Hugo Chavez launches his own church...

kelly1

From clerical whispers:

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2008/07/hugo-chavez-launches-his-own-church.html

....The Bolivarian Church, which models itself on the nationalist catholic church formed in Nineteenth century Mexico that has since become the Anglican Church of Mexico, uses the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer and has adopted a liberal moral ethos, making clerical celibacy optional, permitting divorce and remarriage, and holding that homosexual conduct is not immoral.

With the help of God, it won't last long.

P.S. Would it be a good idea to turn this into a "sticky" general news thread?

philologos

It says it is built upon Anglican principles, however the church he has founded itself is not a part of the Anglican Communion so it seems.

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

It says it is built upon Anglican principles, however the church he has founded itself is not a part of the Anglican Communion so it seems.

Yes, I understand that. BTW, what do you think of yesterday's vote on consecration of female bishops?

philologos

Nothing new in the grander scale of Anglicanism. In the Church of Ireland females have been ordained and enabled to become bishops although we have yet to see one since 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Anglicanism

See here for the status in different countries. ^^

fitz0

Invoking god against a church? Thats not very christian now is it?

Pompey Magnus

I watched the Irish documentary filmed in Caracas when the military attempted to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez. I found it interesting watching the celebration in the Presidential compound by the upper class Venezuelan elite who had taken power, the party including quite a number of Catholic priests and bishops who were merrily drinking champagne and celebrating while the poor of Caracas rallied outside the compound demanding Chavez be freed.

Given how the Catholic church in Venezuela has thrown its support behind the rich upper classes I am not at all surprised to see Chavez supporting a Bolivarian leaning religious organisation. Of course had the Catholic Church kept its nose out of politics then this would never have needed to happen, so really it has no-one to blame but itself.

JCB

fitz0 wrote: »

Invoking god against a church? Thats not very christian now is it?

Why would God want us to spread heresies about Him?

'Envoking' God is not the same as envoking a pack of wild dogs you know. We pray that Jesus will inspire those people to look beyond - in this case what appears to be moral issues mostly - and seek His real truth, not deception.

PDN

This is not the first time Chavez has dabbled in theology. In 2006 he spoke at the UN General Assembly and declared George Bush to be the Devil.

fitz0

JCB wrote: »

Why would God want us to spread heresies about Him?

'Envoking' God is not the same as envoking a pack of wild dogs you know. We pray that Jesus will inspire those people to look beyond - in this case what appears to be moral issues mostly - and seek His real truth, not deception.

I didnt say anything about "envoking" anything. Invoking on teh other hand I did mention. :P
Why can't this church speak the truth? Why do you assume that they are misleading people or spreading "heresies"? Morality is all relative. I for one find it immoral to condemn homosexuality. So morality is relaive. Deception comes in many shapes and forms and its usually closer than one likes to admit.

Verb: invoke in'vowk

1. Summon into action or bring into existence, often as if by magic
   - raise, conjure, conjure up, evoke, stir, call down, arouse, bring up, put forward, call forth
2. Cite as an authority; resort to
   "He invoked the law that would save him"; "She invoked an ancient law"
3. Request earnestly (something from somebody); ask for aid or protection
   "Invoke God in times of trouble"

Word or phrase:

Find definitions Find translations Search all dictionaries Sorry, no dictionaries indexed in the selected category contain the word envoke.
Sorry to be so anal about it but mistakes with words like that really irritate me.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

All hail the supreme all-powerful most-reverant Chavez.

JCB

fitz0 wrote:

Morality is all relative. I for one find it immoral to condemn homosexuality. So morality is relaive

Where do people get this **** from? How could morality from God be relative? Relativism isn't even a valid moral view and is self-refuting:mad:

Honestly, you come out with this and then correct my spelling mistakes.:rolleyes:

fitz0

JCB wrote: »

Where do people get this **** from? How could morality from God be relative? Relativism isn't even a valid moral view and is self-refuting:mad:

Honestly, you come out with this and then correct my spelling mistakes.:rolleyes:

What about the phrase "Judge not lest ye be judged" (or somethign liek that) I find this as a good example of how Christians (albeit fanatics) interpret "Gods word" in their own way. The way I would see this is dont judge others thats up to god. But Ive talked to people who interpret this as giving them the right to judge because they are the right people to be judging, they are "Gods children" So if the word of god is relative to those that hear it then surely any morals handed down in the same manner (ie the Bible) are just as free to be interpreted as the reader sees fit. btw do you find homosexuality immoral?
How is relativism self-refuting?

