Religious Right in Canada

[punked]

I already told you I made a mistake on that before, so what? I didn't realize you were perfect punked and never make mistakes do you?

I've moved on from it you obviously can't cause it's the only thing you have on me. The only mistake I've made. Cling to it like a life raft.

I've corrected myself.

I was using this as evidence that you do not know what the Church teaches and are less educated on the subject then a heathen like I.

[Mr.Canada]

I was using this as evidence that you do not know what the Church teaches and are less educated on the subject then a heathen like I.

So because I made 1 mistake that means I know nothing at all?

When did I ever claim to know everything about the RCC? I didn't.

It's my faith and I am a constant student.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[punked]

A bunch of Godless Atheists trying to explain my faith to me. Priceless. What's next boy's? Brain surgery?

Yes maybe if would take lessons from Godless Atheists you might learn faster some of us have studied the Church and read the Bible.

[ToadBrother]

The RCC is against all and any abortion. Have I got it wrong?

Nope, you're right on that score. Of course, that only applies to Catholics. Since I'm not a Catholic, is there some reason you want to force the Roman Church's beliefs on me?

[ToadBrother]

So because I made 1 mistake that means I know nothing at all?

When did I ever claim to know everything about the RCC? I didn't.

It's my faith and I am a constant student.

It's telling that you know considerably less about your church than some of us godless heathens. One would think you would be a little embarrassed, maybe a little chastened, but all I see is pride, arrogance and a rather sad desire to enforce your own religious beliefs on other people, despite the fact that you don't appear to understand them all that well. But even if you were the foremost Catholic theologian, I'd still reject it, because we live in a pluralistic society, and the Church's position on any given subject should hold no more weight than anyone else's, unless it can provide a rational, a-religious reason for it.

[trooper]

I find it incredible that people are still wasting time arguing with Mr.Fundie here...

Seriously are you guys out of your mind? He has a brain of a 12 year old, if anything, I find his writings to be a parody of how racist fundies think or is that what your grand genius mind is doing Mr.Fundie?

Also, can you please tell us how much your trust fund is worth and how big a silver spoon you feed on? Sounds like you waste enough time here babbling BS anyway.

I don't know who's more foolish, someone who doesn't reply to posts that DIRECTLY contradict his arguments and is overtly racist or someone who waste hours arguing WITH solid proof against a dweeb. Sounds like a tough argument...

[Mr.Canada]

I don't know who's more foolish, someone who doesn't reply to posts that DIRECTLY contradict his arguments and is overtly racist or someone who waste hours arguing WITH solid proof against a dweeb. Sounds like a tough argument...

Show me where I'm being racist please. Why haven't I been banned yet then? Oh, that's right socialists don't need any reason to name call just disagreeing with them will do. Now if I was to name call them they'd be screaming bloody murder over it....typical fluff.

[trooper]

Show me where I'm being racist please. Why haven't I been banned yet then? Oh, that's right socialists don't need any reason to name call just disagreeing with them will do. Now if I was to name call them they'd be screaming bloody murder over it....typical fluff.

Haha, A proof? How about MANY proofs. But again you will ignore it like everything else. Why waste time?

Socialist? LOL, that's the best you can do? How pathetic. If it makes you feel any better, I voted for Harper in both elections. OH sounds like something is burning...

[Mr.Canada]

I don't name call. That's the job of the left. I won't be responding to you so you'll be wasting your breath if you type anything further.

[punked]

I don't name call. That's the job of the left. I won't be responding to you so you'll be wasting your breath if you type anything further.

How do I get this treatment call you a bigot?? OK your are a bigot.

[Shakeyhands]

Why haven't I been banned yet then?

This is the first reasonable question that I have seen you ask. Well done.

[fellowtraveller]

He is the one who lost to the NDP in ALBERTA? Yah he is gone forever.

Yes, Rahim Jaffer CPC,an immigrant who represented nearly every aspect of diversity available, was replaced by a middle aged white person, a NDP lawyer.

I guess that proves that the NDP are rednecks.

[WIP]

What can you expect? Hundreds of texts were discarded and only what you see in the new Testament was kept. This was done to make a state religion. What it sought to accomplish, and in my opinion it did, was to deify Christ. Its whole focus was that Jesus was in fact God manifesting himself in human form. Look at the Holy Trinity concept to understand this.

But, at least some of the Gnostics believed that Jesus was the embodiment of the supreme being and was divine, even though he appeared on Earth in human form. Jewish Christians, such as the Ebionites, and followers of Arius, the bishop of Alexandria, did not accept anything of Jesus being divine. They considered him to be a man of special status since he was the promised messiah. I have noticed that some Biblical textual scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, see the Trinity as a candidate for a compromise position between the extreme positions. The problem was that they were left with explaining why the doctrine isn't spelled out in any of the scriptures, and how it's possible to be 100% man and 100% God at the same time.

There are fragments of some of these discarded texts still in existence and they are know as the Gnostic Gospels. Some of these have been authenticated to mere decades after Christs death and are supposedly attributed to the apostles, or at least some of them. Mary has a gospel according to the Gnostics.

The gnostic writings and other apocryphal books are written around the same time as the ones that were approved. They are no more likely to have been written by the apostles than any other books though.

All of the scrolls found at Nag Hammadi are believed to be part of gnostic collection; likely hidden when the orthodoxy was being established and groups considered heretical, such as gnostics and arians, were having all of their books burned. Until they were found, not much was known directly about the gnostics. They were like Arius and Marcion, and others who were branded as heretics by the Church, and most of what is known about them comes from the refutations written about them by the church fathers.

[WIP]

I find it incredible that people are still wasting time arguing with Mr.Fundie here...

Well, then it's a chance to refute some of these social conservative arguments for the benefit of others who might be reading. Most of Mr. Canada's ideas would be considered the common wisdom on some of the American conservative forums that I used to frequent. People who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly too much seem to share this outlook.

Seriously are you guys out of your mind? He has a brain of a 12 year old, if anything, I find his writings to be a parody of how racist fundies think or is that what your grand genius mind is doing Mr.Fundie?

For the most part, if you hear arguments you consider to be wrong or harmful, you still need to separate the argument from the person who is presenting them. Otherwise you can't deal with the argument without making a personal attack against the character of the person who is advocating a misguided position. With what little there is to go on in an anonymous forum, it's better not to draw too many conclusions about the character of a person you disagree with, and give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their character or intelligence.

I don't know who's more foolish, someone who doesn't reply to posts that DIRECTLY contradict his arguments and is overtly racist or someone who waste hours arguing WITH solid proof against a dweeb. Sounds like a tough argument...

And that all depends on why you want to join forum discussions in the first place. I started doing this sort of thing a couple of years ago to improve my writing skills and flesh out my own political and philosophical beliefs. You might consider it a waste of time, but if you present a rebuttal to a post, especially if you have to find supporting evidence, you are likely to learn a few new things in the process. So, I might do it anyway, for my own personal benefit, whether or not the other guy is actually going to read it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, then it's a chance to refute some of these social conservative arguments for the benefit of others who might be reading. Most of Mr. Canada's ideas would be considered the common wisdom on some of the American conservative forums that I used to frequent. People who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly too much seem to share this outlook.

For the most part, if you hear arguments you consider to be wrong or harmful, you still need to separate the argument from the person who is presenting them. Otherwise you can't deal with the argument without making a personal attack against the character of the person who is advocating a misguided position. With what little there is to go on in an anonymous forum, it's better not to draw too many conclusions about the character of a person you disagree with, and give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their character or intelligence.

And that all depends on why you want to join forum discussions in the first place. I started doing this sort of thing a couple of years ago to improve my writing skills and flesh out my own political and philosophical beliefs. You might consider it a waste of time, but if you present a rebuttal to a post, especially if you have to find supporting evidence, you are likely to learn a few new things in the process. So, I might do it anyway, for my own personal benefit, whether or not the other guy is actually going to read it.

These public forums are a great way to form your own opinions based on the enhanced knowledge of the massed public. Together we learn more from each other then we could hope to do so on our own.

[Mr.Canada]

See WIP. I know you can interesting posts as the one you wrote just above this. I just find some of your replies long winded and full of blah, blah, blah but some people enjoy the drawn out style. I prefer short shotgun blasts but different strokes man, keep it up WIP!

I'm a bit too short at times and apologize to all my fans...

[WIP]

Actually, I don't have an unlimited amount of time to spend in front of my computer, so I am actually trying to make them all as brief as possible while getting across the points I want to make. Personally, I think it is better to try to bring something new into a debate that is just going in circles. What's the point of just repeating the same slogans over and over again?

The post you objected to: #395 on your " Tory MP Rod Brinooge abortion bill, Tory MP wants to ban abortion" thread (any chance you've started too many on the abortion topic?), I felt had to go into a little detail about what you are demanding from women when you say they must respect life and bring every pregnancy to term.

You complained there were no links and somehow missed the fact that Judith Jarvis Thompson (see, there it is again!) was an embedded link to the philosophy paper she wrote back in 1971 which became very influential in making a case for privacy rights around issues of pregnancy and abortion; and it also had an influence on other issues such as organ donation, as pointed out by punked.

Anyway, I only quoted the thought problem examples she used to demonstrate the pitfalls of elevating right to life to a level where it infringes on the personal rights of others. The first and third examples I quoted are cases where someone may try to be a good samaritan and go out of their way to save someone else. But, most people are going to agree that the samaritan shouldn't be morally obligated to sacrifice their own time and quality of life to help the other person. The 2nd example asks who's life should be given greater priority, since until very modern times, the doctor may have been instructed to save the baby at all costs, even when the mother's life was in danger.

Besides the linked article, I asked a question that you or other pro life movement people don't deal with: if pro life is really about saving innocent life, why is there little or no concern about fetuses killed through the natural process of miscarriage? From the data, there are a lot more of them than there are planned abortions; why no great effort from the pro life movement to direct resources to prenatal care and end the miscarriage holocaust?

[ToadBrother]

Besides the linked article, I asked a question that you or other pro life movement people don't deal with: if pro life is really about saving innocent life, why is there little or no concern about fetuses killed through the natural process of miscarriage? From the data, there are a lot more of them than there are planned abortions; why no great effort from the pro life movement to direct resources to prenatal care and end the miscarriage holocaust?

Going out on a limb, I'd suggest it is because most pro-lifers are coming at this from a religious angle, and in there eyes, spontaneous abortions are "God's will".

[gordiecanuk]

Not at all Mr. Toad. I'm merely pointing out that Jews use the first 5 books as a set of Laws whereas Catholics use the entire, complete Bible. Protestants use a shorter Bible as Martian Luther tore 7 books of the Bible out cause he disagreed with them.

Rome not only ripped books out of the Bible....they did everything they could to have them destroyed (Gnostic Gospels)....only God's grace sees them surviving to this day.

[M.Dancer]

Rome not only ripped books out of the Bible....they did everything they could to have them destroyed (Gnostic Gospels)....only God's grace sees them surviving to this day.

Nopt just rome, constantinople too which is why the orthodox have pretty much the same book as the west.....the gnostics just didn't meets the standards like provenence to be included....while the gospels and letters were in wide circulation from around the turn of the 1st century, the gnostics date much later and were only incirculation with the gnostic sects.

The Nag Hammadi library, a collection of books found in 1945, some refer to as Gnostic Scriptures (which include the Gospel of Thomas), were not accepted as canonical by Jerome in the 4th century AD. They were written in Coptic and are generally dated to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, though the Gospel of Thomas has ignited some debate, and scholars argue that it dates from 50 AD(Koester, HDS) to the late 2nd century AD(Miers).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bi...stic_Scriptures

The reason why protestants don't include Maccabees and the others is simply because they aren't a part of the hebrew Canon.

[WIP]

Going out on a limb, I'd suggest it is because most pro-lifers are coming at this from a religious angle, and in there eyes, spontaneous abortions are "God's will".

Bingo! Whatever is God's Will cannot be questioned; so modern fundamentalist apologists such as William Lane Craig, will go on endlessly about Hitler's Holocaust and miss the point that The Deluge which spared Noah and his family would have meant a holocaust of global scale.....if it were true! Same with the 99% of people who are "unsaved" and end up roasting down there on the everlasting barbecue. If it's God's Will, it has too be good no matter what!

[WIP]

Nopt just rome, constantinople too which is why the orthodox have pretty much the same book as the west.....the gnostics just didn't meets the standards like provenence to be included....while the gospels and letters were in wide circulation from around the turn of the 1st century, the gnostics date much later and were only incirculation with the gnostic sects.

The problems with authenticity aren't so much about what books are used to make the modern Bible, it's how reliable the individual books are themselves. They are all written in Greek, including the earliest gospel - Mark, even though the spoken language of the people in Judea at the time was Aramaic. Either the first books and letters were written in Aramaic, and later translated into Greek, or as some folklorists believe, the stories and oral traditions were written down in a different language than the people who kept the oral traditions alive, were using. Also, the earliest scrolls are mere fragments of books and not complete texts. You have to wait a couple of centuries before finding complete manuscripts of the gospels and epistles.

One of the first church leaders to be branded a heretic - Marcion - used a Gospel of Luke in his collection that he put together as the first Bible. Just based on the criticisms of Marcion by the orthodox church fathers, it's obvious that Marcion's Gospel of Luke had many differences than the one we have today, but there are no copies of Marcion's Luke in existence today, so no one knows how many alterations were done before the finished copy appeared in the 4th Century.

But ofcourse, the books the Gnostics and Arians used, were all being written down during the same time period, so they can't be given any more credence than the orthodox canon. If anything, books like the Gospel of Thomas are full of so many fantastic stories and miracles, that they can't be regarded as authentic histories either.

[eyeball]

Bingo! Whatever is God's Will cannot be questioned; so modern fundamentalist apologists such as William Lane Craig, will go on endlessly about Hitler's Holocaust and miss the point that The Deluge which spared Noah and his family would have meant a holocaust of global scale.....if it were true! Same with the 99% of people who are "unsaved" and end up roasting down there on the everlasting barbecue. If it's God's Will, it has too be good no matter what!

If spontaneous miscarriges are in fact God's abortions its probably because He can see that these fetuses are or will become evil in the future. So does Beelzebub flip each one individually on the barbecue or use a shiskabob?

I know dead baby jokes are not the best way to make friends but I just couldn't help it.

[KeyStone]

SOURCE/FULL STORY

Well as we can Christians are waking up to the secularism that is destroying Canada. Not only that but Christians are starting to vote as the Bible says. For a party that best identifies with Christians, has the best party policies that are in line with Church teachings. That party is the Conservative party or Tories and they are led by Stephan Harper, an evangelical Christian, a family man, a Joe everyman, just like you and me friends.

Read the article in its entirety it explains things far better than I could.

Hmm, I don't think it's anyone waking up. I think the Left is repeatedly making the mistake of ostracizing the religious, particularly Christians.

They really need to decide if they want to make real change in this country, or just sit on their high moral, intolerant horses.

[ToadBrother]

Hmm, I don't think it's anyone waking up. I think the Left is repeatedly making the mistake of ostracizing the religious, particularly Christians.

Who is ignoring Christians? The NDP is filled with Christians, hell it was founded by one.

They really need to decide if they want to make real change in this country, or just sit on their high moral, intolerant horses.

What real change? Making it a more religious country? Turning back the clock a few hundred years?