both knew better. Neither of them were DIOTROPHETIC LEADERS (see 3 John 9).

    This tendency for contemporary “church” leaders to be DIOTROPHETIC & PRE-EMMINENT is one of the things that destroys even good Bible teachig and believing churches contributing to the “holes in the bucket” to which Islander correctly alludes.


  28. Mr. Halsallโ€™s respect, it seems, is endless. He will โ€œrespectโ€ Nazis and Pol Pot and slave-traffickers and the Vatican (a.k.a a Mafia cover-up for men who rape children). Mr. Halsall โ€œrespectsโ€ all their โ€œbeliefsโ€ as long as they donโ€™t โ€œactโ€ on their beliefs. Mr. Halsall is counter-historical and (with all the respect due to him) a man lacking in moral imagination.

    Here, again (โ€œsighโ€), is Mr. Halsall: โ€œI respect the right of everyone to hold their own beliefs. This includes, for example, Negromanโ€™s right to hate everyone.โ€

    Mr. Halsall, I make you a wager. One single bet, Christopher. Here is the wager โ€ฆ

    If I win, it would be my pleasure to invite you and any significant other of your choosing to have dinner with me and my significant other in any place on this island.

    When I lose (and I will lose, because the subliterate owner/publisher/editor of this blog has already determined what is and what is not a thought-crime), I invite you to dinner anyway, with your significant other and my significant other.

    And here is what is going to make this wager pointless. Iโ€™ve tried this before, Mr. Halsall, and every single time the subliterate owner/publisher/editor of this blog has deleted my message.

    Here we go:

    Dear โ€œBU Familyโ€:

    Recently you have signally failed to report ANYTHING, not a SINGLE word, about one of the vanishingly few news stories that are actually about Barbados.

    If you failed to notice that international story while you were busy trying to incite racial hatred among some of your less bright and less educated readers, the ones who donโ€™t know the difference between โ€œisleโ€ and โ€œaisleโ€, please let me try to help.

    Here we go, BU.

    Very recently, a Barbadian man was convicted of manslaughter in a Barbadian court because he hunted down an elderly Canadian tourist on a popular Barbadian beach and beat her to death in public and in broad daylight with a piece of wood.

    One of the regular contributors to BU, one of the โ€œBU Familyโ€ (letโ€™s call him Negroman, as you do, Christopher, though itโ€™s this little worldโ€™s worst-kept secret who the dunces behind โ€œNegromanโ€ actually are), repeatedly referred to that murder victim as โ€œwhite thrashโ€. Negroman and the people behind him couldnโ€™t even spell โ€œtrashโ€, the garbage word with which he wished to characterize an older lady beaten to death in Barbados on a public beach by a Barbadian.

    I will send you this entire thread as a personal message, Mr. Halsall. And letโ€™s see if the owner/publisher/editor of this blog censors it or not.

    All best wishes to you, Mr. Halsall


  29. @GP,
    You mentioned in an earlier posting that the SDA’s are a “cult”
    If they are, wouldn’t they be a very “open -cult”.

    What disagreement do you have with them?


  30. Here is a link to a documentary about the sex crimes by the Vatican and the pope.

    http://www.documentarywire.com/sex-crimes-and-the-vatican


  31. Mr. Done has a link.

    Perhaps you should consult Mr, Done’s link. Perhaps not. Your choice, obviously.

  32. Georgie Porgie Avatar

    MR cult? SIR

    1- YES I did mention in an earlier posting that the SDAโ€™s are a โ€œcultโ€
    2- I do not know what a very โ€œopen -cultโ€ is SIR.
    3- If you can understand the doctrine of the church as outlined in my earlier posts, anf if you can understand the teaching of the epistle to the Ephesians you will see why the SDAโ€™s are a โ€œcultโ€

    If you would read Martinโ€™s book THE KINGDOM OF THE CULTS you will find their a definition of a cult and a discussion of why the SDAโ€™s are considered a cult.

    Dr Martinโ€™s work is considered among sane sound simple students of the sacred scriptures to be an excellent resource source on this topic.

