Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Libya's Draft Constitution affirms the Lordship of Jesus

The Draft Constitution for the post-Gaddafi Libya is a fascinating document. At times, it sounds almost like the foundational sacred text of the United States of America, with its affirmation that the 'people are the source of authorities' and an assurance that the linguistic and cultural rights of diverse groups will be preserved. There is a commitment to equality, the rule of law, and certain freedoms (speech, religion, press) with clauses guaranteeing the right to private property, an independent judiciary, and the presumption of innocence.

It's not quite Magna Carta 1215 or the Bill of Rights 1689, but there's more than a whiff of Locke about it. Some, however, have expressed concern that Part 1, Article 1states:
Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).
The inference being that all the freedoms and rights guaranteed by this constitution are subject to the sharia; ie, it is the Islamic religio-political concept of equality, religious liberty, etc, which will prevail.

His Grace thinks this is an overly pessimistic interpretation, not least because there is no single, unified understanding or interpretation of 'Sharia Law', so much so the the upper case 'S' and 'L' are something of a Western caricature. Libya's politicians and jurists are more than capable of codifying a Locke-compliant interpretation of sharia, and His Grace wishes them well. Not least because above even Part 1, Article 1 of this draft constitution is the date: '7th February 2011 AD'. It may be written 'In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate', but those who drafted this document have acknowledged that Jesus is Lord. Amen.


Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

I’m afraid Jesus and his disciples have gone over to the enemy, Your Grace:

[3:52] When Jesus observed that they had no faith, he said: ‘Who will help me in the cause of Allah?’ The disciples replied: ‘We are the helpers of Allah. We believe in Him.’

23 August 2011 at 18:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

Fortunately the world is full of Islamic Democracies with excellent human rights records the fledgling state can turn to for guidance...

23 August 2011 at 18:53  
Blogger ALLtoJesus said...

Islamic democracies and human rights? Name one.

Of course, in Mohammedanism and Sharia law, women don't quite count as much as men and aren't full-fledged witnesses (takes two women and one man to be a witness).

Women are stoned for being raped, men get off lightly or 'escape' inexplicably.

In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive. Some Islamic states don't allow women to go to school.

Democracies are fraught with problems anyway. Islamic democracies do not change regimes peacefully. Genocides and religious persecution are the rule.

Republics like the US are better and safer than the popular vote (mob rule) Islamic democracies where regimes are changed through military action, assassination and/or mob violence.

This so-called Arab Spring will end up, not in peace, in the spread of radical, violent Islamic Imams continuing to incite violence and hatred of the West and persecuting Christianity - just like Iran.

From one end of Africa to the other, from one end of the Middle East to the other, from one end of Asia to the other, Islam has not produced peace...only a reign of violence, lust and evil.

Did you know that the world's biggest consumers of pornography are not Western, but Middle Eastern countries, and Pakistan, easily the most violent nation is the very largest consumer?

I'll believe Jesus will be Lord in Libya when they prove it. We haven't seen Him or His Church or the lives of medical missionaries, clergy and teachers honored in any Middle Eastern country yet.

23 August 2011 at 19:37  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


You are a bigot - plain and simple. That or ignorant.

Modern Islamic states can incorporate modern political institutions such as elections, parliamentary rule, judicial review, and popular sovereignty.
They do not have to be caliph-led governments which are imperial despotisms or monarchies.

Indeed, many contemporary Islamic theologians are critical of the unity of religion and state and advocate secularisation of the state to preserve the Islamic faith.

Why not give this new State an opportunity before being dismissive of its future?

23 August 2011 at 20:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

ALLtoJesus said...

“Islamic democracies and human rights? Name one. “

I was being ironic. However, I do detect a disciplined individual behind the post. Are you a US infantryman by any chance ?

23 August 2011 at 20:39  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

They have fought and defeated Government for their freedoms, maybe what they want is freedom from Government.

The pen didn't win this battle for them, the sword did, so what worth is a constitution, written by the incoming would be theives and despots.

Their tribal warbands will be needed as a check and balance.

23 August 2011 at 20:56  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


There are some 47 Muslim States in the world.

22 are based on secular rather than sharia principles; only 10 have authorative or absolute regimes in combination with sharia law; 34 have some form of democracy or presidential republic.

