Saudi King calls for interfaith dialogue

Joanna writes: King Abdullah has called for interfaith dialogue between Muslims, Christians and Jews. Richard Owen has done the story for Times Online. The King called for "conferences between the religions to protect humanity from folly" just two days after the Pope baptised Muslim Magdi Allam into the Catholic faith.

The King said: "I wanted to visit the Vatican and I did and I thank him. He met me in a meeting I will not forget, a meeting of one human being with another. I suggested this idea," he said.

Saudi is not renowed for its religious tolerance or willingness to recognise the rights of different faiths which are not allowed their own places of worship in the country. 

But the king said: "I ask representatives of all the monotheistic religions to meet with their brothers in faith." He was speaking at a seminar on a "Dialogue Among Civilizations between Japan and the Islamic World," according to the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA).

“If God wills it, we will then meet with our brothers from other religions, including those of the Torah and the Gospel… to come up with ways to safeguard humanity," he added.

Comments

[Christopher]

Kate and JPearce, I think you have completely exposed the fatal flaw (not to say dissembling) in the arguments deployed by J and DS and indeed all those whose consciences are so delicate when it comes to dwelling on the sins of gay people, not necessarily anything to do with them. The contrasting robustness of conscience (aka minding their own business) when it comes to their own sons and daughters who may be co-habiting (in the quaint Daily Mail expression, 'living in sin'), their fellow churchgoers, friends and family who may be shacked up with other people's wives/husbands (aka practising adultery on a nightly basis) is obvious to everyone who isn't as obsessed as they are with spoiling the lives of one particular group of human beings. It is amazing how selectively tender are their consciences about which sexual sins they may condone and which it is their christian duty to denounce. Then what of the other little matter of entry into the extreme porn sites that people on Anglican Mainstream regularly visit. Do they pay to peek? Isn't paying to peek contributing towards keeping the sites going? Oh, wasn't this the argument used by the TV guy who was jailed for downloading child porn:? "I was doing it for research purposes, M'Lud." Heaven forbid that Anglican Mainstreamers are actually peeking to perve or enjoying way too much the sight of gay men having it off with each other.

[Kate]

Christopher: "if some christian's words cause even just one lonely teenager to take his own life, don't you think Jesus was right about millstones being hung around his neck?"

This Christopher, is the kernel of the heresy disseminated by the 'Preying'/'Praying Mantis' and her patriarchal cohort - the 'Special' Christians who deny NT Christianity in favour of a 'pick-and-mix' OT literalism.

OT literalism was transformed and reinterpreted by Christ: 'Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come ... to fulfil them.' "(Matthew 5:17). That fulfilment meant transformation; it meant God's love for his children would NOT be undermined by exaggerated concern with restrictions and points of OT Law.

Concepts such as Original Sin, do not exist in the Bible. Yet many who believe in Original Sin also believe that 'personal' revelation overrules, not only reason, but even the Law. By rejecting all reason, they reject not only all learning, science, and the concept of Free Will, but Christ's message of love. The only 'love' available is that determined by the 'Specials'.

While there is no doubt that 'revealed religion' and mysticism have great power to stir human emotion, it requires, for the 'Special' Christians, adherence to their personal interpretation and abdication of the intellect.

The simplistic solutions offered by 'Specials' to existential problems must, in order to control 'followers', DENY or denigrate the tools of rational thought.

Careful reading of the contributions of 'Special' Christians will confirm that they 'rubbish', deny and demote everything that does not conform to their personal, literal, interpretation of the OT.

That a delicate balance of Classical Humanism (reason) and Judeo-Christian thought, is the basis of civilized society in the West, has no relevance to such people.

Andrew Holden has said: "... religious people can do ethics on the same basis as everyone else - there should actually be no need directly to 'bring God into' moral discourse ... ... He is always there."

I agree wholeheartedly. However, for 'Special' Christians, conflating their own human status with the Divine, means that bringing God into every aspect of 'moral discourse' establishes a Hierarchy - God's Chosen must necessarily maintain a position of POWER over the 'fallen'!

The essential problem for the 'fallen' is the requirement that we must suspend disbelief and accept, as immutable 'truth', claims of superior 'knowledge' and Being in the World from those patently a little 'slow' on abstract concepts or even definition of terms.

Irrational self-aggrandisement by 'Specials' invokes, in the designated 'fallen', incredulous disagreement. This in turn provokes frenzied admonitions from the 'Specials', evidence of Divinity and, of course, vindictive emotionalism.

The 'Specials' present a serious intellectual difficulty, if one has a modicum of self-respect or lived experience. More, if one is moderately sane, educated beyond the 3Rs, trained in the principles of methodical research, or able to comprehend nuance, satire, humour and the many and varied shades of meaning afforded by the English language.

One must, I think, conclude that such 'closed' minds are impenetrable. That 'An intellectual hatred is the worst' (WB Yeats) is beyond the grasp of such people. All discourse (for them) must be reduced to the 'common denominator' of emotional bias or irrational reaction.

The damaging 'assumption' of POWER over others, is best illustrated here by the question to Andrew Holden: "Would you like me to ask him to post it here himself, and under his own name?"