    I am not here to denigrate anyoneโ€™s โ€œchurchโ€ choice. I have in my post done two things
    1- present as simply and accurately a simple systematic theology of the doctrine of the church
    2- repeatedly appealed to readers to read the NT and check for themselves if these things are so or not, just as the saints at Berea did as recorded in Acts 17:11.

    If you will do these things, the Spirit is more than capable of guiding you into all truth.

    I trust that this explanation suffices SIR!.

    I found many years ago, and still do, that reading the text for myself and using simple methods of hermeneutics and exegesis that I have had to correct much of what I had previously thought, or had been taught.

    There are several testimonies of countless others who have had the exact experience, SIR!


  33. The Roman Catholic Church!

    The papacy: Is it Biblical?

    The Papacy, is it Biblical? Does this religious/political Hierarchical Institution derive its structure, arise from, or originate from true Apostolic Christianity as we see and find in God’s Word, the Bible?

    In answer to these questions, I will allow Roman Catholicism to speak loudly for itself, that is, I will quote primarily from Catholic sources all of which carry the official seal of approval from the Vatican, her Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, Imprimatur. I will then contrast these decreees, dogmas and doctrines of Catholicism with the absolute, divinely inspired Word of Almighty God, the Bible. We will then see clearly if the papacy is biblical.

    We must not add nor take away from God’s Word.

    Almighty God gave three stern warnings in His Word, the Bible, NOT to ADD nore TAKE AWAY from His divinely inspired revelation. The first waring is found early in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 4:2. The second serious warning is found in the middle of Scripture. “Every word of God is pure: DO NOT ADD TO HIS WORD, lest He rebuke you and you be FOUND A LIAR.” (Prov. 30: 5,6) emphasis added. The third and final warning is found in Revelation 22: 18,19. It is against the backgroung of these solemn warnings from God’s Word, that I now present a few of the historical evidences to show the utterly false and spurious manner in which Roman Catholicism created and invented its unbiblical system of Popery. I am quoting from ‘Catholicism Against Itself, Vol 1, by O.C. Lambert, who cites extensively from authorized ‘Catholic Encyclopaedia, 15 Volumes Special Edition under the auspicies of Knights of Columbus, Catholic Committee, The Encyclopaedia Press Inc., New York, 1913).

    DARK AGES.

    ‘Forgeries, Fabrications, Falsehoods, Fakes and Frauds! Substituting of false documents with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages.” (Cath. Ency., V1, 136).” On this period Lambert says: “The ‘Middle Ages’ a favourite designation of that period of history from the fifth to the sixteenth century, comprising more than a thousand years, it is not used so much by Protestants, who prefer ‘Dark Ages’ instead. Catholics admit that it was ‘an age of great ignorance, when criticism was neither in favour nor provided with means” (Cath. Dict, 105). Catholic Encyclopaedia speaks of ‘the distorted and legendary view the Middle Ages had in ecclesiastical antiquity” CV, 779).

    Apostolic Canons.

    On the supposed canons, Lambert writes: “With reference to one of the most monumental forgeries of that age, Apostolic canons, Catholic Dictionary says: “A tradition (accepted because unexamined) long prevailed that these canons were dictated by the Apostles to St. Clement of Rome, who committed them to writings. Accurate research has dispelled this notion .” (pp. 41,42).

    Forgeries began before ‘Middle Ages.’

    “Writers of the fourth century were prone to describe practices i.e., The Lenten Fast of Forty Days, as Apostolic Institutions, which certainly had no claim to be so regarded” ( Cath Ency, 111, 484). “One is forced to admit that the gradual corruption of Christianity began very early” ( Cath Ency., X11, 414).

    The Bible the Only Book used by early Church.

    “There was no written liturgy in the first three centuries..(Cath Dict, 523). “It would of course be a monstrous anachronism were we to ascribe a belief in Papal infallibilty to Ante-Nicene Fathers” (Cath Dict. 694).

    Apostolic Church Ordinances.

    “This ‘Pseudo Apostolic collection” was fabricated ‘in the third, or at latest, in the early part of the fourth century” (Cath Ency, 1, 635). It is described as “The so-called Apostolic church Ordinances” (Cath Ency, V, 339)/

    Apostolic Constitutions.