On the other point I was just correcting your correction of me, a word which you specifically changed and drew attention to

chahop

What is wrong with "making clerical celibacy optional, permitting divorce and remarriage, and holding that homosexual conduct is not immoral " ?

PDN

fitz0 wrote: »

I didnt say anything about "envoking" anything. Invoking on teh other hand I did mention. :P
Why can't this church speak the truth? Why do you assume that they are misleading people or spreading "heresies"? Morality is all relative. I for one find it immoral to condemn homosexuality. So morality is relaive. Deception comes in many shapes and forms and its usually closer than one likes to admit.

Verb: invoke in'vowk

1. Summon into action or bring into existence, often as if by magic
   - raise, conjure, conjure up, evoke, stir, call down, arouse, bring up, put forward, call forth
2. Cite as an authority; resort to
   "He invoked the law that would save him"; "She invoked an ancient law"
3. Request earnestly (something from somebody); ask for aid or protection
   "Invoke God in times of trouble"

Word or phrase:

Find definitions Find translations Search all dictionaries Sorry, no dictionaries indexed in the selected category contain the word envoke.
Sorry to be so anal about it but mistakes with words like that really irritate me.

But obviously mistakes such as 'teh' 'relaive' or 'its' (with no apostrophe) don't irritate you at all.

If you are going to get anal about the spelling of others then it would be sensible to check your own spelling first.

Maybe you would be wiser to try addressing the points that other posters raise?

fitz0

Spelling mistakes. Im just not that great at typing. Plus it was a corrction that was wrong, not a spelling mistake. And I think I did address the points raised, the relativity of morality? ... I'm sure I mentioned that somewhere.

JCB

fitz0 wrote: »

What about the phrase "Judge not lest ye be judged" (or somethign liek that)

So i am not allowed point out flaws in your logic? I'm not judging you btw, if you told me that santa and hitler were brothers, I still wouldn't be judging you.
May I ask, if I said that 'gravity doesn't exist because God said so' would you doing a hell of a lot of judging?

I find this as a good example of how Christians (albeit fanatics) interpret "Gods word" in their own way.

I hope you are not implying that I am a fanatic, since that would be judging and somewhat hypocratical given what you have just said.

The way I would see this is dont judge others thats up to god.

Go way, that's what Christians believe too! Maybe you are one of us after all?!?

But Ive talked to people who interpret this as giving them the right to judge because they are the right people to be judging, they are "Gods children"

Everyone is God' child regardless of their stance on His existance. But to claim that morals are relative is absurd.

So if the word of god is relative to those that hear it then surely any morals handed down in the same manner (ie the Bible) are just as free to be interpreted as the reader sees fit.

Your interpretation does not make something true.

btw do you find homosexuality immoral?

I really fail to see how this question adds anything of value to the discussion only for you to try and use it as an excuse to show me up as intolerant, not exactly what a 'moral relativist' is btw.

How is relativism self-refuting?

I will explain this in a minute

fitz0

JCB wrote: »

So i am not allowed point out flaws in your logic? I'm not judging you btw, if you told me that santa and hitler were brothers, I still wouldn't be judging you.
May I ask, if I said that 'gravity doesn't exist because God said so' would you doing a hell of a lot of judging?

I didnt mean this to apply to our debate now I was just using it as an example of how some things can be interpreted differently by different people. If you were to say that I would say that you were wrong but you are free to believe it and I have no right to tell you not to believe it.

I hope you are not implying that I am a fanatic, since that would be judging and somewhat hypocratical given what you have just said.

Not at all. But there are some out there that I have spoken to who are and who view any who think differently as wrong just because they believe different. i never meant to imply that of you.

Go way, that's what Christians believe too! Maybe you are one of us after all?!?

Thats just the way I would interpret it, not saying I believe it

Everyone is God' child regardless of their stance on His existance. But to claim that morals are relative is absurd.

Ah but some believe they are more worthy than others, that they are better because of what church they are a member of. As for morals, what some find moral and what another finds moral might be contradictory, but who is to say which is right? Its relative to each person's perspective. For example Friedrick Nietzsche wrote extensively about morals and how they are influenced by society and its teachings. His own ideas of morality are vastly different from most people's

Your interpretation does not make something true.

Exactly! But neither does somebody elses, neither does yours, neither does the Pope's. it doesn't mean that their interpretation is any less meaningful to that person. But the fact is they can be interpreted differently.

I really fail to see how this question adds anything of value to the discussion only for you to try and use it as an excuse to show me up as intolerant, not exactly what a 'moral relativist' is btw.

That question has nothing to do with the discussion, just curiosity. Freedom to believe what you want is what makes us human isnt it?

On a side note Im listening to The Peking King and the New York Queen by the Doors (without Jim Morrisson) and its funny how its about differences in opinion. Funny coincidence:D
I like debates like this

JCB

JCB wrote:

Your interpretation does not make something true

fitz0 wrote: »

Exactly! But neither does somebody elses, neither does yours, neither does the Pope's. it doesn't mean that their interpretation is any less meaningful to that person. But the fact is they can be interpreted differently.

Before I go into the details, do you accept the notion of absolute truth? - regardless of interpretation.

fitz0

By absolute truth you mean an omnipotent creator? Then, no I do not. I do however find religious belief fascinating and very interesting.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

This is not the first time Chavez has dabbled in theology. In 2006 he spoke at the UN General Assembly and declared George Bush to be the Devil.

...arguably a more accurate character assessment than one delivered by Bush himself, in which he sees life and history, and presumably himself, guided by "the hand of a just and faithful God".

JCB

fitz0 wrote: »

By absolute truth you mean an omnipotent creator? Then, no I do not. I do however find religious belief fascinating and very interesting.

Wasn't exactly what I was pressing for, afterall maybe there can be truth without God, but we'll move on none the less:)

I'll divide this into two parts:
(i) are you actually a moral relativist?
(ii) do moral relativists betray what their position actually states?

(i) To be a moral relativist means that there is no absolute right or wrong. After all who has the right to judge? We must respect what other people believe, otherwise we are judgemental.

To take this to it's logical conclusion.....

To be a moral relativist means to deny the existance of universally objective moral distinctions.
Therefore,
(s)he must admit that Mother Theresa was no more or less moral than Hitler
or that torturing 3yr olds for fun is neither good nor evil.
After all - morals are relative you told me!

I would think that most people would recoil in horror at these thoughts but it is what the moral relativist must accept to hold that position.

So do I think you are a moral relativist? The answer is no. Let's look again at your first statement:

fitz0 wrote:

Morality is all relative. I for one find it immoral to condemn homosexuality. So morality is relaive

How could a moral relativist say that it is immoral to condemn homosexuality? If I wanted to condemn homosexual people then who are you to judge? Morals are relative remember!!!!

So what are you then if you're not a moral relativist?
Well then you are an Objectivist. (Sounds so intolerant doesn't it:D:P)
You hold some standards of absolute right and wrong. I'd imagine condemning homosexuality would be one of those absolute wrong's in your view.

But where do you get those standards from? Some say that genes will determine our absolute standards of right or wrong. Others say the media agenda. Those who believe in God, believe God sets the standards for us, we don't set them ourselves.

The point is that there are some absolutes and you hold them even when you don't realise it.

(ii)Moral relativism is not tolerant of all others views at all! If you are not a moral relativist then you are called intolerant. That is not the tolerance which is what moral relativism is supposedly about! Moral relativists only view tolerance so far as it extends to those who share moral-relativist morals. Ergo self-refuting and quite hypocritical at that.

kelly1

chahop wrote: »

What is wrong with "making clerical celibacy optional, permitting divorce and remarriage, and holding that homosexual conduct is not immoral " ?

Making celibacy optional is not necessarily against the will of God but it does follow the example of St. Paul. Divorce and remarriage and homosexual practices are clearly against the will of God.

Hero Of College

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I watched the Irish documentary filmed in Caracas when the military attempted to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez. I found it interesting watching the celebration in the Presidential compound by the upper class Venezuelan elite who had taken power, the party including quite a number of Catholic priests and bishops who were merrily drinking champagne and celebrating while the poor of Caracas rallied outside the compound demanding Chavez be freed.

Given how the Catholic church in Venezuela has thrown its support behind the rich upper classes I am not at all surprised to see Chavez supporting a Bolivarian leaning religious organisation. Of course had the Catholic Church kept its nose out of politics then this would never have needed to happen, so really it has no-one to blame but itself.

Is this the same Hugo Chavez who tried to use the Army to overthrow a democratically elected Government??

That documentary was classic, sugar coated RTE Leftist Feel-Good Sh!te.

Sorry to piss on your parade kid.

But thats what it was.

Pompey Magnus

Hero Of College wrote: »

Is this the same Hugo Chavez who tried to use the Army to overthrow a democratically elected Government??

That documentary was classic, sugar coated RTE Leftist Feel-Good Sh!te.

You are quite right, it was indeed the same Chavez who led a popular military-civilian revolt against the corrupt President Perez (who was later dismissed from office for misappropriating a quarter of a billion Bolivars) after Perez crushed the protests of the Venezuelan poor who were unhappy with free-market reforms of Perez which left them unable to affore essential goods. On th orders of Perez the military went into the poorest neighbourhoods and killed thousands, with the government being found guilty of extrajudicial murder.

The government was democratically elected in so far as Venezuela was a two party state (it was known as the Puntofijismo) in which both parties prevented any organisation of the left into a political party, thereby leaving the poor majority without a voice in parliament. The Chavez coup gave the poor a figure who the could rally behind and they elected him president after his release from prison.

That said I don't see what this has to do with anything. I know full well that Chavez is no saint. My point was that the Catholic Church in Venezuela propped up corrupt regimes in Venezuela for decades, that they supported the coup against Chavez, and that Chavez was a democratically elected President. Do you disagree with this? My overall point is that the Catholic Church, true to its nature, was interferring in the political process - a realm that it should have no right to be involved with. If they stuck to spiritual matters then Chavez would have had no need to create a more left leaning church to counter balance the current right wing church structure in the country, now would he?

That said at least they haven't publically come out calling for his assassination like the Christian televangelist Pat Robertson. I'm sure Jesus is so proud of them.

fitz0

JCB wrote: »

(i) To be a moral relativist means that there is no absolute right or wrong. After all who has the right to judge? We must respect what other people believe, otherwise we are judgemental.

To take this to it's logical conclusion.....

To be a moral relativist means to deny the existance of universally objective moral distinctions.
Therefore,
(s)he must admit that Mother Theresa was no more or less moral than Hitler
or that torturing 3yr olds for fun is neither good nor evil.
After all - morals are relative you told me!

Hmm good points. But as I see relativism would be that each person has their own morals. What one person finds moral another finds immoral. I find Hitler's actions (though not all) immoral. genocide is wrong. But Im sure in his head Hitler considered himself in the right.

I don't think about good and evil as such. I can never be truly objective because I am a person with my own code of ethics and my own notions of morality, so I view things relative to that code of ethics. As such I am biased in everything. Just as every single person in the world is, no matter how impartial they claim to be.

How could a moral relativist say that it is immoral to condemn homosexuality? If I wanted to condemn homosexual people then who are you to judge? Morals are relative remember!!!!

I would have no problem if you condemned homosexuals. I would continue to believe it is immoral and you would continue to believe my standpoint was immoral but neither of us would be able to tell each other to change their mind because it would be each of our rights as individuals to believe whatever we want. Therefore our moral views are relative to our own beliefs and our principles.

So what are you then if you're not a moral relativist?
Well then you are an Objectivist. (Sounds so intolerant doesn't it:D:P)
You hold some standards of absolute right and wrong. I'd imagine condemning homosexuality would be one of those absolute wrong's in your view.

I suppose you are right in some sense, I could be considered an Objectivist in the Ayn Rand sense of objectivism. Although I dont believe in the selfishness set out in that philosophy. I would consider condemning homosexuality as wrong, just as some would think the opposite way. But there are no absolutes in the world are there?

But where do you get those standards from? Some say that genes will determine our absolute standards of right or wrong. Others say the media agenda. Those who believe in God, believe God sets the standards for us, we don't set them ourselves.

I never really thought about where I get my thoughts on this from, I can only surmise that they are a culmination of all the experiences of my life distilled and contemplated subconsciously. There is no doubt that the media, my parents, my Catholic upbringing, my friends, role models etc have all had a hand in where I am today and the shaping of my thought processes.

The point is that there are some absolutes and you hold them even when you don't realise it.

(ii)Moral relativism is not tolerant of all others views at all! If you are not a moral relativist then you are called intolerant. That is not the tolerance which is what moral relativism is supposedly about! Moral relativists only view tolerance so far as it extends to those who share moral-relativist morals. Ergo self-refuting and quite hypocritical at that.

I would say I am tolerant of others beliefs. If I was not I would be arguing 24/7 with peopel over nothing. But if somebody refuses to see that somebody else has opposing views then they are intolerant. I can view them as intolerant while at the same time being tolerant of their intolerance, knowing that I have no right to tell them that they can't believe in their own creed as being the one and only truth. I don't apply this to you, in fact i don't think I have ever met a single person that this can apply to. i have yet to meet a truly intolerant person.:D

I especially don't agree with the bold text, but I can't tell you that you are wrong can I? From you're point of view that is the truth that you believe and accept, and you have no reason not to believe and accept that. But from my point of view I don't believe that and have no reason to believe it.

btw I am a hypocrite in some things, freely (if shamefully) admitted. But in this I don't see myself as hypocritical.

Zombrex

JCB wrote: »

(i) To be a moral relativist means that there is no absolute right or wrong. After all who has the right to judge? We must respect what other people believe, otherwise we are judgemental.

That doesn't make any sense.

If one accepts that morality is relativist why do we have to respect other people's beliefs?

You are taking moral relativism and then apply an moral absolute to it.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense.

If one accepts that morality is relativist why do we have to respect other people's beliefs?

You are taking moral relativism and then apply an moral absolute to it.

We don't have to, unless we actually respect our own morality. But if we do respect our own relativist morality then it would appear to me to be illogical not to respect someone else's relativist morality.

chahop

The will of GOD how can you claim to know the will of GOD, everything that happens is the will of GOD. That is if GOD is all powerfull and he created everything. You know what you have been told and what you have read that is all.

And faith comes from what you are told and read too.

santing

fitz0 wrote: »

Spelling mistakes. ... and ... Sorry to be so anal about it but mistakes with words like that really irritate me.

Who says that something is a spelling mistake? Why is there only one way to spell the word rigth? Who has the authority to set a standard?
People should ackept my from of spelling. I do not want to be condemned because of my spelling.

santing

chahop wrote: »

The will of GOD how can you claim to know the will of GOD, everything that happens is the will of GOD.

What about:

1Th 4:3, ESV For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality;

1Pe 4:1-3, ESV Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God. For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do, living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties, and lawless idolatry.

It seems God's will is very specific, and knowable.

PDN

santing wrote: »

Who says that something is a spelling mistake? Why is there only one way to spell the word rigth? Who has the authority to set a standard?
People should ackept my from of spelling. I do not want to be condemned because of my spelling.

Relativistic spelling - I am impressed. Our posters are rarely so subtle.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

We don't have to, unless we actually respect our own morality. But if we do respect our own relativist morality then it would appear to me to be illogical not to respect someone else's relativist morality.

I would have imagined it would be the opposite, it is illogical to respect someone else's relativist morality if it is different to your own, otherwise you would agree with it and it would be your own morality as well.

It makes no sense to respect someone else's morality if it is different to your own, because that is the same as respecting the morality you don't agree with it. By the nature of disagreeing with it you won't respect it.