The immorality of 'calling in' a client, after 15 years, to 'bail out' a counsellor is self-evident. Unless the 'Transformer' is running a one man 'cult', contact with clients should, ethically, be terminated when counselling ends. In this case, a four hour session!!

J Pearce in a cogent summary underlines the ethical discrepancy: "I have an issue with you [DS], because you make your personal beliefs political, in that you use them to essentially manipulate other, vulnerable members of society."

Manipulation of sense and language underpins 'Special Christian' strategies e.g. 'The Mantis' to Kate: "I wonder what your professional body would think about a member who slaps such defamatory labels upon people you have never even clapped eyes on." ??

A covert threat? Further evidence of uninformed pomposity? Inability to understand a text?

Whatever, the term 'fascist bullying' is well-chosen Christopher. The 'pigs' in Orwell's 'Animal Farm' used the language of care and love to impose fascistic control on all the other animals. Any animal daring to disagree was subjected to a contorted vocabulary where 'love' became defined as 'exploitation' and 'submission'.

JP says: "Anglican Mainstream, ..focusing deeply and thinking very long and hard about gay sex. ... analysing every salacious second of man lust, just to wring every last nuance of repulsed thrill ...horrified-yet-weirdly-compelled contemplation."

Indeed JPearce and, there she is, in the vanguard of that regiment of 'Christian' soldiers protecting us from 'invasion by homosexuals', our own 'Jill' she of the all-encompassing subliminal knowledge of the thoughts, feelings, capabilities and ethics of others! Whistler's Mother. Sadly, only the intellectually 'challenged' would freely offer public evidence of such extraordinary "proclivities"!

[J Pearce]

"" no lie is as tired as the lie that anyone who thinks homosex is wrong is homophobic""

Ah, but we all know what the truth is. When certain Christians try and cloak their opinions on sexuality using the injunction "all sex outside of marriage is sinful", it is merely dissimulation an Islamist would be proud of.

Question: what is the very issue threatening this very year to split the Anglican Communion asunder?

Is it:

A) Bishops marrying women who have (had) sex outside of marriage? Or is it

B) Bishops marrying men?

QED. Its all about the gays. That blessed injunction about "no sex before marriage" is so much window dressing for what is, in reality, a deep seated homophobia prevalent within corporate Christianity.

The problem for folk such as Messrs Smith and J, is that they are condemned by the sins of omission. They protest against laws to give homosexuals equality within our legal framework. Why not go down to your local courtroom and protest against adulterers named in divorce cases? Where are the Mainstream Anglicans carrying banners to Parliament to complain against divorce laws, or the age of consent, or the porn industry?

Why does Jill specifically mention "the sexual proclivities" of Kate's son? Is she railing against the "sexual proclivities" of the son(s) who aren't gay? If not, why not? Perhaps they have "sinned" against the above mentioned injunction as well? Why are they not relevant to this argument?

I'll tell you why, Mr D. Smith and Jill - because you don't give a damn about the "sexual proclivities" of those who you consider to be "normal". Christopher is absolutely correct, you both have an axe to grind, a specific agenda to push. Hiding it behind vague allusions to wider Christian ideals is just so much hypocritical bull.

D & J, if you truly wish to follow the Christian injunction that all sex outside of marriage is "sinful", then its all or nothing I'm afraid. Singling out specific groups of the population for criticism above and beyond others, is rank hypocrisy and a corruption of the morality you claim so preciously. And therefore it is indeed homophobia, by any other name.

[George Parr]

Thanks Kate and Christopher, but please do not forget what a sour, humourless, unhappy, intolerant bigoted soul I am - apparently along with JP!

Christopher and all the others are actually overlooked within the (no doubt) abstruse mathematical calculations employed to define the 'gang of three'! A transparent pattern is seen by all to emerge. The maximum number possible (the global population no less) is described as endorsing the depleted view that homosexuality is wholly behavioural (although rectifiable) harmful, undesirable and unmistakeably 'other'. An appropriately minimal number of people - three - is selected from the now several hundred posts on this subject, across numerous threads and from a multiplicity of authors Christian and non-aligned, challenging that view. A ball-park figure of the apparent supporters of sexual transformation? Er, two - Jill and Preacher Beekman.

[Christopher]

George, you are right about the good these people (christians obsessed with homosexuality?) do. This morning I counted over 42 mentions of the word 'gay' or 'homosexuality' on the home page of Anglican Mainstream....and this covered 12 stories.