    On this massive fraud, Lambert states: “The mass of forgeries contained in this document has always been used since its creation in the fifty century, and though it has been recognised and acknowledged to be simply a monstrous forgery for hundreds of years, it is no less popular and useful to Catholic writers in their efforts to validate Catholic innovations today. As an acknowledgement of its character, Catholic Dictionary says: “They profess to contain the words of the Spostles written down by St. Clement of Rome” (p.43). Again on the same pages Catholic Dictionary says: ‘Pearson assingns the work as it strands to the middle of the fifth century.”

    “The Apostolic Constitutions consist of eight books purporting to have been written by St. Clement of Rome…The eight books contain litergy and the eighty-five ‘Apostolic Cannons…It has been suggested that the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions may be the same person (forger) as the author of the six spurious letters of St. Ignatius” (Cath Ency, 1, 571).

    Dionysius the Areopagite.

    “It is admitted to be a forgery (Outline of Dogmatic Theology, 11, 279). “It is plainly for the purpose of deceiving ” (Cath Ency., V, 13). It was intended to accentuate…immunity (Commentary of the Canon Law, Augustine, 1, 26). It was intended “To create the impression that the author belonged to the time of the Apostles” (Cath Ency., V 14). It was planned as a document “to serve the authority of the Roman Pontiff” (Commentary of the Cannon Laws, Augustine, 1,25).

    The foreging is just literally scartching the surface of the volumes confirming the utter fradulent creation of the Papacy and its maze of unbiblical false doctrine. Roman Catholicism DID NOT come into existence until around A.D. 311-325.

    “After this victory at Rome (which occurre October 27, 312) Constantine, in conjunction with his eastern colleague, Licinius, published in January, 313, from Milan, an edict of religious tolerance, which goes a step beyond the edict of the still anti-Christian Galerius in 311, and grants in the spirit of religious eclecticism, full freedom to all existing forms of worship, with special reference to the Christians. The edict of 313 not only recognised Christianity within existing limits, but allowed every subject of the Roman Empire to choose whatever religion he preferred. The reign of Constantine the Great, marks the transition of the Christian faith from under persecution by the secular government to union with the same; the beginning of the state-church sysytem, Roman Catholicism.” (History of the Christian Church, by Dr. Philip Schaft, Vol. 111, 311-600, pp. 4-29).

    A bit later, I’ll look at ‘Catholicism, Neither Apostolic, nor Scriptural.’


  34. Adam Sherman: “Mr. Halsallโ€™s respect, it seems, is endless. He will โ€œrespectโ€ Nazis and Pol Pot and slave-traffickers and the Vatican (a.k.a a Mafia cover-up for men who rape children).

    My apologies all. Last night I thought I would not respond to this, since I feel the record stands and I know many grow tired of my posts.

    But today, having thought about it a bit, I feel I *must* respond to Mr. Sherman’s twisting of my words — in case anyone reads only his posts, and not mine. Managing the message, if you will.

    For the record, I do *not* respect the *actions* of Nazism, nor Pol Pot, nor slave-traffickers, nor the Vatican, or *anyone* else who have caused harm to others.

    (As an aside, I have personally visited Pol Pot’s S21 and the “Killing Grounds”, and read many books on the subject. Deeply, *deeply* moving. How can we humans be so *stupid* and cruel?)

    However, also for the record, I believe that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they want (since one cannot actually control what another thinks) even if I and others don’t agree, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ON ANYONE ELSE.

    I personally believe it is better to get the disagreements out in the open so they can be recognized and seriously debated.

    I will refrain from quoting my own language which Mr. Sherman has twisted. But if anyone questions my position, please review my previous posts before coming to a final decision.

    Namaste to all.


  35. @All…

    For anyone who likes to use what they happen to find between their ears, this week’s eSkeptic is out:

    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-04-07/


  36. @Georgie porgie

    “I am not here to denigrate anyoneโ€™s โ€œchurchโ€ choice. I have in my post done two things”

    You called the people’s church a CULT

    Are u a Lunatic ? or just living in some dream world as a modern day saint or prophet

    stupse, the more u write the less i hear

  37. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Mr Islander Sir?

    Quid dixii et scripsi, dixi scripsique!