You'll need to offer a more sophisticated analysis of countries as different as Iran and Maldives. Brunei, for example, has a constitutional sultanate. It has a legal system based on English common law, although Islamic shariah law supersedes this in some cases.

The Muslim world is as complex as the Western post-Christian world.

23 August 2011 at 21:33  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Libya’s politicians and jurists are more than capable of codifying a Locke-compliant interpretation of sharia

They should simply follow the example of the OIC’s Cairo Declaration, as liberal an exposition of human rights as could be decently hoped for. Until you read the small print: ‘in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah’.

23 August 2011 at 21:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The Soviet Constitution also vaguely resembled the US Constitution. The words mean nothing until they are functionally implemented by government authority. Nor should we immediately impute Lockean meanings to the words used. 'Freedom of Religion' does not necessarily mean what we want it to mean.


23 August 2011 at 22:45  
Blogger Span Ows said...

The Way of the Dodo

You are a bigot - plain and simple. That or ignorant.

You gave you prejudiced opinion of AlltoJesus before then going off to Wikipedia (or similar) to then present your case for Muslim States around the world.

Also there is nothing in his comment to suggest that he will not "give this new State an opportunity" although clearly he is "being dismissive of its future".

P.S. Brunei is a dictatorship in all but name, albeit benign and benevolent.

23 August 2011 at 22:57  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Span Ows

You must not have read the post with its generalised, stereotyped opinion of the chances of any Islamic State to achieve democracy within the terms of its own expression.

Based on what? An incoherent, historically inaccurate and politically ignorant set of statements and an evident hatred for the majority of Muslims and their morals.

What would you call this?

23 August 2011 at 23:33  
Blogger sandwiches said...

The Way of The Dodo

The states you mention seem to share a certain outlook e.g.:
Maldives? : The 1997 Constitution of the Maldives designates Islam as the official state religion. The Government interprets this provision to impose a requirement that citizens be Muslims Freedom of religion is restricted significantly. The law prohibits the practice by Maldivian citizens of any religion other than Islam.

No doubt it is bigotry to point this out.

23 August 2011 at 23:51  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Not bigotry, no. Maybe a little premature in dismissing Islam's potential for democracy and impatient for the world to be the way you want it.

The Maldives recently became party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, though qualified its acceptance of the clause in respect of religious freedom.

It wants to protect Islam from the influence of other religions. I don't agree with this but democracy in the Western sense is a process that takes time and is ultimately intended to express the common will of a people.

If the people want a country based on Islam and do not want, as they see it, false faiths undermining this, are we in a position to moralise about this? Again, I think they are wrong. Our own history shows where this can lead.

As a country the Maldives has a new constitution, a parliamentary system and elections. It is heading in the right direction. Lets see what the people want, shall we?

True religious tolerance takes a confidence and maturity. It needs a solidarity in society and a willingness and ability to live with diversity.

24 August 2011 at 00:19  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo's odd ways:

I've oftentimes tried to fathom your reasoning, and with little success. However, it has just occurred to me that the answer is simple: you're just rather dim, is all.

24 August 2011 at 00:24  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ The Way of the Dodo (00:19)—True religious tolerance takes a confidence and maturity.

It also requires a sacred text that preaches tolerance.

[8:39] Make war on them [non-Muslims] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.

[8:60] Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your disposal, so that you may strike terror into the enemies of Allah and the faithful, and others besides them. All that you give for the cause of Allah shall be repaid you. You shall not be wronged.

[9:123] O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty [unto Him].

24 August 2011 at 00:47  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

One of us is dim, I agree.

I will add that you rarely string a sensible paragraph together so may not possess the literary skills either to communicate or comprehend abstract thought.

24 August 2011 at 01:27  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Johnny Rottenborough

I agree it needs a text that is understood as allowing religious tolerance.

What if the majority of a country express their will through the ballot box that they do not want to tolerate faiths other than their own, be it Islam or Christianity?

Change and religious freedom, and then freedom to reject religion altogether, takes time. It did in Britain, remember?

24 August 2011 at 01:35  
Blogger TENGAH said...

Oswin: The way of the dodo qualified his statement with "I don't agree with this but..." Its the sign of someone with a subline arrogance, totally unaware they are a couple of cwts. short of a ton.