[Christopher]

" no lie is as tired as the lie that anyone who thinks homosex is wrong is homophobic". But we are not simply talking about opinions people may have formed in the context of their beliefs. We are talking about the kind of people who feel they have a mission (and a permission) to trumpet those opinions on every occasion, in and out of season - mostly out of it, and to make life as intolerable and miserable as they can for people who find they are gay, to take away any legal protections they may have gained against the prejudice that would destroy their lives. Too often so-called "christians' use religion as a cloak to justify homophobic attitudes - clear when they have no other subject of comparable importance to talk about as we see on this blog. They even trawl gay websites to gain ammunition - as if there weren't many more straight porn websites they could also look at, but those are under their radar, it is "gay" sexual excess they are out to target. Gay teens are many more times likely to commit suicide than their straight peers, and before you jump in and say it, this is not because of homosexuality but because of the climate of hostility engendered by homophobia - and religion has largely been used to foster this climate. Just look at the coinage "sodomy", an abstract noun, formed from the biblical town Sodom. If you are interested read Prof. Mark Jordan's book The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology to see how it came about. You may think you have a licence to say what you think about homosexuality but if some christian's words cause even just one lonely teenager to take his own life, don't you think Jesus was right about millstones being hung around his neck? Isn't that a worse sin but unfortunately outfits like Anglican Mainstream and the Christian Institute are so blinded by their own hype of "a gay lobby out to destroy christian values", as the bishop Joseph Devine recently said, that they overlook the harm they may inadvertantly do to one child in the name of the god they say is a god of love. I suppose the bishop would claim it was co-lateral damage - an unfortunate necessity in his war on homosexuality. Or does he perhaps also preach those other often-repeated lies - there is no such thing as a homosexual child - only a person who chooses to become a homosexual when he is old enough to know better, like any common adulterer, or he is made one by a dirty old man in a mack, or by a weak father and overbearing mother....?

[Kate]

George Parr - Have you no shame - "holding up for public scrutiny the [hilarious comic] proclivities of your own (identifiable)" self?

More on that elsewhere. Pure satire and superb. I am convinced you are a 'closet' John Bird.

[George Parr]

Saints preserve us! Now look what 'holy' rhetoric has belched into existence whilst I have been away!

So, we can now be quite sure that the biased personal views of some Anglicans, seemingly obsessed with the lifestyle of homosexuals, actually accord with most of the world's population. Homosexual practice is unhealthy and harmful and this is generally accepted by most people in the world who tacitly agree with Christians in this respect. Homosexuality is a gigantic issue within the Christian faith, since many 'religious' discussion forums introduce this aspect into unconnected threads when there is an opportunity.

It is also a matter of great importance that those claiming to be divine conduits for transforming (into heterosexuals) the not inconsiderable number of homosexuals in the world (this is entirely possible) be taken very seriously. By association their few supporters must also be taken seriously, with colourful, robust valid arguments not allowed. Great emphasis must be placed on terminology, leading to exactly who is undeniably right. Denigrating homosexual lifestyles and making 'long distance judgments' on people they do not know is perfectly acceptable for Christians who criticize homosexuals, but not for people who challenge them over it.

Some Christians may imply that homosexuality is a behavioural problem which can only be changed by God and that it is possibly the only aspect of the human condition which does not have its origins in genetics. Evil spirits transcend human genetics and provide a statutory defence against charges of homophobia, along with trite allegations of rudeness. It is perfectly feasible to criticize consistently the lifestyle of homosexual men and to assess their worth and value as objects suitable for transformation, without being regarded as homophobic or eccentric in any way. Criticism also extends to the attitudes of their near relatives. The heavy emphasis on homosexual men does not mean that lesbians, who must not be mentioned, are off the hook. It is impossible to discover through reading the acres of writing of some Special Christians just how unhealthy and harmful the world's population adjudges lesbians, en masse, to be.

Christians who marginalize homosexuals are protected by their religion and do not mind in the least how they are regarded over the matter; unless questions of hair-splitting innaccuracies or concerns over their mental health are raised. These people are undeniably making the world a better place.

[Kate]

So glad somebody can actually 'do' English comprehension JPearce.

As I have said repeatedly, Jill has chosen to 'identify' with a description of a specific psychological condition. That she is likely correct in that self-assessment is of no interest to me. I make no apologies for drawing attention to well-documented research.

However, the VINDICTIVE and INFANTILE posturing illustrated here gives pause for thought.

Snide referencing of my son, by these so-called 'Christians', is a perfect illustration of the vacuous self-interest which characterises their posts on every topic. May God (as I understand Him) protect me and mine from such destructive egos.

[J Pearce]

Actually Dave, Kate has not described Jill as psychotic. She has instead extrapolated a potential link between behaviour and research results.

CAN WE NOW EXPECT A SIMPLE APOLOGY FROM YOU TO KATE FOR YOUR HAVING MISREPRESENTED WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID?

Arf.

[Kate]

Au contraire Jill, you will not 'seek' because you will not find. That you have chosen, repeatedly, to 'identify' with a short description of a specific personality type is entirely your 'choice'.

Further, in contrast to your own numerous 'revelations' on a homosexual "close relative" and the latest from David Smith, I have NEVER, detailed confidential information given to me in trust.

That you (and DS) have chosen, pejoratively, to reference my son - of whose lifestyle you know NOTHING - so you might 'score' personal 'points' is not only risible but evidence of frustrated and personalised rage.

My son IS NOT, in the CLOSET Jill - your previously stated preference for ALL gay men. Nor "at the same time" have I EVER [held] "up for public scrutiny the sexual proclivities" my ...son", OR, anyone else's son. I fear this is simply more evidence of a fevered imagination.

YOU on the other hand, most certainly HAVE (ad nauseum) held "up for public scrutiny" [and in pornographic detail] "the sexual proclivities of" 'a close relative'.

I will not bore other contributors, or feed your need for attention with 'Jill quotes' - it is all there if anyone is interested - which I doubt.

It is enough that you are infamous for your campaign to disenfranchise a small, law-abiding minority of British citizens. I have no interest in your self-referential litany of justification.

[J Pearce]

Christopher, isn't the term "Anglican Mainstream" actually a misnomer? Or even, a contradiction in terms? I wasn't even aware that there was a "mainstream" Anglican body of opinion, given the level of internecine sniping I see on this blog!

I love this kind of phraseology though:

"...holding up for public scrutiny the sexual proclivities of your own (identifiable) son."

It says so much more about the writer than subject, don't you think? Kate says one of her sons is gay. In the real world, whoopee-do. Normal person stifles yawn, then gets over it and moves on to real issues that actually affect people.

But in Anglican Mainstream, this obviously means focussing very deeply and thinking very long and hard about gay sex. And I mean, literally, analysing every salacious second of man lust, just to wring every last nuance of repulsed thrill from it. Every grunt, thrust and ejaculation is fair game for hours of horrified-yet-weirdly-compelled contemplation.

Honestly, if a non-religious person spent so much time obsessing about gay sex in public, they'd get locked up as some kind of threat to the community. But if your religious? Well, that’s all right then. Free pass. Nothing wrong with your psyche at all, is there? All par for the course, Madam!

I mean, were we actually discussing homosexuality on this thread? Not until our AM brethren decided to crowbar it into the conversation! Unbelieveable.

[J Pearce]

Blow me, Jill is back from the blogs that time forgot!

"J Pierce misrepresents what I say."

Dave - whats sauce for the goose, mate...

[David Smith]

Jill:
' ..you can't match 'psychotic' - Kate's description of me (because I happen to think - along with most of the world's population - that homosexual practice is unhealthy and harmful!).'

Posted by: Jill | 18 Apr 2008 19:09:06

Kate, in response:
'More 'false witness' Jill.'

Posted by: Kate | 20 Apr 2008 11:23:39

I think not, Kate. Here is what you have said:

'Christopher is accurate in pinpointing a total absence of 'empathy' in Jill's posts. An 'inability to empathise' is repeatedly noted in psychological research as a major characteristic of PSYCHOTIC disorder.'

Posted by: Kate | 13 Dec 2006 20:16:36

Personally, Kate, I'd want to be more sure of my facts.

CAN WE NOW EXPECT A SIMPLE APOLOGY FROM YOU TO JILL FOR YOUR HAVING DONE THIS?

[David Smith]

Christopher:
'We've heard it all before but it is nothing other than wearisome homophobia wrapped up in "health issues" bullshit.'

Talking about 'we've heard it all before', no lie is as tired as the lie that anyone who thinks homosex is wrong is homophobic. I'm surprised you aren't embarrassed to reel this one out again.

And as for your comment about 'fascist bullying'.. well it simply devalues language to the point where it becomes meaningless.

I do wonder sometimes whether you aren't actually out to sabotage your own cause.

[Christopher]

"- along with most of the world's population - "

The man who walks against the crowd is always wrong? Tell that to the men who were hanged from piano wires in Hitler's Germany

Jill's majoritarian argument is typical of all bullying evidenced by that nasty sect of modern Anglicanism, Anglican Mainstream. Jill has an axe to grind - a gay relative. We've heard it all before but it is nothing other than wearisome homophobia wrapped up in "health issues" .

Kate you are a mother in a million.

[Christopher]

"- along with most of the world's population - "

The man who walks against the crowd is always wrong? Tell that to the men who were hanged from piano wires in Hitler's Germany

Jill's majoritarian argument is typical of all fascistic bullying evidenced by that nasty sect of modern Anglicanism, Anglican Mainstream. Jill has an axe to grind - a gay relative. We've heard it all before but it is nothing other than wearisome homophobia wrapped up in "health issues" bullshit.

Kate you are a mother in a million. Jill will lose the love of her relative if he gets to learn of how she posts about gay people - and she will deserve to.

[Jill]

Well, if you don't remember, Kate, I am sure plenty of others will! I seem to recall it raised several comments at the time, even from your supporters! I'm blowed if I'm going to spend hours looking through acres of material to find it.

I wonder what your professional body would think about a member who slaps such defamatory labels upon people you have never even clapped eyes on.

Yet you are happy to make long-distance judgments on someone who offers a testimony(anonymous)from one of his clients at the same time as holding up for public scrutiny the sexual proclivities of your own (identifiable) son.

[Kate]

More 'false witness' Jill. Please reference precisely WHERE I have written the words:

'Jill is psychotic'.

'God said to Abraham, kill me a son.
Abe said Lord you must be putting me on!'
(Bob Dylan - Highway 61)

[Jill]

Wow, David, a megalomaniac! But you can't match 'psychotic' - Kate's description of me (because I happen to think - along with most of the world's population - that homosexual practice is unhealthy and harmful!).

You will have to try harder!

[Kate]

Dear David

Some suggestions:

1) Do get out more.

2) Failing that see a good 'shrink'.

3) Do a course in lit crit - literary criticism.

4) Failing that, get a good dictionary.

[David Smith]

George Parr/Hugh Manitas:
'The blog suffers so much because of Kate, she is invited by its host to post her own excellent article.'

J Pierce:
'I'm interested to read that you think the Bible is beneath contempt, though.'

Kate:
' "New contributors are repelled" ... Indeed they are. Repelled by parasites. Megalomaniac stalkers.. '

Hugh misrepresents history.

J Pierce misrepresents what I say.

Kate misrepresents me with yet more personal abuse.

The antics of the 'New Gang of Three' speak more than adequately for themselves.

[Kate]

"New contributors are repelled" ... Indeed they are. Repelled by parasites. Megalomaniac stalkers, who feed off others - in every sense of the word 'feed'.

Megalomania: A psycho-pathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of power, or omnipotence.

[J Pearce]

"Whilst you are in this mode, I think you affect adversely a blog like this. You also become a pied piper for others of a similar disposition."

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, Dave. I have not read any other poster who "follows" in Kate's path. Quite the opposite, in fact. If you are trying to imply that when Kate critiques, others (namely my good self and George, if I read the implication correctly) "jump on the bandwagon"…well, that’s a fairly trite and condescending thing to say, isn't it?

And entirely innacurate, I might add. On the mutated Embryology thread, for example, where the discussion has taken in Faith schools, there is a clear disticntion between what I believe and what Kate advocates. Explain that.

"New contributors are repelled - this has happened again and again."

Your evidence for this is…what? The fact that Jill upped sticks to concentrate on blogs which entirely reinforced, vindicated and massaged her own, cosseted worldview? Is that it? Hardly a damning indictment, wouldn't you say?! Otherwise, how can you possibly speculate on the potential posters who may/may not have joined this blog on the basis of Kate's postings?

I'm interested to read that you think the Bible is beneath contempt, though.

[J Pearce]

"And to be honest it's rather dismal just being around you - even at blog-arm's-length."

Cheers! And Merry Xmas to you too, Dave..!

My main beef is with organised religion and its socio-political impact, rather than with every individual and their privately expressed beliefs. I have an issue with you, because you make your personal beliefs political, in that you use them to essentially manipulate other, vulnerable members of society.

You advertise your beliefs as a means to effect "change" in others and do it for fiscal gain, I have no doubt. And whereas you appear to display a smidgeon of commonsense about, say, Roman Catholicism, you blow your credibility entirely with this appallingly neanderthal attitude towards homosexuality.

And therein lies your major problem. You say that your attitudes are shaped by the Bible. Yet so is the entire Canon produced by the RCC. But according to Mr D. Smith Esq, God's anointed Army Of One, its your interpretation of the Bible which is entirely valid, but the RCC's is just a political manifesto designed to control the masses.

Thing is, from where I'm sitting, you and the RCC are doing exactly the same thing, that is, justifying the manipulation of others by appealing to a "higher being", which has apparently endowed you - and only you (or the Pope, in the RCC case) - with "special knowledge", such that only you (or the Pope) is capable of transmitting God's message and doing God's work on earth.

So in that sense, Dave, I see no difference between your pretensions and the pretensions of the Pope - or indeed, of any other self-appointed religious leader who claims kinship with divinity.

And I reject all of it.

[George Parr]

Those who do not agree with Special Christians who are personally informed by God are, if their views are made known, likely to repel other contributors to this forum. It is possible for Special Christians to divine how many times this has already happened on a global internet basis.

Fresh and robust emotive argument has a terrible achromatic effect on the blog which, when finally devoid of colour will quickly reduce in quality. Drawing attention to this issue in order to discredit dissenters appears to be just one of the many weapons in the armoury of Specials.

Some contributors who seriously disagree with Special Christians have no objectivity and are easily unmasked. These people are only pretending to be intellectuals. This is assessed from a range of postings in which their every word is closely scrutinised and pronounced to be either black or white. They must choose their words carefully, because they may be expected to stop engaging with others. Should they resume it could attract criticism which may be used instead of argument.

Special Christians can discuss the sexuality of persons they have never met and criticise their lifestyles within a polemical context. To view that as contemptible is to reject the Bible and is tantamount to heresy.

[George Parr]

The blog suffers so much because of Kate, she is invited by its host to post her own excellent article.

[David Smith]

Kate:
'David Smith:

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good [people] to stay silent. I paraphrase but the meaning is clear.'

So now we have Saint Kate and wicked David Smith. I don't think so!

And when you argue a position it's 'ethical'. But when someone else argues the opposite (albeit an equally widely held position) it's beneath contempt!

How's that for double self-promotion?!

And my opinion on your son's and anyone else's practise of homosex (I don't know your son) is the same as the Bible's. So presumably that book is beneath contempt too?

On another thread you attack a poster's 'relativism' as 'a great big lie'. With me it's 'absolutism' you object to.

Let's face it, Kate, for all your pretence of intellectual integrity and objectivity, once you take a visceral, emotional disliking to someone, they can do and say no right in your eyes, and all their views and arguments are simply despicable.

What happened to 'I'm not reading David Smith's posts or speaking to him any more'? It couldn't be, could it, that you are once again simply unable to keep the river of your shere, overwhelming gut hostility within its banks?

Whilst you are in this mode, I think you affect adversely a blog like this. You also become a pied piper for others of a similar disposition. New contributors are repelled - this has happened again and again. And the whole quality and colourfulness of the blog suffers.

[George Parr]

Some people think that their nervous breakdowns are special and cannot be cured medically. Happily, some Christians are able to cure other potential Christians in that event, through opening up closed channels to God.

Proof of the reality of God lies in accounts by Christians of transformations they have achieved mystically. These might take the form of sad, raw nervy, molten and confused human beings who have experienced unhappy lives undergoing unspecified analysis by medically unqualified Christians. These people are fully able to consult personally with God to discover his perspective on the process; for example, to measure the quality of love that human beings have received against levels of love intended for them by God.

Having followed detailed instructions to rectify this, through prayer they may report unusual experiences such as being filled up with warm air, together with a distinct improvement in mood and an increase in confidence. They might become calm, outgoing, touching people. Some may be unable to stop laughing.

Those who do not immediately believe or accept the power these Christians possess are cynics. Any alternative views are clearly attempts to stop Christians transforming other people into new Christians by subverting medical science. It must be universally accepted that these unqualified practitioners are divinely-inspired experts in their field and not in the least pseudo. Those who do not accept them are pseudo in the extreme and certainly not experts.

Rational sets of good ideas have never worked for mankind in thousands of years. Mankind is fallen and hopeless. 'Go-it-alone' philosophies based on nothing more than human beings trying to be mutual and pleasant to each other are responsible for this. Christians transforming others through received instruction, in the way described, are of course exceptions and cannot be regarded as 'go-it-alone' practitioners.

[Kate]

George - thank you. I'm still giggling. "What could possibly go wrong...?"

WELL ... the 'possessed' one has FIVE rather large brothers who don't really like what they've read of Mr Smith.

The real 'problem with Kate is', that she actually 'trained' in the profession and has too often picked up the pieces left by such fakers.

A further 'problem with Kate is' she believes respect must be EARNED.

Again, the 'problem with Kate is', she has confronted too many self-anointed Patriarchs to be impressed by such a bathetic example. Rev Dr Ian K Paisley?

WE have fallen yet again into the 'trap'. DS don't care whether the 'attention' is 'negative', miserable, or 'personal animosity'. We are indulging his obsessive craving to be 'centre stage' and controlling the show.

Poor old JP - 'grooming' continues along with the usual Smith semantics. Words - like 'tear' mean what I say they mean said the Queen.

I didn't think you were "moved"? Au contraire ... more like revolted.

[George Parr]

Rule One in counselling: Patient confidentiality. A point made by several others on this thread after fulsome claims of messianic intervention. But I'll re-inforce it, if my not doing so bothers anyone, or dilutes it as important...

[George Parr]

Kate, damned with feint praise and anointed as 'quite knowledgable' is miserable, and unfortunately lets herself down badly. Diagnosed as suffering from a condition called 'negative emotion' along with a propensity for creative imagination, sadly she allows this to interfere with her otherwise 'interesting contributions', which possibly disappoints those in control.

The problem with Kate appears to stem from having the audacity to robustly argue with those Christians who publicly disagree with the sexual orientation bestowed by God upon her son. (They can just imagine his lifestyle.) Kate possibly fails to realise that it is wholly possible for him to achieve a miraculous catharsis, through approaching someone who has a now-proven divine ability to transform, and who, after a short period of simple psychoanalysis will provide clear instructions how to drive out these evil spirits.

What could possibly go wrong...?

[Kate]

David Smith:

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good [people] to stay silent. I paraphrase but the meaning is clear.

Your reference to my son perfectly illustrates a 'gutter' mind obsessed with self-promotion. On the question of homosexual civil rights, I have argued an ethical political position. Your OPINION on my son is beneath my contempt.

What I have NEVER done is sink to the level of using and abusing trust for egotistical gain.

[J Pearce]

"It surely is not the medical profession.

Well, according to Dave, yes it is. He's said on previous threads that GP's refer their patients to him.

Frightening.

[David Smith]

J Pierce:
' ..your previous highly emotive posting.. no matter how many tear jerkers you care to publicise.'

I'm so glad you were moved by this true story, 'J', as you were when you first heard my own.You said then: 'That's a very powerful story and I'm glad it had a happy ending for you.. I would never denigrate that in anyway.'

It's just such a pity that since then your huge, bottomless well of anger, negativity, and cynicism about 'the religious' and their views and their experiences of God, seems to have completely overtaken your thinking again.

It can't be very nice for you to be like this. And to be honest it's rather dismal just being around you - even at blog-arm's-length.

I do hope, for everyone's sake, that you soon find some way out of that well. Christianity has one very effective solution: forgive those who have disappointed your past expectations; let them go; and move on.

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
'That the individual might not mind the story being told is irrelevant and the fact that go gave no name is no excuse.. The public context for telling the story in such detail was clearly inappropriate and merely lends support to George's negative views of such ministry. I'm also, I'm rather sorry to say, suspicious of your motives in telling the story. Was it really to honour God or someone else?'

The individual concerned would not, as I have already said, just not mind his story being told. He would be delighted, and goes around telling it himself. Would you like me to ask him to post it here himself, and under his own name?

On what is and isn't appropriate, we'll just have to disagree. I am steeped in a Christian culture (as is he) that says you share God's wonderful working in your life to uplift and encourage others, and to bring others to Him.

I think it's actually only your negativity towards me as a fellow Christian on this issue that will re-inforce Hugh's view. In many lines of posting since my post, he hasn't actually said a word of complaint about the confidentiality aspect of my sharing this story.

It IS a strange paradox that an almighty God 'needs' us at all to work His works. Yet scripture tells us repeatedly that if we don't do certain 'good works' they just won't get done at all. This considered, I ask you too, Andrew: how does it bring glory to me to tell a story of God working in a man's life when, as I expressly said, I wasn't even there at the time?!

[David Smith]

George Parr/Hugh Manitas:
' ..human breakdown is not something that can be simply rectified by claiming divine advocacy.. '

Who says? Or should I say: You wish!

You may recall that I myself was healed from medically 'incurable' breakdown (when I first became a Christian) by the power of God opened up to me by other Christians.

You ask for proof of the reality of God. But when you get it you smother it under a sea of pseudo-expertise and cynicism of your own.

If you are just here to slam God and those who testify to His very real working in their own and other people's lives, and to say that you know better, why not just say so?

And just what do you have to offer as an alternative for ailing humanity? Answer: nothing more than you own (self-proclaimed 'rational') little set of good ideas, with no evidence at all that they have ever worked in thousands of years to solve the problems of a fallen and (apart from God) helpless mankind.

The world as it is today is precisely the result of 'go-it-alone' and 'why can't everyone else just be nice like me?' philosophies like yours, my friend.

[David Smith]

Kate:
'David Smith: You are a shameless, self-aggrandising creature devoid of ethics... '

What an absolute misery you are, Kate, and really all just because I think your son's homosexual lifestyle is wrong!

See my post latest post to Andrew Holden.

But also how, I wonder, in your mind is pointing at what God can do by His Spirit 'self-aggrandising'?

I've lost count of the number of times you've said either that you aren't 'speaking' to me, or that you don't read my posts any more. But as soon as you feel another surge of personal animosity, you're off again. Ethics? Consistency?

As I have also said to you before, you are quite knowledgeable and make some interesting contributions to this blog. It's just when you let negative emotion and creative imagination get the upper hand in what you write that you let yourself down so badly.

[George Parr]

"Sorry that you feel this way Andrew and cannot barely find it in yourself to rejoice at such a wondrous true story"

[Some people feature majorly in transforming others and are able to act as a divine conduit between God and disturbed mortal people, who would remain unwell had God not chosen them personally to intervene. Luckily these special people are close enough to God to be informed in time about the perspective of those seeking help and where they are going wrong. Through adhering to recommendations this man was later able to write a saccharine account of what God and one of his close associates had done for him.]

[andrew holden]

David, I am myself involved in ministry and would not dream of sharing such details in public even if they are well in the past. As Kate has said, confidentiality is an important part of any counselling process and it should be respected above almost everything else. That the individual might not mind the story being told is irrelevant and the fact that go gave no name is no excuse - you have no idea who may trawl the internet for your name and recognise something of the story or the person in it. The public context for telling the story in such detail was clearly inappropriate and merely lends support to George's negative views of such ministry. I'm also, I'm rather sorry to say, suspicious of your motives in telling the story. Was it really to honour God or someone else?

[Mike Homfray]

I think this simply proves that what people need 'healing' from is religionism!

Looking forward to hearing Richard Dawkins speak soon - atheism makes more sense every day.

[George Parr]

Who on earth is referring these people, if they exist, to those who appear to present as (presumably) unregulated monomaniacs claiming personal guidance from God?

It surely is not the medical profession. Can it be well-intentioned but misguided officers of churches? Or is it other self-styled busybodies with notions of pseudo-psychiatry?

A listening ear is certainly a fundamental and effective tool in an abyss of loneliness and misfortune, but human breakdown is not something that can be simply rectified by claiming divine advocacy or achieved through dubious advice received through either a spirit medium or mystical introspection.

For those with faith however, I do accept that it may be integral to recovery and may form part of a recognized counselling process. However, vulnerable people should not be promised false horizons by those claiming to be significantly nearer to God than others.

[David Smith]

Andrew Holden:
'David, I presume that your ministry is offered on a non-confidential basis. Even so, and not withstanding the healing power of God at work, I think you've given far too much detail away in such a public forum.'

Sorry that you feel this way, Andrew, and can barely find it in yourself to rejoice at such a wonderous true story.

The person concerned would not share your view himself. He is the sort of person who is only too keen to bear witness to how God has worked in his life. The technical, biblical term for this is 'giving testimony', and all true Christians are exhorted by the Bible to engage in it - to God's glory.

Apart from this, I have not given his name, and this all took place 15 years ago, so I do think that you are being just a little over-protective, or maybe just British?

But God bless you, anyway.

[andrew holden]

What I mean, George, is that if I believe something 'is wrong in the eyes of God' it will have reasons why it is so that are rational and can be explained (outside of any religious frame of reference) to others in society. This is so because God doesn't behave in an arbitrary manner and even his morality has to pass the test of reason.

As an example, I may believe that in God's eyes rape is wrong. It is so not simply because he has arbitrarily decided it is wrong (and therefore could possibly change his mind tomorrow) but because it is wrong measured against (absolute?) principles of human dignity and worth. People have autonomy and freedom and are entitled to freedom from abuse and acts of violence.

For these reasons I have always believed that religious people can do ethics on the same basis as everyone else - there should actually be no need directly to 'bring God into' moral discourse any more than we need to Him into science. The point is that if He is already there then the ethics, or the science, can stand on its own feet!

[Kate]

David Smith: You are a shameless, self-aggrandising creature devoid of ethics. The first principle of ANY counselling situation is ABSOLUTE confidentiality.

I have written here previously, deploring your arrogance, ignorance, and dubious methodology - all now confirmed by your own words. This is a truly shocking betrayal of a distressed human being.

[J Pearce]

Dave,

You seem peturbed by the sceptical. Notwithstanding your previous highly emotive posting, I'll level with you as to why I remain deeply unimpressed.

The reason is simple - I have had up-close-and-personal experience with a person who claimed to be exactly the same as you. Personal, because they happen to be one of my closest relatives.

They too were on a "mission" to help people; they too rejected any organised religious experience, preferring instead to frame the terms of their "ministry" as "personalised" with God (they would repeatedly intone the mantra that it was nothing to do with religion, in case it frightened the unwary away). He directed me to a genre of books that claimed to be able to enable the reader to engage in a "1-2-1" with "Him" (does the title "Conversations With God" mean anything to you, I wonder?).

I was often regaled with their "success" stories, of how they "transformed" people's lives - and how they, er, happened to make some money out of it as well. Just to cover admin costs, of course…

The thing is, it all turned out to be a complete load of b*ll*x. When my relative ran out of gullible people to con - sorry, "transform" - he turned to Reiki as being the "ultimate healer", then a while later "transformed" himself into a business guru(!). I think he's currently trying to sell "state-of-the-art" air con units. Potentially, all harmless fun, of course, but the disturbing thing is, he sounded exactly the same as the way you write. Really. The phrasing, the euphemisms, the metaphors, the measured supercilliousness. All of it.

And what is worse is that in the pursuit of his "mission", he actually ended up damaging the people who were closest to him.

So - sorry - but I just ain't gonna buy it, no matter how many tear jerkers you care to publicise. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

[George Parr]

Andrew, don't you mean something that is interpreted by faith groups as 'wrong in the eyes of God'? It is with the utmost difficulty that the views of the faithful can be explained 'rationally', because for many they simply do not add up.

Issues of dignity and human worth are common moral issues. If you mean that there are moral issues to be discussed surrounding embryology legislation which apply to all concerned people and are not specifically the preserve of faith groups - I certainly agree. I also basically agree with your final paragraph.

[George Parr]

God speaks directly to those he has chosen to transform others - in order to convey to those who require healing, in unspecific general terms, what they need to do. Sometimes it involves their sexuality. Some people are chosen as conduits of transformation, some are not. Those whom God chooses are able to interpret and understand human psychology, without addressing behavioural problems clinically and medically from known criteria. Investigating long-term psychological problems from a spiritual perspective - for example examining fundamentals of human behaviour such as frames of reference collected through early formative processes - is something which anyone enabled by God can achieve.

This leads to a series of 'specific steps' arrived at mystically, but which may provide answers leading to tangible results in as little as four hours. The whole thing relies on a symbiosis between god, transformer and victim.

So that's all right then.

[andrew holden]

George, as ever you have oversimplified and parodied the involvement of people of faith in public life. It is not usually the case that theological reasons for a position are presented in isolation. If something is 'wrong in the eyes of God' then usually the reasons can and should be explained rationally. If those reasons don't add up then society is at liberty to reject them.

This is true of the debate about stem-cell research. The rationale offered for opposing it lies in arguments about human dignity and worth - and strangely the arguments of religious people in favour of allowing the research lie in exactly the same place. It can't, and indeed shouldn't, be decided purely on some basis of utility. There is a varied discussion to be had and religious people, on both sided of the issue, have a right to put forward their arguments. However, they also have a responsibility once a decision is made to accept it - at least for society in general if not for themselves.

[andrew holden]

David, I presume that your ministry is offered on a non-confidential basis. Even so, and not withstanding the healing power of God at work, I think you've given far too much detail away in such a public forum.