    Instead of engaging in your ad hominems why dont you read Galatians and the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith only, as taught throughout the NT and especialy in Galatians. Check Romans 4;4 Ephesians 2:8-9 Titus 3:5 etc

    The SDA’s as you know are a spin off from the Baptist church. The Baptists still teach corretly what the Bible states on the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith only as taught throughout the NT and especialy in Galatians.

    One of the basic things id rightly dividing the Word of Truth is determining between the purpose of LAW and the purpose of GRACE.

    Instead of engaging in your ad hominems why dont you read the NT for yourself to see if the things I said are so or not? Why dont you follow the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11?


  38. Roman Catholicism: Neither Apostolic Nor Scriptural.

    “For through Him (Jesus) we both have access by one Spirit( The Holy Spirit) to the Father” (Eph. 2:18) “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (Prov. 30: 5,6).

    In my earlier above, we saw that Roman Catholicism and its Religious/Political Hierarchical Papacy, was established upon Forgeries, Fabrications, Falsehoods and Frauds; as there is absolutely no basis whatsoever from Apostolic Christianity, nor the early Post-Apostolic era to give any credence to the title of office of Pope, Cardinal, or any of the other ecclestiastical designations that constitute this institution.

    That Catholicism had to fraudulently fabricate documents to establish a totally unscriptural religious/political system, that bears absolutely no resemblance to true biblical Apostolic Christianity, is clear-cut and obvious from its very own Catholic Dictionary and Encyclopaedia volumes, confirming that the Roman Catholic church, gradually developed into the Sacerdotal (Priestcraft) Sacramental religion, with no basis at all from the New Testament for such a system; plus the warranted historical facts that no such system existed for at least the first 300 years of the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostolic Church A.D 30-100, the Pentecostal Church, and the Persecuted Church, A.D. 100-313, bear no likeness, affinity, or semblance to Roman Catholicism, which came into existence when Emperor Constantine issued the edict of Toleration in 313, thus creating the official State/Church, and gave birth to historic Roman Catholicism. These warranted credible facts, simply cannot be denied by any intellectually honest person; yet, the monstrous lie that the Roman Catholic church has its origins in Apostolic Christianity, has been propagated for centuries and sadly accepted by multitudes who are unware of the facts and truth.

    Catholic Documents ‘Quasi-Historical!

    On this Lambert says: “Catholic Encyclopaedia proceeds to point out that the sources of their hierarchy as ‘Quasi-Historical’ (V11, 326, 341, 342), and under this classification lists Polycarp, Wusebius, Dionysius, Hegesippus, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Jerome, Isadore, Ambrose, Eutychius, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. The hierarchy today does not hesitate to still cite these writings in order to persuade men to accept the precepts and commandments of men! It is a gigantic fraud supported by forgery.”

    No Hierarchy For Centuries After the Apostles.

    Let us hear once again from the Catholic church itself. “The divine institution of the threefold hierarchy cannot, of course be derived from our text; in fact, it cannot in any way be proved directly from the New Testament; it is a Catholic dogma by virtue of the dogmatic tradition, i.e., in a later period of ecclesiastical history, the general belief in the divine institution of the episcopate, presbyteriate, and diaconate can be verified and thence, be followed on through the later centuries. But, the dogmatic truth cannot be traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strict historical testimony” (Cath Ency., V11, 334).

    Four Hundred Years Too Late.

    “At the end of the fifth century, the Roman Chruch was completely organised” (Cath Ency., 1X, 61). She does not claim to have had an archbishop until the end of the fourth century (Cath Ency., 1V, 44), and it was several centuries later before she had Popes and Cardinals.”

    Liber Pontificalls- Book of the Popes.

    According to Catholic Encyclopaedia. the author of this forgery, “took over” the Liberian Catalogue, and also used Clementine Recognition (1X, 225), both of which are acknowledged forgeries. This is simply a reworking of these earlier forgeries. It is one of the principle sources for the list of Popes, of which the Catholic Church boasts. Catholic Ency, contrary to the popular claim of Roman Catholicism, says: “But the chronology of these bishops of Rome cannot be determined with any degree of exacititude by the help of authorities today” (V11, 593).

    False Decretals of Isadore.