24 August 2011 at 08:28  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Oh yes Your Grace,

If and when "Mad Dog" falls Cast Iron and Cleggover will have sore backs there`ll be so much slapping going on, hell the blood in the Tripoli gutters isn`t even dry yet and they`re looking smug as pigs in a puddle.

Lets pray that New Libya doesn`t follow Cast Iron Dave`s example of "Muscular Liberalism" and relish bombing the beJesus out of others.

What is it with our God fearing oh soooo in the spirit of Christ political leaders, they just can`t resist killing folk, well ordering others to bomb the Allah out of em from upon high, ah well a prayer and the soul is cleansed for some eh!,

I bet those Cobra meetings are a good wheeze what!

War is peace and all that.

24 August 2011 at 09:12  
Blogger Span Ows said...

The Way of the Dodo said...

What would you call this?

You miss my point: I didn't say that ALLtoJesus wasn't a bigot; I was saying YOU were; it's easy throwing insults around so I merely wished to illustrate that you too were being prejudiced.

24 August 2011 at 10:00  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

In christainity women are inferior to men, and subject to their oders, as it says in the "recital".
if you don't belive me, I sggest you re-read the wrtitings of Saul/Paul of Tarsus.
Islam is 622 years behind christianity, and it shows.
But neither is actually interested in democracy or human rights.
They are interested in sujugating people to the "will" of a non-existent big sky fairy, as conveniently interpreted by the self-elected self-selected priesthood.

24 August 2011 at 10:14  
Blogger Preacher said...

Freedom of Religion & belief was also 'guaranteed' in the various Communist countries, but what happened? - persecution on a grand scale as enemies of the state. It's not rocket science, it's history.
Islam recognises the right to lie (taqiyya) if it achieves religous goals, i.e the propagation of Islam.
The proclaimed ideal of Islam is world domination, is it not wise then to keep would be critics in a state of sublime ignorance until it's too late to resist?.
Time will tell, but naivety is a sure recipe for disaster. Ask Neville Chamberlaine.

24 August 2011 at 11:08  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ The Way of the Dodo (01:35)—If Muslims are tolerant of other faiths and their followers, they are disobeying Allah and risk hellfire, whereas intolerance improves their chances of entering Paradise. The plight of Christians who live in Muslim countries is graphic evidence of the intolerant attitude Muslims are obliged to adopt to save their souls.

24 August 2011 at 11:19  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Johnny Rottenborough

Yes, I know all that. What do you suggest we do?

Do we isolate and refuse to 'do business' with 50 Muslim countries, admonish them through the UN, moralise and preach to them? 'Export' all committed Muslims to one of their chosing where their religion is practiced?

This approach hardly proved fruitful with apartheid and communism. We could always launch a crusade on behalf of the oppressed peoples of these countries.

The Muslim countries do not want to allow our western, atheistic and secular values into their countries. Our libertarian approaches to marriage, divorce, abortion, drug and alcohol use. They are suspicious of capitalism and liberal domocratic systems.

We bemoan the breakdown of values in our country and yet dismiss the attempts of Islam to preserve its own.

Of course Islam can be an oppressive religion. Christianity once was too. All I'm saying is give these countries a chance to develop. If not, then come up with a realistic and practical alternative approach instead of just mouthing off.

24 August 2011 at 13:28  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ The Way of the Dodo (13:28)—Christianity viewed apartheid as repugnant, yet Islam practises its own form of apartheid by teaching that Muslims are different from, and superior to, non-Muslims.

Your approach to the problem of accommodating Islam in the West is to be nice to Muslims in the hope that, in the next few decades, they will overturn their beliefs of fourteen centuries and become Christian in all but name. My approach is to accept that West and East are irreconcilable and for us to go our separate ways by expelling Islam from Europe.

As you rightly say, ‘Muslim countries do not want to allow our western, atheistic and secular values into their countries’, so why should we allow their values of intolerance and apartheid into our countries?

24 August 2011 at 14:10  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Archbishop Cranmer

Was it wrong of me to accuse the above poster as a bigot?

ALLtoJesus said @ 23 August 2011 19:37

24 August 2011 at 14:13  
Blogger Berserker said...

Aldous Huxley wrote:

'A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic. No country can be really well prepared for modern war unless it is governed by a tyrant, at the head of a highly trained and perfectly
obedient bureaucracy.'

Where are these obedient bureaucracies? Everywhere.
Where is the best bureaucracy? Certainly not China (hierarchical and they have a Ministry of Truth!), India (obstructionism) Russia (corruption) or any Arab state.

I give you: Singapore. But is it ruled by a tyrant? Not really. Although 'The People's Action Party' has never been effectively challenged and has remained in power without a break for nearly sixty years.

So where is the country that answer's Huxley's point?

24 August 2011 at 14:20  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

His Grace has read the thread to which you refer, and considered your reasoning, which is rather muddled, if not hypocritical.

Is it bigoted to tell Anglicans that their church is not a 'proper church'? By what right or authority is such a statement made? Is it bigoted to seek to uphold the foundational ('bigoted') precepts and formularies of one's church? Is the Act of Settlement 'bigoted'? Is the Monarchy a 'bigoted' institution?

The limit of your toleration appears to be the one 'who implies or states without evidence...' and you refer specifically to the Vatican. Is it not the case that you simply dismiss the reasoning of those with whom you happen to disagree - as you have done with His Grace numerous times - and, as His Grace says, bandy the term 'bigot' about with alacrity?

Isn’t it rather bigoted, in fact, to assume that your opponents on certain subjects are bigots?

24 August 2011 at 14:50  
Blogger srizals said...

Those who dare to ask must be brave enough to answer.

Those who dare to begin must have the courage to see it to the end.

Johnny, you're trying to show that you're a Koranic Scholar again.

Should I just let it be?

24 August 2011 at 17:51  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (17:51)—No scholar, a mere amateur.

24 August 2011 at 18:48  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Thank you Mr Cranmer for troubling to read the thread from your post on 16th August: “Van Rompuy to head up new EU Government”.

Actually, I was referring you to this thread and the comments above by ‘ALLforJesus’. Do you consider these erudite, well argued and reasonable? I see them as bigotry.

Anyway, we’ll return to the actual post under scrutiny.

At no point did I say the Anglican Church is not a proper church. Neither did I reference the Act of Settlement or comment negatively on the institution of the Monarchy. Where on earth did you get this from?

I also question whether I bandy the term 'bigot' about with "alacrity". I have used it to refer to some of the outpourings of ‘Mr len’ and more recently the ill-considered comments of ‘Mr ALLforJesus’. Oh, and of course, my friend English Viking too.

I thought we had settled our differences and that you had accepted my apology for improperly accussing you of being prejudiced and 'anti Catholic'. You really must let this go!

You ask “Isn’t it rather bigoted, in fact, to assume that your opponents on certain subjects are bigots?” To assume so, yes. When comments are based on dubious premises, inaccurate history, ignorance of the situation and appear intent on stirring up alarm and hate, I think not. But then one man’s ‘bigot’ may well be another man’s ‘prophet’.

A sample of my comments on the post in question:

“Of course there are bigots. Hilton doesn't appear to be one but, as I said, there is an undercurrent of fear about Rome's intentions. He's not alone and there's a flood of pseudo historical works that hold Catholicism is a continuation of a Babylonian mystery religion. Others claim the Vatican has engineered wars for world domination. According to some the Vatican supports both Communism and Islam - anything, it seems, to get power.”

“Catholicism has a distinct social doctrine placing a moral duty on the civil authorities to build social justice. Why not discuss this and the 'protestant ethic', the differences in theology that underpin them and their implications for policies?”

“On reflection, I think Hilton's concerns about Catholicism, based on a 500 year old fear of Rome, is potential bigotry. Catholics have been persecuted in this country because of this Romophobia. His views border on bigotry and when their linked with notions of the 'Whore of Babylon' it is downright bigotry.”

“For the record, I do not regard you (Paul Twigg)as a bigot. One can hold a different theology, follow a different faith and have a different political outlook without this being bigotry. Irrational fear and suspicion, supported by unfounded historical claims and a partial reading of prophecy, all reinforce themselves and lead to bigotry.”

“Neither am I anti-Anglican, although I confess at times it is difficult to know what the particular beliefs of individual Anglicans are. Adopting the 'via media' means you are a broad and tolerant church.”

“As I've said before I believe Britain should retain as much sovereignty as is consistent with being a member of a commonwealth of independent trading nations. Ideally sharing a set of common Christian values if not denominational unity. We have a unique culture and a right to determine our own destiny according to the will of the people.”

I do hope you'll reflect further on your response which, to be honest, I found somewhat muddled.

24 August 2011 at 19:09  
Blogger srizals said...


Regarding 9:123,

the disbelievers had been tormenting the believers with oppression, torture and humiliating death.

Summayah was stabbed with a spear at her private part after constant torture and her husband tortured to death.

Bilal was toasted under the hot sun on burning desert sand with a big stone on his chest for having faith in Allah in his red heart.

The disbelievers did not relent in bereaving the believers' livelihood, possessions and commerce, isolating them until they have but animal skins to eat. And all this didn't end in a year or two. They cannot live in peace but were constantly threaten with death in agony, the pain of torture and banishment just for believing the otherwise.

What do you have them do? Die silently in the face of unrelenting tyranny?

What did the Libyans do?

People kill each other in a war, Johnny. They don't pat each other on the back. They stabbed each other's back if given the chance. Even in a time of peace.

I don't recall any Christo-European wars that devoid of casualties. In your wars, in the past and present, everyone has to die, even babies.

24 August 2011 at 19:15  
Blogger len said...

Jesus is Lord of all or He is not Lord at all.

The 'Jesus' of Islam is not The Jesus of the Bible but a 'created being'.

24 August 2011 at 19:22  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (19:15)—The Qur’an certainly gives Muslims carte blanche to exact retribution on the unbelievers. You have a new ally in The Way of the Dodo.

24 August 2011 at 19:29  
Blogger srizals said...

Len, Jesus warned us about people that would mislead many in his name. You are one of them.

Mark 13:5
Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you.

Mark 13:6
Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many.

24 August 2011 at 19:32  
Blogger srizals said...

Johnny, the Christians and the Jews were never allowed to kill and resist violence. A Christian has to give the other cheek if anyone slaps him on the face, right?

Maybe God knows the nature of Christians and Jews?

When they start killing and behaving violently, they would always overkill.

They know no limits and hardly can stop.

Muslims do know. History shows. So they are allowed to fight off their baby killers.

Don't you agree, Johnny?

24 August 2011 at 19:38  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (19:38)—Johnny agrees that it’s time for you to get to bed.

24 August 2011 at 19:43  
Blogger srizals said...

But tonight is one of the night of the last ten nights of Ramadhan. We do not sleep on these nights, Johnny.

If we're lucky, we would be blessed with a night better than a thousand months.

Pray for me that I would be one of those who would see that night.

24 August 2011 at 19:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


You should put down those Islamist texts of grief and get out more...

24 August 2011 at 19:58  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (19:53)—Very sensible. Eat through the night, sleep through the day. Much better than fasting.

24 August 2011 at 20:01  
Blogger srizals said...

No, Johnny, you've mistaken us with bats. We're not nocturnal creatures. You've must have mistaken us with the likes of Vlad, the Impaler. We are just mere humans, like you, more or less.

Inspector General sir, I've seen more than enough, experienced more than many. By the way, you're not the same Inspector General that worked with the British East India Company, are you?

24 August 2011 at 20:09  
Blogger srizals said...

Anyway, Muslims usually wake up around 3.00 a.m.

We did sleep from around 10 p.m.

There's no magic in it.

And a short nap in the afternoon would recharge the mind and body.

Oversleep can kill us, Johnny. Do you know about it?


24 August 2011 at 20:17  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dodo @19.09.
You asked Dr Cranmer a question & seemed to ask him to advise or adjudicate. Then you babble on for ages disputing his answer.
I would ask you in all sincerity to assume more humility & respect for our host, who graciously allows us to openly discuss & debate current issues.

24 August 2011 at 20:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


The Inspectors General, very much the same in why we exist.

You seem an articulate chap. But lets see, you must go along with Islam because if you don’t, your own people would slit your throat. There is hope, others feel the same. Go out and make contact with them. Never forget the human spirit is free, it cannot be happy and contained...

24 August 2011 at 20:20  
Blogger srizals said...

Inspector General,

Everyone dies, not everyone really lives.

When we do die, we will return to God's judgement. What we do here, on borrowed time will determine our right of God's grace and favour.

That is why I 'go along with Islam'.

But I agree with you, sir.

'the human spirit is free, it cannot be happy and contained'..with my own addition if I may - in ignorance.

24 August 2011 at 20:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Good man, that’s the right spirit. When I go to meet my God, I hope to be pure of heart, having treated my fellow man as my brothers and sisters. Not easy though...

24 August 2011 at 20:36  
Blogger srizals said...

Don't give up trying. The least we can do.

Hopefully others would return the favour.

Surely God is with us. And that is all that matter.

You have to excuse me for a while. I have to focus now. Catch you later, Mr. Inspector General.

24 August 2011 at 20:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


This is the Inspector General signing off for tonight too. We'll talk again...

24 August 2011 at 20:56  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Preacher

With all due respect, the conversation between Mr Cranmer and myself is just that and I await his response.

Your observations are noted and I agree my reply was unduly long. However, Mr Cranmer attributed comments to me I had not made and I am entitled to respond.

24 August 2011 at 21:48  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

His Grace has responded in the thread where you addressed your question.

And His Grace ascribed none of those coments to you personally: that was simply your erroneous inference. They are the comments of your Pope and some of your co-religionists.

24 August 2011 at 21:52  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Is His Grace permitted to say 'your Pope', or is that bigotry?

24 August 2011 at 21:53  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Oh, and His Grace thanks Mr Preacher for responding to Mr Dodo. This is a public forum, and many of His Grace's communicants articulate on his behalf, and he is deeply apppreciative of their interjections, for he is not always about to do so. If that is alright with you, Mr Dodo, and not at all unreasoned or bigoted.

24 August 2011 at 22:02  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

Thank you for clarifying the comments were not attributable to me but were in fact made by Pope Benedict (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger?) and by some of my "co-religionists".

You do make it all sound so tribal and divisive.

Mr Preacher can of course say what he likes, not at all unreasonable or evidence of the 'b-word'. However, I think it only proper that I wait for your response. Used to be called good manners!

24 August 2011 at 22:27  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

The Pope, from my perspective, is the Vicar of Christ, appointed to lead and serve all Christians.

Call him 'my' Pope if you really wish, objectively this doesn't change his universal commission.

24 August 2011 at 22:32  
Blogger len said...

The Pope leads Catholics not Christians.

24 August 2011 at 23:56  
Blogger len said...

This is a most important question anybody can ask. Am I a Christian? Or am I a Christian in name only? Do I have a living relationship with Christ? The Gospel teaches that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28). God regards a person just and righteous who trusts wholeheartedly in Jesus, and who does not attempt to win God's favour by his imperfect obedience of the Law. Sadly, Roman theology has rejected God's way of salvation. To faith, Rome adds a set of deeds (many of which are human inventions) and curses anyone who dares to completely trust in Christ alone for salvation. 'If anyone says that the faith that justifies is nothing else but trust in the divine mercy, which pardons sins because of Christ, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified, let him be anathema.' (Council of Trent, session 6, cannon 12).

25 August 2011 at 00:02  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Roman Catholicism does not add a "set of deeds". There's a little bit more to it than that!

Please read the relevant sections in the Catholic Cathecism that explain this.

To quote one small section in a rich document is not helpful. Mind you, you do this with Scripture too.

Are you a Gnostic?

25 August 2011 at 00:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Roman Catholicism does not add a "set of deeds".

Heh. "Faith Alone" is wrong but Rome doesn't add a "set of deeds." I am sure we all see the enormous difference between "Faith plus works" and "adding a set of deeds." Surely we must appeal to the catechism of the RCC to explain this fine distinction. Don't forget, however, that if you are not in communion with Rome, you are not capable of correctly interpreting the catechism. You must entrust your understanding to the Magisterium's interpretation of the CCC. Please refer yourself to the Magisterial Commentary on the CCC.

Call him 'my' Pope if you really wish, objectively this doesn't change his universal commission.

And what objectively establishes his 'commission' other than the pontifications of the Pontificate? And please do not say Scripture. There is no reference to the papacy in Scripture. Even the verses you might quote (e.g. Matthew 16) are applicable only on the basis the pontifications of the Magisterium.


25 August 2011 at 02:01  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


I think you'll find sufficient reference in scripture confirming Christ passed authority to St Peter to lead His church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Christ established one church and Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians and Orthodox Christians all accept Apostolic succession. They disagree amongst themselves about whether they have retained it.

The rest flows from this. Any person, whether in communion with Rome or not, is at liberty to read the Catholic Cathecism and use their intellect to reflect on its teachings.

25 August 2011 at 11:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I think you'll find sufficient reference in scripture confirming Christ passed authority to St Peter to lead His church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No, I won't actually. I will find verses over which the RCC has laid a Papal grid. The Scripture says nothing about Bishops or Cardinals let alone the office of the Pope. It's simply not there. I have for example read and reflected upon Matthew 16 and I find no Papal establishment in the chapter. I have read and reflected upon John 21 and find no Papal establishment in the chapter.

Any person, whether in communion with Rome or not, is at liberty to read the Catholic Cathecism and use their intellect to reflect on its teachings.

But they are not free to dispute the dogmatic assertions of the RCC based upon using their intellect to read and reflect upon Scripture. If I say I reject the RC reading of Matthew 16, I will be told I do not have the authority to reject the RC reading of Matthew 16. I will be told I that cannot rightly understand Scripture unless I am in Communion with her, and submit to her dogmas.

Which was (hopefully ironic) point of the statement I made about an official Commentary on the CCC.


25 August 2011 at 13:59  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

This is the constitution of the "Great SOCIALIST People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (state of the masses)."

Translation: Oligarchy, totalitarian government with Fat Cat elites rule heavy-handedly with military power, ride around in limos, eat steak, caviar, drink champagne. People eat cabbage, beans and rice, drink rotgut.
Chief means of change of Government: rile up masses, violent overthrow, assisination, conquest by neighboring Jamahiriya.

Enough said.

25 August 2011 at 17:39  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

Correction: Chief means of change of Government: rile up masses, violent overthrow, *assassination*, conquest by neighboring Jamahiriya.

As Bishop Nazir-Ali has warned, Islamic and Communist/Socialist dictatorships are power-mongers and do not give up power gracefully, by mere vote, as in the US or other democratic republic governments.

What is being established in Libya and across Africa and parts of Asia and creeping into Russia are Islamic alliances of the malevolent sort.

China has just come out FOR a Palestinian state. Pakistan and North Korea are getting tight with China. North Korea has just sent its nuclear software to Iran.

The plot thickens.

25 August 2011 at 17:52  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Being Calvanist by conviction it is unlikely you will understand scripture in the same way I do as a Roman Catholic.

You do not have to a Catholic to read the Cathecism and its up to you whether you accept or reject the teachings it contains. I've read plenty of thought provoking books in my time without accepting all they contain.

To me, it just seems common sense that Christ would provide human leadership, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to His body of followers until His return. Afterall, it was this leadership that eventually established Church doctrines in the 4th century.

Roman Catholics believe scripture has to be understood as a complete whole, be understood through the use of reason as well as faith, and also by examining early Christian tradition before there was an agreed 'New Testament' canon.

I would be interested to learn how you do understand Matthew 16 and John 21, in combination with Christ advising His disciples the full Truth would be too painful for them to bear and that the Holy Spirit would reveal all things.

25 August 2011 at 20:07  
Blogger DP111 said...

Islamic jurisprudence is well codified.

Islamic “Law” at Work: How Islam Sanctions Rape & Incest

by sheikyermami on August 24, 2011


I wish Libyans well, but a Lockean interpretation of sharia is not one of those.

25 August 2011 at 22:03  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 01:27:

Very droll. Will you now wave your pigs bladder and jingle your cap withal?

27 August 2011 at 17:01  
Blogger ALLtoJesus said...

The Brand New People's Socialist Libya Arab Entity has already sent armored vehicles into Algeria. (Algeria had just asked the UN to make the new Libya control its AlQueda faction.) Guess that ain't gonna happen.

Always at war is the religion of 'peace'.

Hamas' idea of a cease fire is fewer than a dozen rockets per day, less than 5 suicide bombings, attempted border crossings and/or intentional vehicular homicides per week.

Making an agreement with Hamas is like making one with Rowan Williams and the leftist gaysexophiliac, muslimophiliac, socialist/marxist Anglicans.

Just not worth the time or effort.

27 August 2011 at 19:10  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...


An interesting name.

Might one enquire what 'ALL' you are offering to Jesus?

You certainly have a bee in your bonnet about Islam in general and Palestine in particular. Your opinion on Archbishop Williams and what you see as influential factions in Angliganism, are interesting.

Do you have constructive suggestions consistent with giving one's 'ALL' to Jesus?

27 August 2011 at 21:54  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older