    “Of far greater influnce was another forgery or series of forgeries, the False Decretals of Isadore, published about AD 850. These professed to be decisions given out by early bishops of Rome, from the Apostles, such as the absolute supremacy of the Pope of Rome over the universal church; the independence of the church from the state; the inviolability of the clergy of every rank from any accountability to the state. These forgeries are the MOST NOTORIOUS LITERARY FRAUD ever committed in history, and the fradulent basis on which the Papacy has established itself, as these lies sought to antedate the rise of the Papacy by 10 centuries. This elaborate code, now called the False Decretals of Isadore, was simply a re-working of all the forgeries that had gone before in order to bring them up to date. It was the most elaborate and pretentious code that came into being up to this time.” Catholic Dictionary states: “Six centuries passed before it was discovered that the Pseudo-Isadorian or False Decretals, as they are now called, were to a great extent a forgery” (105).

    On the same false decretals, prominent Church Historian, Dr. Philip Schaff, writes:

    “During the chaotic confusion under the Carolingians, in the middle of the ninth century, a mysterous book made its appearance, which gave legal expression to the popular opinion of the Papacy, raised and strengthened its power more than any other agency, and forms to a large extent the basis of the canon law of the church of Rome. This is a collection of ecclesiastical laws under the false name of bishop Isador of Seville (died 636)…but the Pseudo-Isadorian collection is the MOST COLOSSAL and effect FRAUD known in the history of ecclesiastical literature” (History of the Christian Church, Vol 1V, Mediaeval Christianity, AD 590-1074, pp. 267,268) emphasis added.

    That Roman Catholicism is Alias Paganism, will be seen from what comes next!


  39. that was a bit harsh Mr Porgie, I actually took time and read some more of ur posting and in some cases it seems rather logically put out, however i still think that the tool called the bible has been mis used and misrepresented throughout history by those in power or seeking power to control the masses…and i have a big issue with these fire and brimstone would be demi popes who would tell ME what the bible really says as if if i am incapable of cognitive judgement

    I think i understand what u are trying to put out there but , will stay on my side of the fence

    Ps u didnt answer my questions about the islamic population of the world


  40. Here is my point, who is to say what is the truth and what is fabrication or misuse of the word of (our) lord…. If the SDAs decided through what they think is the truth and the word of god that they should be disassociated with the founding baptist church. well so be it, i cant see them as a cult or incorrect in their thought pattern, who is to say that the Bahai religion have not come along and got it right, u see, i admit, I DO NOT KNOW, and i put it to u, that the RCs do not know, the SDAs do not know, Islam doesnt know, the Bahais dont know, and my freind, i am sorry to disappoint u, but u dont know either.


  41. Mr. Zoe,

    your logical analysis of the Catholicism continue to impress…..
    ….my concern to you is related to the below question…..

    ***********************************************************************************************
    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceives not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not that it is in thine eye?
    *********************************************************************************************
    …..if you get my drift….?!


  42. Re Respecting one’s opinion, worldview, etc!

    There is a fundamental and vast difference between ‘respecting’ one’s opinion, which is his/her civic constitutional and God-given right to have and express, AND respecting that person(s) opinion, views, etc.

    I respect another persons right to have and express their world view, BUT, I am not called or expected to RESPECT what they believe!

    Simple enough!


  43. @Zoe: “There is a fundamental and vast difference between โ€˜respectingโ€™ oneโ€™s opinion, which is his/her civic constitutional and God-given right to have and express, AND respecting that person(s) opinion, views, etc.

    Really?

    Please elaborate your point more clearly.

    To be honest, it isn’t yet clear to me based on your immediate above the “fundamental and vast difference” you argue.

    I’m probably just being slow. Please educate me.

  44. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    islander
    Your ad hominems are relatively mild compared to some with which I was recently reviled on BU by two โ€œfamily members.โ€

    I am glad you took the time to read more, because I actually thought about your valid point with respect to โ€œholes in the barrelโ€ and offered some valid observations that support that view.

    If the Bible has been misused as a tool by those in power or those seeking power in their quest to control the masses, that was never the purpose of the Bible. Also I am sure that you can see that that ploy has definitely not worked really. Because the โ€œmassesโ€ are clearly out of control, and the โ€œmassesโ€ have never really conformed to the teaching of the Bible anywhere in the cosmos diabolicus.

    Islander, my friend if you have not studied the Bible your cognitive judgement can not come into play man about Biblical matters. You are not a fool, man think about that. And if you check the Bible, you will find that the person who spoke the most about fire and brimstone was JESUS HIMSELF. Ah lie? Check it man.

    You have the right to sit on the fence or on any side of the fence you like, but there is an accountingโ€ฆ.some day.

    And I did answer your questions about the islamic population of the world. I did so in a way that allows you to use your cognitive judgement, Sir!

    You ask reasonably โ€œHere is my point, who is to say what is the truth and what is fabrication or misuse of the word of (our) Lord.โ€

    Since all so called Christian denominations SAY that they are following the Bible, then they ought to be doing so. Now if you read your NT, you will find that there were always errant persons seeking to bring error into the true church. A lot of the NT teaches against these various errors which are still with us today. It was predicted that would be so by Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude and John. And their predictions have come to fruition. Hence, what you call holes in the bucket.

    It is obvious that all denominations have deviated from NT church doctrine. And this is easy to see if one searches and studies the scriptures.

    Perhaps you ought to read the History of what is called the Baptist Church (see the Trail of blood) and read the History of the origins of the SDA, and compare they polity and doctrine with what the NT teaches. Then use your cognitive judgement.

    I am sorry that you do not know, I cant help that; but I disagree with you that I DO NOT KNOW WHAT I AM TALIONG ABOUT. Having copied the Bereans and checked studied and searched I think I have a grasp of the subject, whether or not you agree or not. .


  45. @ZOEor GP
    Speaking of cult . Then all churches which use the Holy sacrament can be called a cult. Remember the sacrament ask one to eat the body and drink the blood. Even though it is symbolic.

  46. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    The word sacrament does not appear once in the NT.
    The NT speaks about the Lord’s supper which is a memorial or a remembrance feast.

    In no presentation of the Lord’s supper by the Lord himself in the Gospel or by Paul in 1 Corinthians are belivers asked to engage in a Holy sacrament or to eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    There are no sacraments in the NT or the doctrine of the Church, but the NT teaches that there are TWO ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH
    1 BAPTISM and this is always by immersion
    2 THE LORDS SUPPER
    .


  47. @GP
    calling it Supper Does not remove the suggestion of cult worship. As people are being asked to symbolically Remember Jesus by his Body and Blood.

  48. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    Zoe

    Could you explain cults and cultic worship?.
    Could you also explain the concept of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial feast that commemorates the Lord’s death until he comes again, and its real significance?

    Could you explain the difference?


  49. @ CH, I sense you are sincere in asking for a more detailed explanation of ‘respect.’

    First, the Synonyms of ‘Respect’ are:

    Respect- n ‘Regard, account, admiration, consideration, esteem, estimation, favor.

    Respect- vb ADMIRE, consider, esteem, regard,
    rel- revere, reverence, venerate.
    (Webster’s Collegiate Thesaurus, p. 674)

    Now, I respect your civic, constititional right, in fact, God-given right, to believe as you do, to be an ‘agnostic’ BUT, I do not *respect* that belief of yours.

    I respect the right by choice, by some men to be rampant Homosexuals; BUT, I do not respect what they have chosen to do.

    I respect the right of Hindus to believe in millions of *gods* polytheism, but I do not respect their belief system.

    I respect all of the above ‘rights’ to believe and express their world views, but, I do not ‘Admire, esteem, favor, or revere any of them!

    In short, I don’t *respect* any of these view, BUT, I respect their *right* to believe in, and express them.

    Trust, that makes my position better understood, regarding the distinctions.


  50. Someone was asking about priestly celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church.

    This was one of the issues that bitterly divided the Medieval Roman Church. The Cluniac Reform Movement [centered in the monastery at Cluny, France] made priestly celibacy and chastity one of their hallmarks. Bernard of Clairvaux, Abbott of the monastery at Citeaux and a dedicated misogynist, believed that sex was an expression of Original Sin and incompatible with holiness.

    It was not until around1215 that the papacy finally succeeded in imposing priestly celibacy, which indicates that for over 800 years of its existence, the Roman Church had tolerated married priests.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading