Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Archbishop of Mosul: "Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here"


The translated words of Amel Nona, Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul, now exiled in Erbil (via Rorate Caeli):
"Our sufferings today are the prelude of those you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer in the near future," says Amel Nona, 47, Chaldean archbishop of Mosul exiled in Erbil. The message is unequivocal: the only way to end the Christian exodus from the places that witnessed its origins in the pre-Islamic age is to respond to violence with violence, to force with force. Nona is a wounded, pain-stricken man, but not resigned. "I lost my diocese. The physical setting of my apostolate has been occupied by Islamic radicals who want us converted or dead. But my community is still alive." He is very glad to meet Western media. "Please, try to understand us," he exclaims. "Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal," Archbishop Amel Nona continues, "but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home."
From an original interview by Lorenzo Cremonesi, Corriere della Sera (10th August 2014):
I giovani chiedono armi. Gli anziani approvano. «Le nostre sofferenze di oggi sono il preludio di quelle che subirete anche voi europei e cristiani occidentali nel prossimo futuro», dice il 47enne Amel Nona, l’arcivescovo caldeo di Mosul fuggito ad Erbil. Il messaggio è inequivocabile: l’unico modo per fermare l’esodo cristiano dai luoghi che ne videro le origini in epoca pre-islamica è rispondere alla violenza con la violenza, alla forza con la forza. Nona è un uomo ferito, addolorato, ma non rassegnato. «Ho perso la mia diocesi. Il luogo fisico del mio apostolato è stato occupato dai radicali islamici che ci vogliono convertiti o morti. Ma la mia comunità è ancora viva». E’ ben contento di incontrare la stampa occidentale. «Per favore, cercate di capirci - esclama -. I vostri principi liberali e democratici qui non valgono nulla. Occorre che ripensiate alla nostra realtà in Medio Oriente perché state accogliendo nei vostri Paesi un numero sempre crescente di musulmani. Anche voi siete a rischio. Dovete prendere decisioni forti e coraggiose, a costo di contraddire i vostri principi. Voi pensate che gli uomini sono tutti uguali - continua l’arcivescovo Amel Nona - Ma non è vero. L’Islam non dice che gli uomini sono tutti uguali. I vostri valori non sono i loro valori. Se non lo capite in tempo, diventerete vittime del nemico che avete accolto in casa vostra».
The Italian version is linked and quoted in full because there might be some understandable doubt about the authenticity of this rather candid interview. Of course, those doubts may abide regardless, not least because of the variable inconsistencies of the interviewer. But, taken at face value, we are presented here with a number of irrefutable primary truths, any one of which could be extracted to create an alarming leader:
"Our sufferings are the prelude of all Europeans and Western Christians"

"I lost my diocese to Islamic radicals"

"Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here"

"You are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims - you are in danger"

"You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal"

"Your values are not their values"

"You will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home"
All of these are pertinent; any of them would be an admissible truth, though not all an advisable headline. And none of these phrases is likely to be uttered by any Western church leader, simply because there is so little understanding in the liberal and democratic Christian West of the Islamic Hydra that manifests itself so variably across what we call the Arab-Muslim world. Even the ubiquity of this geo-ethnic-religious term is indicative of the paucity of theological knowledge and religious observation, for not all Muslims are Arab; not all Arabs subscribe to the same doctrine of Allah; and not all Muslims accord with any notion of inhabiting the same world as those they view as heretics and apostates.

But, to most of us in the liberal and democratic West, this is Islam and they are all Muslims. We can quibble over the meaning of "true" Islam and cavil about what it is to be a "real" Muslim. And we do. And in the liberal and democratic West we are free to do so - at least for now. We are repeatedly told by our schoolteachers and hear in abundance from our political leaders of our common values, our shared truths, and our established assertions of tolerance and respect in an inescapable framework of equality.

But what do these values mean to the Islamic State which, some aver, is no Islamic State at all, but a perversion of Islam and a corruption of the very definition of 'state'? "Your values are not their values," says the exiled Archbishop of Mosul, as he warns of the danger of welcoming "an ever growing number of Muslims". Are his Muslims the same as our Muslims? Is he being "racist" or "Islamophobic"? The media are silent, and the politicians mute. Demographically, it is already too late. With one eye permanently fixed on the electoral cycle and the other on Baroness Warsi, the "Muslim vote" must be heeded.

And yet this "Muslim vote" is as nebulous and incoherent as the "Muslim world". Some of them vote Conservative, one or two incline toward Ukip, and many more are Liberal Democrats. But most are tribal Labour supporters - simply because their parents and grandparents found succour in their community compassion and generous notions of welfare. No one has bothered to research the disparate voting intentions of British Sunni, Shia, Sufi or Ahmadiyya Muslims. But it gets worse: they are the "ethnic minority vote", as though a plethora of Islamic denominations can be lumped in with Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Black Caribbean, Black African or Black 'Other'..

Funny, isn't it, how we so easily conflate "ethnic minority" with "religious minority". And funny, too, that so few of us classify Jews in the same socio-political category.

The historic schism between Sunni and Shia Islam is becoming a global conflict. Israel and the Jews are the only common enemy. Palestine is all that unites them. Or so the narrative goes. But Sunni and Shia are themselves riven with religious fractures and political fissures, such that they routinely denounce one another as heretics like the pretender popes of old, fiddling with their mutual excommunications while the world burns.

We have before us the present foreign-policy obsessions - Gaza, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan seem to come and go. We hear mutterings of Yemen and Qatar. Saudi Arabia rarely hits the radar, unless they're flogging women or hanging gays. We flit about from one to the other trying to negotiate 'peace' while selling them missiles, bombs and bullets. Incredibly, we are about to ally ourselves with Shia Iran in order to defeat the greater evil of the Sunni Islamic State. This is profoundly misguided. Our enemies enemy is still our enemy.

The West must heed the stark warning of Archbishop Amel Nona, and do so before it is too late. Mosul has fallen: his warning is that Toulouse, Brussels or Liege might be next. For now, the battleground is fixed in the Middle East. But Jihadi-Salfist theatres of war recognise no state borders, and they have no time at all for democracy, diplomacy, or "moderate" notions of Islam which is not "proper" or "true" Islam. These fanatics find our governments weak and compliant; our liberal and democratic principles quite conducive to their political objectives; our Christianity favourably disposed to a multi-faith ecumenical love-in.

This unpalatable truth may irritate our democratic politicians and cause a few ripples among our liberal bishops. But Archbishop Amel Nona has seen the evil, and calls it so. There can be no fellowship of darkness with light.

162 Comments:

Blogger DevonMaid said...

Sir,

I should inform you that your latest post came to me with a couple of unofficial files attached ...

I shall virus sweep my computer immediately and suggest you do the same?

Regards,

LB

19 August 2014 10:25  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Madam,

His Grace doesn't send his posts to anyone anywhere by any means. Any required virus sweeping must be done by you and your mediating feeds.

Blessings,

++Cranmer

19 August 2014 10:28  
Blogger The Explorer said...

I recall an Aesop Fable.

A farmer finds a viper nearly dead with cold, takes it home, and revives it by the fire. When it revives, the viper, doing what vipers do, attacks the family.

In one version, the farmer kills it with an axe; in another version, it kills the farmer.

Moral, either way: don't expect that hospitality will necessarily be appreciated. Know who it is you're inviting into your home.

19 August 2014 10:51  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

God bless the Archbishop and God bless Your Grace for disseminating his prophetic words.

19 August 2014 11:00  
Blogger Len said...

A timely warning from the Archbishop of Mosul we either fight Islamic terrorism on the streets of Iraq or the streets of London.
To emphasize with the victims of Islamic terrorists is not enough we must fight this evil with whatever means we have.

19 August 2014 11:09  
Blogger B flat said...

I too, thank you sincerely for keeping this question alive before us, not only by information, but by your measured and usually very wise commentary.

Being very untidy in my habits, I cannot find whether the source of the address below was in a comment to one of your articles, or from elsewhere. Given that it does not originate from the Anglo-Saxon cultural world, and is over two years old, it is corroboration of the Archbishop's words from a source predating and completely independent of the present troubles in Mesopotamia/Iraq.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tCNRB4-bmE

19 August 2014 11:27  
Blogger FridgeMagnet said...

You are right about the quibbling about "true" and "false," which is the usual rhetoric from authority figures. The Islamic text is unchangeable and can be taken by anyone for their own needs. What you end up with is a "good practice," ie one which can fit with a wider society, or a "bad practice," ie one which doesn't (and a few in between). The two practioners can argue amongst themselves which one is true or not, while the rest of us simply know we are stuck with how people want to run with it, unless of course, there is a reform, or they actually nail down how to teach it in the first place.
It is so easy to play verse-quoting from the Quran, on both sides, and both sides can be accused by each other of misinterpretation.
All of this is taboo to be honest about though. So the absolute problem we now face is who runs or wants to run with that "bad practice," and who doesn't.
We also have the problem of how to tackle the rise of that bad practice. Is it mosques? Is it madrassahs? Can we even go near those things for fear of insult, offence, anger, backlash? Can any of this be done without causing problems for the Muslims who are not of the bad practice mob, which will be the majority at the moment?

19 August 2014 12:09  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

none of these phrases is likely to be uttered by any Western church leader, simply because there is so little understanding in the liberal and democratic Christian West of the Islamic Hydra

Whether or not church leaders understand the nature of Islam—and I should imagine that, by now, there can be very few who do not—they do grasp the paramount importance of keeping the lid on the multicultural pressure cooker. Fearing that telling the truth about Islam would enrage the Muslim community, they find themselves uttering the standard Establishment lies about the wonderful contribution Islam makes to Britain. Their cowardice nurtures Islam and moves Christianity a step closer to extinction.

19 August 2014 12:14  
Blogger LibertyPhile said...

Powerful stuff. And all true! But are the likes of Baroness Warsi reading it?

19 August 2014 12:23  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

Thank you for this article.

The only other person I've seen tell the truth about Islam other than this guy is the wonderful Pat Condell.

Douglas Murray is getting there.

19 August 2014 12:31  
Blogger Nath said...

I have long thought that Islam would be God's judgement on our apostate nation.

The religion of peace is a wonderful illustration of how in the absence of light, there is only darkness. One cannot have a secular /atheistic void for human nature is inherently corrupted.

If Britain, which benefited so greatly from God's blessings rejects Grace, then maybe, just maybe he will subject us to the rule of Law?

I have also been wondering lately whether or not our Polish Catholic immigrants will be our long term saviours: Legnic 1241, Vienna 1683, Warsaw 1920. Europe owes a great debt of gratitude to the Polish people for effecitviely sacrifing themselves at great long term cost for the protection of Christian Europe.

It is interesting that as native Brits (to the Nth generation) decline in number and the Muslim population grows, the Polish Catholic birth rate keeps apace. Maybe God has a plan for our salvation and it looks Catholic.

19 August 2014 12:32  
Blogger Albert said...

You think all men are equal," Archbishop Amel Nona continues, "but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal.

I sense we are at one of those moments of great cultural change. We have undermined our culture in the name of a very sloppy and unintelligent liberalism. A liberalism that moves from "all people are equal" to "therefore, all people's behaviours and beliefs must be regarded equally." This idea never made any sense, and having failed to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, it is now collapsing because circumstances are showing it to be contrary to our best interests.

This is how cultures change. Everyone believes something until it comes to be shown to be unhelpful, then everyone will pretend they could see through it all along. Stupid liberalism is now unhelpful, it is worse than that, it is actively permitting terrible suffering. Our culture will change as a result.

Please God, it changes for the better.

19 August 2014 12:41  
Blogger Owl said...

Thank you YG,

I have been thinking that the dangers of Islam were recognised a thousand years ago but we all went somewhat blind, deaf and dumb in the last few decades.

The backlash will probably hit the wrong people, as usual.

There is no alternative to military might if this horror is to be checked in the ME and a complete rethink in the west is long overdue.

19 August 2014 12:42  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Bravo Cranmer - Regardless of race, colour or creed this is required reading for all, including the assimilated and therefore the 'wrong kind of Muslim'

19 August 2014 13:55  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Nath (12:32)—Allah’s plan has the edge over God’s plan in that Allah’s plan comes with in-built slaughter; the Poles would have to breed like rabbits to replenish the losses. Far better to make plain to Britain’s Muslims that they have outstayed their welcome and arrange for their humanitarian resettlement in an Islamic paradise. Once the Poles have gone as well, the British can start reassembling their battered homeland.

19 August 2014 14:04  
Blogger JimS said...

It's not the church leaders that I'm worried about, though it might be nice if they showed some belief in their own faith, it's the politicians.

As ISIS rampage about it is still 'Islam, one of the great religions', 'We are not at war with Islam', 'Those who pervert the religion of peace', etc.

Oh dear. When will the scales fall from their eyes?

19 August 2014 14:43  
Blogger Athanasius said...

Bravo to the bishop for finally putting it on the line and saying what needs saying. I just wish it hadn't taken a full-on Muslim assault before someone finally spoke out. I demur from Mr Cranmer on two points: Israel is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem. It is an unsupportable anachronism of western empire in the region, an unnecessary salient which we should not spend resources defending. Secondly, the west is not Christian, it is secular liberal. If it still were Christian, we'd have the moral fibre to stand against the Caliphate.

19 August 2014 15:30  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Of course we should defend Israel, dear Athanasius...we cannot allow the Holy Land to be retaken by the Musslemen again, nor can we abandon them in the face of the aggressors...if Israel falls today the West will all tomorrow.

19 August 2014 15:43  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

Johnny Rottenborough

Youre wasting your time talking bollocks about policies that you know will never ever happen. Deport all muslims. Yeh good one.

Keep on telling the truth about Islam, I wouldnt want to dissuade you from doing that. However you should channel your efforts on things that actually may happen/can change.

eg - abolition of (islamic) faith schools.

19 August 2014 16:24  
Blogger Shadrach said...

Your Grace,
This Archbishop Nano seems a strong and sound man. Clearly persecution sharpens ones perceptions of the reality of where one finds oneself and strengthens ones faith in a God that promises nothing but persecution and suffering for his names sake.

There will be no media coverage because they think of us who do believe as similar to other extremists. They have no conception as to what a true faith in God can do to a person.

My fellow communicants, what you have written today and every day on this issue is as worthless as rags unless we follow it up with action. I am as guilty as many at this, but I pray that shortly we will all be able to do our bit and more to make a change DV that will be well worth while and The Lord Jehovah will be exalted.

19 August 2014 16:26  
Blogger Albert said...

Sidney,

How exactly would the abolition of Muslim faith schools help? While we have such schools, the state has oversight and ultimate control over what goes on there (of course, whether it is being properly exercised is another matter). If we abolish them, Islamic education won't stop, it will disappear from sight and who knows how will be running it then. As far as I am aware, none of the Trojan Horse scandals involved a Muslim school.

Moreover, if Muslim schools are closed, there will be more pressure to close other faith schools. Apart from this being wrong in itself, it is secular liberalism in society that has removed the moral guts of this country's culture, and prevented her, and countries like her, from sticking up for herself.

19 August 2014 16:33  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Numerous articles in the American press documented the genocide of Assyrians by the Turks and their Kurdish allies. By 1918, The Los Angeles Times carried the story of a Syrian, or most likely an Assyrian, merchant from Urmia who stated that his city was "completely wiped out, the inhabitants massacred", 200 surrounding villages ravaged, 200,000 of his people dead, and hundreds of thousands of more starving to death in exile from their agricultural lands. In an article entitled "Native Christians Massacred", the Associated Press correspondent reported that in the vicinity of Urmia, "Turkish regular troops and Kurds are persecuting and massacring Assyrian Christians". Close to 800 were confirmed dead in Urmia, and another 2,000 had perished from disease. Two hundred Assyrians had been burned to death inside a church, and the Russians had discovered more than 700 bodies of massacre victims in the village of Hafdewan outside Urmia, "mostly naked and mutilated", some with gunshot wounds, others decapitated, and still others carved to pieces.

19 August 2014 17:44  
Blogger The Explorer said...

"They have no time at all for democracy."

Two thoughts occur to me.

1. The Turks had a use for democracy. They had a secular republic. Now they seem to have voted themselves back into Islamic mode.

2. What do you do if you find yourself burdened with democracy, and don't believe in it? Clearly, vote to do away with it.

19 August 2014 18:03  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Absolutely ! Democracy is a fussy thing. It needs conditions just right if it’s going to work, otherwise turmoil.

It all falls down to what stage the race involved has reached. Simple racial profiling will tell you that. We can see with the Arabs that democracy is nothing but an allusion to confuse them with. It’s completely alien to them. They find security in authoritarian government, its formation being of no concern of theirs. It brings stability, peace and maybe even progress. But don’t worry about the progress bit, the first two are far more important.

Can’t see it getting any better for the Arabs even in the long term. Their develop has been arrested by their filthy book which encapsulates several centuries of accumulated and condensed hate therein. Did we not all weep when we saw democracy in Egypt was used as a tool to pummel the non-muslims or wrong muslims ? If democracy does that to you, there’s something wrong.

19 August 2014 18:04  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

By the way Cranmer, allow this man to congratulate you on your superb coverage of the gross affair that is the Middle East. You may be a lone-ish voice in the UK, but Sir, your following belies that. One would not be surprised in the least that your interpretations by the day are eagerly awaited by the Foreign Office, among others. And why not. Where else could such consistently high value in-depth wisdom and illustrated insight be obtained in our shallow world of Western liberalism.

Damn good show, old chap !!!

19 August 2014 18:04  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Athanasius. Israel is defying the best that Islam can throw at them (literally). Well done them. Do you really think that if Israel falls, these muslims will return to a peaceful way of life, after satiating their blood lust on the hapless Jews first, of course. One puts it to you that the struggle for these angry races will go on whatever happens. Wherever muslims are in a minority and thus theoretically at the mercy of the infidel, they will be there for them. That means their experienced front line fighters will be moving to the UK eventually, among other European countries. Haven’t we enough problems storing up from our home grown aliens coming back from Syria ?





19 August 2014 18:05  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

One last thing. This line from the Archbishop. “You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles.”

The Inspector has been giving serious thought along those very lines. Let’s assume that muslims are much the same as white people in as much as they are quite content to allow others not of their ways to live. Well, that is until they are schooled in the Koran. Then they become NAZI like.

Now, the last time one looked into it, it was very difficult to get hold of Mein Kampf in Germany. Probably still is. It’s a freedom that has been taken away, but not lightly. Such is the power of this evil book, we really can’t risk it going mainstream in Europe again. Not one bit. We thus have a small evil of censorship in place of a much much larger one.

So, it will be the turn of the Koran eventually. One can see a time when this work of murder encouraging filth is only available to be studied when it’s securely chained up in a mosque. It being an arrestable offence to be found in possession of one outside.

It would have been unwise to consider this course some years ago, as we could have expected retaliatory action from muslim countries with a similar restriction of the bible to Christian churches therein. But as the unstoppable rise of Islam is apparently world-wide, only having access to a bible in a church would seem to be the least of the faithful’s worries at present.

19 August 2014 18:06  
Blogger The Explorer said...

And a third thought about democracy.

If democratic decisions are decided by numbers (rather than, say, need or rationality), then the future within any democracy lies with those who have the fastest birth rates.

19 August 2014 18:07  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 August 2014 18:28  
Blogger Martin said...

What we must remember is that God is in control.

Whatever wicked men do is for the glory of God and advances His Church. God will dispense justice and He will save those who are His.

I believe the phrase is "Semen est sanguis Christianorum." or, for those like me whose schoolboy Latin isn't up to it, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed [of the Church]."

Maybe in the not to distant future we may experience it again in our own land.

19 August 2014 18:28  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Sidney

Abolish ALL faith schools in the UK except the Christian ones.

Limit the number of mosques, temples, and other non Christian buildings here.

Cut off the funding for religious and foreign groups here that peddle and promote their own culture in our country, however nice some of them might be, one can travel to experience new cultures.

Then we need to re-look at our own culture and re-evaluate the less than savoury aspects of it's liberal values.


The Queen should stop entertaining the Saudi Royals as this only validates and confirms their culture, power, status and importance in the world as being equal to ours.
The rich sons of the desert have funded the butchery of the medieval Islamist extremists in the first place, being of the same Sunni-wahabi strain themselves and wanting to overthrow non-believers and other less violent strains of Islam.

19 August 2014 18:32  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Sidney Deane (16:24)—I see voluntary repatriation as the least worst solution and shall continue to champion it. If Muslims are to be prevented from becoming the majority, the relatively peaceful process of voluntary repatriation is preferable to the alternative of allowing the Muslim population to grow and then, at the eleventh hour, settling the matter violently. The election of a government with an anti-Islam agenda would signal to Muslims that the indigenes’ patience was growing thin and would encourage them to consider moving to a warmer climate, accompanied by a financial incentive for them and their new country.

19 August 2014 18:32  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Who do Muslims dislike more: secular humanists or Christians?

After all, both groups are unbelievers (in Islamic terms), but they are unbelievers of different types.

19 August 2014 18:34  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Put a sock in it Martin. God is manifestly NOT in control down here. That’s the whole point of the great endeavour that is human existence.

19 August 2014 18:36  
Blogger FridgeMagnet said...

Marie1797: Having a go at the Saudis after proposing to limit all other religious buildings apart from Christian ones is very ironic.

19 August 2014 18:36  
Blogger Shadrach said...

Your Grace,
I'm probably IT stupid but have you changed the format of your Blog so that one can't highlight and copy the text? May I need to change some settings but I can copy text elsewhere. Anyone got any ideas?

19 August 2014 18:39  
Blogger Preacher said...

Israel must stand & the West must support her. She is the buffer in the Middle East. The final scenario is all played out there. The return of Christ (Messiah) through the now bricked up sheep gate, the armies surrounding her & of course the final battle on the plains of Meggido.
Militant Islam know the importance of Israel. Why are Hamas & its allies determined to invade & drive out or kill the Jewish people? Israel has no oil or any other rich products that are worth anything to the Islamic world so why the invective, propaganda & sustained missile attacks?.
Unless of course there is some spiritual reason that even Israel's enemies haven't thought of yet. Something like delaying the inevitable return of Christ which will bring about the final downfall of the temporary ruler of this World, the Prince of power of the air will fall when Christ the Lord of Lords & King of Kings returns.
The Western Church has in many cases bought into the deception & sided with mealy mouthed & unscrupulous politicians whose sole aim is World domination.
The stakes are higher than most people realise.
If you claim to be Christians, read your Bibles & if you're not, get a Bible & check it out. The Book of Revelation, right at the back is the one you want. Some folks from other faiths may want to have a peep too. Believe it or not, it's all there. The rest is up to you.

19 August 2014 18:45  
Blogger Martin said...

IGiO

God is ALWAYS in control.

God was in control when Israel went into captivity & when they returned. God was in control in AD70 and He was in control from 1939 to 1944. God was in control on 11/9/2001 and 7/7/2005. God is in control in the Middle East now.

19 August 2014 18:47  
Blogger Martin said...

Shad

Seems to work for me.

19 August 2014 18:48  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Martin if you fly off to Mosul this week, you wont find much evidence of God’s power therein, which might explain why the rest of us will have to drag you kicking and screaming to the plane...

19 August 2014 18:56  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

We seem to be in an Emperor's New Clothes situation with Islam. Everybody can see the truth, but none dare say it.

19 August 2014 18:57  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector/Martin:

I recall from somewhere in my increasingly-fuddled memory a Jewish analysis of the episode in which God turns his back on Moses.

There are other such moments in which God turns his back: the result is human history.

I think this is wry Jewish humour, rather than serious exegesis; but a comment, nonetheless, on those moments when God really does seem absent from the human scene.

19 August 2014 19:15  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Fridgemagnet

There's a world apart from what I'm suggesting which is reining in and limitation of all these wild foreign cultures wanting to take root and take over in the UK in favour of our own western culture and the way the authoritarian violent Saudi's and other strains of Islam function in their countries.

Multi-culturalism does not work.

19 August 2014 19:34  
Blogger FridgeMagnet said...

Marie1797: So you want to affect the Hindus, Sikhs and Jews for example?

19 August 2014 19:39  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Fridgemagnet
Yes, it's all getting too much in this country.

19 August 2014 19:45  
Blogger Fred said...

This archbishop is entirely correct and his wake up call will not be heeded by Christians here. Not because he is wrong - he isn't; but because Christianity here is led by people obsessed with blending into whatever the liberal mainstream wants.

As the archbishop says; if we don't start to respond now it will be too late. Birth rates are far higher under Islam than the mainstream which is below replacement. Our secular humanist pattern of society is therefore an ongoing evolutionary failure!

Our democracy could thus hand power to a group we currently regard as inhuman and unacceptable. A group that would replace our judicial laws with sharia, remove our religious freedoms and replace our political system with the Islamic one. Islam understands itself as spanning all three; and inherently superior because of that span. We really could end up as "dhimmi" within our own country.

19 August 2014 20:16  
Blogger Martin said...

IGiO

What does that have to do with God being in control? Of course nasty things are happening, but it doesn't mean God isn't in control.

19 August 2014 20:16  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Martin, couldn’t you just leave it at God works through men’s hearts. The Inspector can stomach that...

We are separated from God on this earth. Didn't anyone tell you that ?

19 August 2014 20:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Fred,

Birth rates are far higher under Islam than the mainstream which is below replacement. Our secular humanist pattern of society is therefore an ongoing evolutionary failure!

Exactly. Support the Islamisation of the West: Use contraception!

19 August 2014 20:26  
Blogger IanCad said...

Albert wrote:

"Please God, it changes for the better."

Don't hold your breath.

19 August 2014 20:37  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

Faith schools foster segregation along religious lines.

Segregation brings mistrust, an 'us and them' attitude. Which will ultimately lead to sectarian/religiously motivated violence. As usual.

Children should all mix together and learn about each other not be sectioned based on religious beliefs.

Whats better for community cohesion, whats more likely to result in an islamist backlash? Muslim kids mixing solely with their own kind or muslim kids growing up with, bonding with, becoming friends with kids of other religious backgrounds.

Its not rocket science is it.


19 August 2014 20:50  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert @ 20:26

An Islamic majority lies a long way off. (Assuming it occurs, and Armageddon, or some other complicating factor, doesn't happen first.)

Live-for-today types committed to childlessness will probably have shuffled off this mortal coil by the time it is a reality.

The ones to worry about the future are those with children/grandchildren.

19 August 2014 20:52  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

Marie

I'm afraid I don't share your extremely bigoted vision for the UK.

19 August 2014 20:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

You're probably right. Stupid liberalism will have dissolved in its own acid by then, anyway.

19 August 2014 20:57  
Blogger Martin Marprelate said...

It is not the Moslems who are killing 200,000 unborn children each year in Britain, nor is it they who are promoting same-sex 'marriage' or seeking to kill off the old and disabled. If the judgement of God is coming upon this country, as it may well be, it is not the Moslems who will be to blame.

May I take the liberty of linking to this short article that I wrote a month or two back?

http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/the-tragedy-of-british-moslem-youth/

19 August 2014 20:59  
Blogger Martin said...

IGiO

Of course God works through men's hearts but he also causes men to imagine water filled ditches are filled with blood, for kings to lose their minds and allows their wickedness to be complete.

The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD;
he turns it wherever he will.
(Proverbs 21:1 [ESV])

And if that is true of kings it is also true of his lowliest servant.

19 August 2014 21:05  
Blogger Martin said...

Sidney

Had you not noticed that the Muslim youth gang together?

19 August 2014 21:07  
Blogger Albert said...

Sidney Deane,

Segregation brings mistrust, an 'us and them' attitude. Which will ultimately lead to sectarian/religiously motivated violence. As usual.

There are four things here.

Firstly, it's a question of evidence, and the evidence suggests faith schools are better a building community cohesion. This is doubtless partly because faith schools are just better. But it is also because you cannot have community cohesion without community. And since secularism does not build community, but rather is an acid by which communities lose their bonds, it is hardly surprising that secular schools are damaging to community cohesion.

Secondly, all schools need some kind of ethos. Where does this come from and how is it to be something the members of the school can share? I cannot share in a secular world-view because I don't believe in it and I think it is harmful and superstitious.

Thirdly, what of the rights of parents? I don't want my children's minds being polluted with secular prejudice and ignorance. Why should you have a greater say over the ethos of their education, than I do, just because you subscribe to the least thought through and least evidential metaphysical world-view?

Fourthly, you have missed my original point: Muslims will always teach their children about Islam. Do you want them to be taken to some kind of madrasa where who knows what is being taught, or do you want to be able to retain some oversight and control?

So however you look at it, your position is indefensible. But then, your real position is that you want faith schools abolished because you don't like faith. Which is precisely why I defend your right to send your own children to a substandard secular school, if that is what you wish. By the same standard, you should support my right to have my children educated according to my own faith.

19 August 2014 21:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Martin makes a good point. I went to a secular school. Many Muslim boys did hang around together and clearly regarded the rest of us as beneath them. How could a secular school have any way of bringing the school community together?

19 August 2014 21:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Martin Marprelate,

Good points!

19 August 2014 21:13  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Martin, and that we are separated from God on this planet ?

Be a good chap, and agree.

19 August 2014 21:16  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ The Explorer (18:34)—Christians and Jews are People of the Book and, provided they submit to Muslim rule and fulfil certain conditions, a Muslim state should protect them. Humanists who reject the concept of a Supreme Being, as I suppose most do, would be classed as atheists and executed. Given the choice between martyrdom and living a lie, the wise atheist chooses the latter.

19 August 2014 21:25  
Blogger Martin said...

IGiO

Would God ever allow His creation to go it's own way without His control? God sustains every particle of His creation every moment of every day.

19 August 2014 21:35  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

Albert

1. Always amuses me to hear you use the word evidence. You mention the word yet offer none. "Secularism does not build community". what does that mean?

2. "all schools need some kind of ethos" What are you talking about? Ok how about: inclusivity?

"harmful and superstitious" haha. you do crack me up at times honestly. youre not serious surely? harmful! superstitious??

3. Yes the rights of the parent. Forget the rights of the child to have a balanced education right? Polluted with secular prejudice? I don't know what warped vision you have but its plainly wrong and ridiculous. Faith school education and secular education are Identical in all aspects but one - the teaching of religion. In this regard, Faith schools tell the child that the particular religion of their parent, whichever that just so happens by complete luck to be, is the right one and the only one the child should follow and puts religion observance of that religion at the core of everything at the school. Secular schools tell the child that some people believe in one religion and some people believe in others, some people don't believe in any, here is the evidence and here is why people believe what they do, you are free to make up your own mind...

But you cant handle a child having a balanced view and coming to its own conclusion can you. No, you think a child should have its parents beliefs firmly placed on it from day 1 don't you.

4. They will teach their children about islam whether they are in a "Muslims only, all other people keep out" school or not. My point is not about stopping islam being taught or controlling the way it is taught, it is about the self defeating segregation that is a huge barrier to muslim integration.

19 August 2014 21:44  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

Albert

1. Always amuses me to hear you use the word evidence. You mention the word yet offer none. "Secularism does not build community". what does that mean?

2. "all schools need some kind of ethos" What are you talking about? Ok how about: inclusivity?

"harmful and superstitious" haha. you do crack me up at times honestly. youre not serious surely? harmful! superstitious??

3. Yes the rights of the parent. Forget the rights of the child to have a balanced education right? Polluted with secular prejudice? I don't know what warped vision you have but its plainly wrong and ridiculous. Faith school education and secular education are Identical in all aspects but one - the teaching of religion. In this regard, Faith schools tell the child that the particular religion of their parent, whichever that just so happens by complete luck to be, is the right one and the only one the child should follow and puts religion observance of that religion at the core of everything at the school. Secular schools tell the child that some people believe in one religion and some people believe in others, some people don't believe in any, here is the evidence and here is why people believe what they do, you are free to make up your own mind...

But you cant handle a child having a balanced view and coming to its own conclusion can you. No, you think a child should have its parents beliefs firmly placed on it from day 1 don't you.

4. They will teach their children about islam whether they are in a "Muslims only, all other people keep out" school or not. My point is not about stopping islam being taught or controlling the way it is taught, it is about the self defeating segregation that is a huge barrier to muslim integration.

19 August 2014 21:44  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

Demographics and democracy are leading inexorably to eventual Islamisation of the West.

Don't let the Government fool you into believing that most popular boys name in Britain is Oliver.
It is not.
The most popular name is Mohammed. The statistics conveniently subdivide all the spelling variations of Mohammed to hide this alarming fact. We had better hope that there are some Cromwells amongst our Olivers because If we want to stop Islamisation we are going to have to dump democracy.

That is in part what the Archbishop of Mosul means when he talks about "strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles".

What a predator we have welcomed into our Island home. The sufferings of minorities in the Middle East are indeed the prelude to our own. What will it take to get heads out of the sand and face the reality that we are embracing our own assassin?

19 August 2014 21:58  
Blogger Martin said...

Sidney

Guess what, your religion insists on telling all children that your religion is true, yet you can provide no evidence for that claim.

19 August 2014 22:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Sidney,

Always amuses me to hear you use the word evidence. You mention the word yet offer none.

Isn't the maxim of secularists "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"? You made a claim, and offered no evidence. You can hardly complain if I dismiss it without evidence...although I could give evidence.

"Secularism does not build community". what does that mean?

Isn't it obvious? Secularism is really just a branch of the search for Western freedom. The best way, it is assumed, to be free is to be free of the thing that most binds people together: religion.

Ok how about: inclusivity?

Being included in what? If you have no community, there is nothing to be included in.

youre not serious surely? harmful! superstitious??

I'm deadly serious. Religious belief brings a huge number of benefits, apart from community. Religion predicts better mental health and better health in general. Irreligion predicts the opposite and more substance addition etc. As for superstition, I take the word to mean a belief in a power for which there is no evidence. Where is your evidence that the physical universe has the power of aseity? Have you even thought about that?

Forget the rights of the child to have a balanced education right?


You're assuming that secularism is a balanced education, which is partly back in the previous point.

here is the evidence and here is why people believe what they do, you are free to make up your own mind...

You don't think that faith schools do that? If they don't, they should, that's the benefit of them being state schools. I am quite sure that Catholic schools do so, because Catholicism is self-confident in the grounding of its own faith.

The difference between the types of school is that while faith schools have a clear religious ethos which pupils can investigate, secular schools pretend to be neutral. As such, they convey their own religious belief that there is no such thing as a religious truth. But that's not a fact, it isn't science, it isn't evidential, it's just the views of those who are secularists.

But you cant handle a child having a balanced view and coming to its own conclusion can you.

On the contrary, unless a child can come to his own conclusion, he will have no faith. You see, your position isn't evidential at all, but prejudiced. You don't understand faith, and therefore you fear it. You fear it, so you misrepresent it.

No, you think a child should have its parents beliefs firmly placed on it from day 1 don't you.

I have done enough philosophy to understand that there is no value-free intellectual tradition or education. I think that, to enable children to make their own minds up, it is helpful to be clear on the assumptions and character of the intellectual tradition in which they are brought up. I think a religious upbringing does that admirably.

My point is not about stopping islam being taught or controlling the way it is taught, it is about the self defeating segregation that is a huge barrier to muslim integration.

Well then it comes down to whether faith schools at segregate or are better at building community cohesion. I have given reason to think the latter, where is your reason for the former?

Notice: If Muslims don't want to mix, segregation will happen anyway. It happened at my school, which was a secular school, because as a secular school it had no way of building community or teaching responsibility to those outside the in group. All state schools can do that, and they should do that, and the state should see that they do do that.

On what basis do you think a secular school manages it?

19 August 2014 22:10  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert @ 20:57/ Johnny R @ 21:25

Albert: I'm actually very sceptical about trying to guess fifty years ahead. Who in 1900 would have predicted that by 1950 there would have been two world wars, the Russian revolution, the Soviet gulags and the Holocaust?

Who in 1950 would have predicted that by 2000 there would be the Internet, laptops, mobile phones, the power of the EU, human rights lawyers, and unprecedented levels of immigration?

Who in December 2000 would have expected 9/11? Up to a week before, 'The Telegraph' was running a series about Islam as a peace-loving religion. (It cut the remaining articles abruptly after the event.)

Johnny R: Thanks for that. The humanists had better start working on their stories, and turning themselves into convincing liars. (Sidney will have some explaining to do.)

19 August 2014 22:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

Quite right. This is why the whole idea of "progress" is so odd. It seems to presume that there is some clearly definable, good end to which we are travelling. But the reality is that what this generation call progress may be undone by the future, because culture has turned new corners.

Here's a prediction: the future will not be of secular liberalism.

19 August 2014 23:01  
Blogger Recluseth said...

Sadli d rethink may come long after Baroken n d DUMOCRAP admin iz dismisd n aftr d damaj from Izlam haz bin perpetrated on us

19 August 2014 23:51  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

(cough) ... (cough) ... (cough)

Jack must visit his GP!

Inspector

”We are separated from God on this earth. Didn't anyone tell you that ?”

What part of these words of Christ - you know, our God who became incarnate as a Jewish man - didn't you hear?

"For lo, the kingdom of God is within you."

What do you think these words mean?

20 August 2014 00:07  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

JayBee

”We had better hope that there are some Cromwells amongst our Olivers because If we want to stop Islamisation we are going to have to dump democracy.”

God, Jack hopes not.

However, we may have to reconsider the liberal bit especially the part that preaches a market place of competing ideas leads to truth through reason and debate. Can one have a reasonable debate with Islam? Where is the common ground?

If we dump democracy what way do we go?

There's the Chinese totalitarian/fascist route where all religion is tightly regulated and bishops and unmans are appointed by the state and their words monitored to ensure they stay on message?

Then there's the Russian way. There they are currently solidifying Orthodox Christianity, some say cynically, for social cohesion and will tolerate other religions - apart from Western liberalism. Their 'hooligan' law is equivalent to the sedition law we recently ditched in the UK because it prevents freedom of expression.

If Islam is an ideology that must be suppressed because it is inherently violent and aggressive, then Jack agrees liberalism is dead in the water.

20 August 2014 00:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin :"If the judgement of God is coming upon this country, as it may well be, it is not the Moslems who will be to blame."

Especially if its name is Allah.

20 August 2014 05:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny:"Humanists who reject the concept of a Supreme Being, as I suppose most do, would be classed as atheists and executed. Given the choice between martyrdom and living a lie, the wise atheist chooses the latter."

I expect that used to be the case in parts of Europe when it was under the hegemony of the Roman Catholic Church too. Thankfully, we moved on from that and embraced freedom, individuality, and knowledge. We need to remind ourselves of that step change and how important it was when we think of Islam now lest we take it for granted.

20 August 2014 05:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Moderate Islam

Moderate Muslims have two options open to them.

1. Focus on the peaceful verses of the Koran. But those have been abrogated by the violent verses, and are of historical interest only.

2. Take the violent verses, and reinterpret them for the modern world. Literal beheadings may have been okay for the C7, but are not for the C21.

Christ washed the disciples'' feet. There is a group within the modern Restoration Movement that takes this literally. Most modern Christians don't: they take the principle of service to others and re-apply it in modern contexts.

There is a danger in this. Are Christian sexual attitudes, for example, also historically dated? What about the Incarnation itself? Update indiscriminately, and you end up with the Episcopal church in America, and its empty pews.

Muslim literalists have seen the
results for Christianity of blanket moving away from literal meanings.

That is why there is, in 2014, a spate of literal beheadings.

20 August 2014 08:26  
Blogger IanCad said...

You know Albert, when you get going you can put out some very good posts.

Ian

20 August 2014 09:08  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

Jack@00:27
If we dump democracy what way do we go?

I can't answer that. All of the permutations of Dictators, Juntas etc are possible.

I do not believe that we can afford to let Islam get hold of the levers of power at any price because they will abuse democracy to subjugate everyone then kill it anyway.

20 August 2014 09:17  
Blogger FrereRabit said...

It is incredible that few people in London seem aware that the jihadists are holding a "Khilafah Conference" in support of the Islamic State. (Originally scheduled for Aug 31 in Wembley but now decamped to The Water Lily conference centre in Tower Hamlets on Sept 6th). This jihad-fest must be banned, particularly after the brutal murder of a US journalist by a BRITISH Islamic terrorist! Further info on youtu.be/T2MiF9v_zO4

20 August 2014 10:25  
Blogger Martin Marprelate said...

There seems to be an unwritten assumption in many of these posts that God is dead. If that were the case then no doubt we should be very worried indeed about the Moslem threat in our midst.

However, being of the view that God is very much alive and still in charge of His creation, and having read to the end of His book and having discovered who it is that wins, I am less concerned about Islam than I am about the judgement of God.

May it not be that God will use the Christians fleeing into the Kurdish areas to convert the Kurds (cf. Acts 11:19-21)? May it not be that ISIS will fold up like a pack of cards under the American airstrikes and many of those who have joined ISIS will be sickened by its brutality and look towards Christianity as a better alternative? In the 19th Century, there was great concern when the mad Mahdi and his forces took Khartoum, but he was quickly defeated and his forces evaporated.

What is needed is much repentance and prayer, and the preaching of the Gospel, both in Iraq and in this country. But be encouraged! When the Shah was deposed in the '70s, there were only around 50 or so evangelical Christians in Iran. Today, in the teeth of the most bitter persecution, there are around a million of them. Jesus Christ is reigning, even in the midst of His enemies, and He will continue to reign until they become His footstool (Psalm 110).

20 August 2014 10:28  
Blogger Shadrach said...

Albert said:
Here's a prediction: the future will not be of secular liberalism.
Prediction or prophecy? Either way I pray you are right.

20 August 2014 10:46  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Martin M @ 10:28

Auden's poem on the death of Yeats has the line, "He became his admirers".

Non-believers take a similar view of Christianity: a human invention doomed to disappear; unless it can be kept alive by its dwindling followers.

Non-believers presumably dread the rise of Islam (another human invention) more than Christians do, because they don't know how it will all end. Christians believe in a final outcome: although they differ on what has to be gone through before that final victory is achieved.

One question; since you have read to the end of the book. Before the final victory of the Lamb, there is an assault from the forces of "Gog and Magog". Who/what will constitute those forces?

None of us can know for sure about such a cryptic statement in such a symbolic book (and quoting from another, equally-difficult book), but I'd be interested in any thoughts you have.

20 August 2014 11:08  
Blogger Preacher said...

Martin Marprelate @ 10.28.
At last a brother who has & does read the Scriptures & believes what they say & prophesy.
There are a few of us here, but it seems that many either follow philosophy or religious rites in the belief that either of these schools of thought hold the answer.

More power to you brother.

Blessings. P.

20 August 2014 11:29  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Preacher @ 11:29

I read the Scriptures daily, believe them, and believe in sacred prophecy.

However, I find 'Daniel' 'Ezekiel' and 'Revelation' very difficult.

Pre-tribulation rapture, post-tribulation rapture, dispensationalism, preterism, premillennialism, amillennialism, postmillellianilism.

And all these - and more - from careful readers of the text.

Clearly, I am not alone in my difficulties as to what is actually being prophesied.

20 August 2014 11:57  
Blogger The God Enquiry said...

For an alertnative view see 'Christians in Glass Houses Still Throw Stones' http://thegodenquiry.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/christians-in-glass-houses-still-throw.html

20 August 2014 11:58  
Blogger Shadrach said...

For an off post comment, I just thought that God might be right wing.
If you read John 21:4-6 Jesus tells the disciples to go fish again after they had caught nothing all night. "Throw your net on the right-hand side of the boat". This they did and caught more than they could haul in.

Have a good day.

20 August 2014 12:16  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

Albert

I hope to come back on your post in detail this evening.

However if seems important to point out now that you need to read up on what secularism is because you clearly currently have no understanding of it.

Accordingly saying stuff like: "secular schools pretend to be neutral. As such, they convey their own religious belief that there is no such thing as a religious truth. But that's not a fact, it isn't science, it isn't evidential, it's just the views of those who are secularists" is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. Got that? It is COMPLETELY INCORRECT.

You are conflating secularism with atheism. A common (often wilful) mistake of christians.

Many christians, muslims, etc are ALSO secularists. Indeed I have a good deal of friends who are secular christians.

As such, secularists as a group far from believing there is no such thing as religious truth have no uniform view on it at all. If you were a secularist then you, as a christian, would believe there is. So would muslim secularists. Atheist secularists wouldnt.

It is also worth pointing out that not all atheists are secularists. There are a great many who believe in the Church of England if not what it preaches, and think it should remain.

The only view secularists share is that the state should be neutral in matters of religion and belief.

Do you understand now?

20 August 2014 12:17  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Sidney @ 12:17

What does 'wave' mean? What does 'post' mean?

You're treating 'secularism' as if it as if it has a single meaning.

The term was coined - by a Christian - in the Fifth Century. It has acquired a lot of connotations in its subsequent long history.

20 August 2014 12:35  
Blogger Preacher said...

Hi there Explorer. I agree the book of Revelation is often difficult to understand in many places & the identity or identities of Gog & Magog or Gog of Magog is a typically good example.
I find it easier to follow the main text & the clear prophesies of the last times before the return of the Lord rather than searching among the ancient scriptures of various faiths in an often frustrating & unfruitful venture.
Many folk try to date the return of the Lord by Signs He spoke of in the gospels, even though the Lord Himself tells us that the time of His return is only known to the Father & that it will not be revealed to man.
My advice (& I'm sure that you don't need it) is stick to the straightforward teaching of the Word & the gospel & share it with others as often as possible as the perishing need salvation more than we need information.
Blessings Brother. P.

20 August 2014 12:40  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Thanks, Preacher.

I agree that that's where the priority lies!

Blessings to you.

20 August 2014 12:58  
Blogger Shadrach said...

Your Grace,
David Cameron has interrupted his holiday, responding to the latest news on MSN.
American Journalist James Foley 'beheaded' by Islamic State.
It's obviously OK if an Iraqi Christian get beheaded by IS but when a US journalist is beheaded, he takes notice.

20 August 2014 13:19  
Blogger IanCad said...

OK, then Sidney.

Am I reading you right in understanding that your definition of "Secularism" is the "Separation of Church and State"?

If such is the case then you have an ally.

20 August 2014 13:20  
Blogger The Explorer said...

As A meaning of 'Secularism' that's fine.

Otherwise, it's like saying, "The meaning of 'post' is a position you hold."

Royal Mail thinks otherwise.

20 August 2014 13:58  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Jaybee 09:17

“I do not believe that we can afford to let Islam get hold of the levers of power at any price because they will abuse democracy to subjugate everyone then kill it anyway.”

Exactly. I don't see why we can't have for a period of time an increased authoritarian governance to ditch the equality and diversity that we are having to adhere to along with the political correctness, and the Human Rights Act 1998 as they are driving the chaos and growth of Islamic culture here.

20 August 2014 13:59  
Blogger Martin Marprelate said...

Explorer @10-28.
First of all, apocalyptic literature must be read as being symbolic and not literal.
Next, I take Ezekiel 38, Zech. 14 and Rev. 21:7 as all speaking of the same event, when God's people are going through extreme persecution, just before the Return of Christ. Some people think this could be happening now (not really in Britain but in North Korea, Iraq, Nigeria, Eritrea etc.), but we are told in 1 Thes. 5:3 that most non-Christians will be saying, "Peace and safety!" Judging by the panic on this blog, that doesn't seem to be the case right now, so perhaps there's an even worse time to come for Christians.

The most important thing for Christians is to observe our Lord's command in Mark 14:32-37. We don't know when the time will be.

20 August 2014 14:41  
Blogger Len said...

The Book of Revelation is a book of prophecy which is given in symbols (as stated by Martin M)
It is by no means easy to read without a knowledge of what each symbol represents.As Genesis is to the the beginning Revelation is to the conclusion.
I have tried to read 'Revelation' several times but do not have enough knowledge of the bible to reach a conclusion but I am reading a book by Ray C Stedman 'God`s final Word' which takes one through' Revelation' verse by verse. I believe you can also read this online.
http://www.raystedman.org/new-testament/revelation

Bible prophecy is very important as we can learn from the lesson of the Jews who' did not know the time of their visitation.'.

20 August 2014 15:59  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Martin M & Len

Thanks to both of you. I'll give Stedman a try.

If I may add a recommendation of my own, the best book on 'Revelation' I've come across (and I've read several) is Simon Ponsonby's 'And the Lamb Wins'.

He'a a vicar in Oxford, of Jewish extraction. He brings Jewish and Christian insights to bear.

Very sane, humane and informative about different interpretations.

20 August 2014 16:28  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Returning to IS, am I right that they have set up the equivalent of slave markets for the sale of infidel women?

If so, we're back with the days of Genghis Khan.

Or further back than that: Attila the Hun.

20 August 2014 16:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "I don't see why we can't have for a period of time an increased authoritarian governance to ditch the equality and diversity that we are having to adhere to along with the political correctness, and the Human Rights Act 1998 as they are driving the chaos and growth of Islamic culture here."

We wouldn't need an authoritarian government to get rid of the laws related to those.

20 August 2014 18:01  
Blogger Roy said...

Shadrach said...

David Cameron has interrupted his holiday, responding to the latest news on MSN.
American Journalist James Foley 'beheaded' by Islamic State.
It's obviously OK if an Iraqi Christian get beheaded by IS but when a US journalist is beheaded, he takes notice.


In defence of David Cameron the reason why he has returned is because the man who did the beheading is thought to be "British" because he spoke with a British accent.

There is no need to say how barbaric such behaviour is - though there is certainly a need for British muslims to say so. I am sick and tired of hearing the BBC and ITV talking about "British" jihadis. Even if they were born here they are only British in the technical sense of having British passports.

Any "British" person caught fighting for an Islamic terrorist organisation, or intending to do so, or raising money or giving other aid to jihadis should be put on trial for treason. Those who sympathise with such people should have their British citizenship revoked.

20 August 2014 18:22  
Blogger Albert said...

Sidney,

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. Got that? It is COMPLETELY INCORRECT.

You are conflating secularism with atheism. A common (often wilful) mistake of christians.


Curious. This is the definition given in the Oxford dictionary:

the belief that religion should not be involved in the organization of society, education, etc.

While Collins has

1. (Philosophy) philosophy a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics
2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs
3. the state of being secular


Now clearly there is also a view that has it as you want it:

that the state should be neutral in matters of religion and belief.

But, follower of Wittgenstein, as I am on language, I tend towards the view that the meaning of words is best understood by its context. However much the National Secular Society may proclaim your meaning, the actual use, in terms of policies is decidedly of the type of opposing religion in the public square.

Quite why the NSS proclaims a soft definition, but actually campaigns for a harder set of policies beats me. You could almost think it was wilful, but perhaps they are just dim.

But how are you using it? Well here I'm puzzled. If this is your definition:

that the state should be neutral in matters of religion and belief.

then I cannot see why you would be objecting to faith schools, provided there are schools of more than one faith.

20 August 2014 18:42  
Blogger Albert said...

IanCad @ 9.08 Thank you.

20 August 2014 18:43  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...



Jack. “"For lo, the kingdom of God is within you." What do you think these words mean?”

What do YOU think they mean ? That’s the problem when you rely on enigma to get your message over. Still, at least Christ’s words have us discussing what he meant.

Now, Martin Marprelate and his ‘unwritten assumption’ about some of us here believing God is dead. No one has said that, but you evangelists never miss a trick when it comes to stifling debate on the nature of God. We are separated from God on this earth, that is why Christ was here. To bring some of us back. Even Christ knew it wasn’t going to be everyone. On the cross, he gave one thief salvation, but there was a mocking fellow hanging off a cross too, who was left to his own divine judgment and unaided at that.





20 August 2014 18:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

What you say to Martin M is entirely true, but I don't think it affects his point. Martin is talking about divine providence and omnipotence which guarantee God's purposes. You are talking about is God's method, I think.

20 August 2014 19:28  
Blogger Roy said...

Apparently the new British foreign secretary Philip Hammond referred to "moderate jihadists" in BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning.

DEAR PHILIP HAMMOND, WHAT EXACTLY IS A 'MODERATE JIHADIST'?
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/20/What-is-a-moderate-jihadist

What on earth is such an idiot doing in such an important job?

20 August 2014 19:29  
Blogger Martin said...

DanJ0

You know precisely who God is, and He is not Allah

Nor are you an A-theist.

20 August 2014 20:07  
Blogger Martin said...

Roy

I think our new foreign secretary is typical of many in parliament, especially higher up the greasy pole.

20 August 2014 20:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Moderate jihadist? Perhaps it means someone that is prepared to fight jihad alongside us against the people we are fighting. The comparison with Stalin against Hitler comes to mind.

20 August 2014 20:16  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

From the BBC website. Yes, Jack knows they are biased but it is an interestingly confused article. Here's the opening section.

Jihad

The literal meaning of Jihad is struggle or effort, and it means much more than holy war.

Muslims use the word Jihad to describe three different kinds of struggle:

•A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible
•The struggle to build a good Muslim society
•Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary

Many modern writers claim that the main meaning of Jihad is the internal spiritual struggle, and this is accepted by many Muslims.

However there are so many references to Jihad as a military struggle in Islamic writings that it is incorrect to claim that the interpretation of Jihad as holy war is wrong.


(The second point is interesting in a first-past-the-post, liberal-democracy with universal suffrage)

20 August 2014 21:05  
Blogger Albert said...

Happy Jack,

My impression is that the BBC are spot on, and yes, the last sentence is interesting for its honesty. Therefore, "moderate jihadist" could just mean a Muslim who isn't violent, but instead is engaged on the inner struggle of the faith. That would be an entirely correct use of the term. I think it would also be entirely misleading in the context of Hammond's comments. Therefore, I think he means a Muslim fighter who is prepared, in the name of Islam, to fight the IS.

20 August 2014 21:10  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Albert

Interestingly, whilst it does write at length about Internal Jihad the BBC has nothing to say on: The struggle to build a good Muslim society

In the light of Archbishop Amel Nona's comments, how does this apply in a non-Muslim state that is democratic and liberal?

Islam and war

Islam sets down clear guidelines as to when war is ethically right, and clear guidelines as to how such a war should be conducted.

In brief, war is permitted:

•in self defence
•when other nations have attacked an Islamic state
•if another state is oppressing its own Muslims

War should be conducted:

•in a disciplined way
•so as to avoid injuring non-combatants
•with the minimum necessary force
•without anger
•with humane treatment towards prisoners of war

Muslims must only wage war according to the principles of Allah's justice.


By these standards (which may or may not be required by the Koran or the competing Hadiths, depending on who one asks) all Muslims should be condemning the behaviour and actions of ISIS - and, as you suggest, taking up arms against them. Presumably, this is the root justification of violence between Sunni and Shia.

20 August 2014 21:20  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Ps

My reading is that Muslims would be obliged to fight a Holy War if they believed - or their leaders decided - another nation was or was attempting to suppress its Islam members.

20 August 2014 21:27  
Blogger The Explorer said...

HJ:

Thanks for the link. I checked it out.

I note under 'Rules of Jihad' it says war must end as soon as the enemy asks for peace. It also quotes Sura 2:190 about not starting hostilities.

What it doesn't quote is the ambiguous 2:193 about fighting until faith in Allah prevails, which seems less like until the enemy asks for peace than until the enemy surrenders.

As I read it, if people don't resist the spread of Islam, that's fine. (And they become dhimmis.) If they do, they've started hostilities, and you can fight them.

The end of the BBC spread has quotations about jihad in grey squares. As far as I can see 9:5, the Verse of the Sword, is not included.

It then says there are similarly-differing views about war in the Bible.

It helpfully adds that the Bible is the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Maybe religious ignorance has sunk to such a low in Britain that this information really is necessary.

20 August 2014 21:44  
Blogger The Explorer said...

PS: While it was at its educational task, it might have pointed out that only Christians accept the New Testament. Jewish believers don't.

I can see real grounds for confusion among earnest but ignorant seekers after religious truth if they rely on the BBC.

20 August 2014 21:49  
Blogger Shadrach said...

Your Grace,
Obama today has said 'No Just God would call for the slaughter of innocents'.

Has he not read the Koran?
He might say that unless you consider that anyone who is not of the Islamic faith, are not innocents.

20 August 2014 22:16  
Blogger Shadrach said...

Happy Jack @21:20
Did those rules apply during the Islamic expansion across Europe and Spain. Had those rules not been formulated when Mohamed was in Medina establishing his authority and attacking Jews, Christians and 'Arabs' from Mecca?

20 August 2014 22:48  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Shadrach

Pass.

Ask Jack another! He is not an expert on or an apologist for Islam. He has simply provided a link to a rather simple account given by the BBC.

Having Googled around, all Jack can say is that experts, both Islamic and others, are not in agreement about these issues. Islam itself appears not to agree on the application of its doctrines today or their original intent.

20 August 2014 23:02  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

The Islamic law governing jihad is covered in section o9 of Reliance of the Traveller, beginning about three-quarters through this PDF. It kicks off with: ‘Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.’

Section o9.8 states: ‘The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax—which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself—while remaining in their ancestral religions) (and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax.’

20 August 2014 23:22  
Blogger Martin Marprelate said...

IGIO @ 18:57 wrote:

Now, Martin Marprelate and his ‘unwritten assumption’ about some of us here believing God is dead. No one has said that, but you evangelists never miss a trick when it comes to stifling debate on the nature of God. We are separated from God on this earth, that is why Christ was here. To bring some of us back. Even Christ knew it wasn’t going to be everyone.

My comment was based on the fact that most posts seemed to make no reference to God but were discussing all the things the posters would like to do to Moslems. Thankfully references to the Almighty have increased since then. I wasn't stifling debate about God but encouraging it.

It is possible to be an evangelist and a Calvinist; in fact most of the best evangelists have been Calvinists.

My real point is that whoever claims to be a Christian should act and write like one:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you" (Matt. 5:43-44, NKJV).

This is a lot easier to write than it is to live out, especially if you are a Christian living in Iraq or Syria, but there it is in the Bible. Our government may decide that it is necessary to go to war against ISIS, but we should be praying and working for the conversion of Moslems not discussing how to blow them up.

There is no Koranic equivalent to the verses quoted above. They have been known to have a great effect on Moslems when they hear them for the first time.

20 August 2014 23:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin : "You know precisely who God is, and He is not Allah Nor are you an A-theist."

You are showing all the drone-ish, repetitive, mantra-intoning signs of being under the influence of a religious cult or something. It's a little disturbing, to be honest.

21 August 2014 03:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "It helpfully adds that the Bible is the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Maybe religious ignorance has sunk to such a low in Britain that this information really is necessary."

I think it's probably because the BBC News site is read around the world. They write in a much simpler way than (say) the Times too, presumably for the same reason.

21 August 2014 04:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Speaking of the BBC, their app has a feature showing the front pages of the newspapers for the following day and the whole set is focusing on the murder of Foley, as the murderers presumably hoped for when they released the video of it. It feels to me like a line has finally been crossed, like it did watching the footage of 11/9 atrocity when the world changed a bit forever. I've never really been one for that Clash of Civilisations thing in the past but I wonder now whether we're almost there, both in the Middle East and culturally in the UK.I'm not sure that many people in the UK realise the significance of Iraq and Syria as the place to try to set up a new Caliphate. It has historic significance for Islam, in particular regarding the Sunni / Shia schism. There is also a recognition amongst the Muslims I know that things may be being manipulated, not just geo-politically by the West, but by Saudi Arabia and Qatar for sectarian religious purposes. I may just be getting caught up in the 'excitement' of what's happening but it feels like attitudes could change in the UK at the moment regarding toleration of Islam. I'm not talking about a gestalt shift so much as an emphasis thing, perhaps formally recognising the potential danger of the ideology. Sort of like how we collectively view communism now but still stand by while people sell the Socialist Worker Party newspapers on street corners and during political demonstrations.

21 August 2014 04:30  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 @ 04:04

Yes. that's fair enough; although I suspect people round the world may have a clearer idea of what the Bible is than people in Britain do.

If the explanation IS necessary, then the point should be made that only Christians accept the New Testament. Also a sentence clarifying that war injunctions in the Hebrew Bible are much less open-ended than they are in Islam.

21 August 2014 07:31  
Blogger Ivan said...

Further to what Explorer wrote above, it isn't just that the mandate for war is much less open-ended in the OT, than in the Queeran. It is that Leviticus and Deuteronomy date from more than 3,000 years ago, while the Koran dates from 1,400 years ago. About the same number of centuries seperate Moses from Mohamet, as seperates us from Mohamet. In the period from Moses onwards vast developments took place, so that, for example the Evangelists could expect their audience to understand that St Joseph acted as an upright man, in trying to spare the Virgin Mary adverse publicity, instead of having her taken to the town square to be stoned. The camel-raider on the other hand, nearly 600 years after the birth of Jesus when presented with a similar case, ruled that the woman was to be stoned, but only after giving birth to the child. Talk about advances in jurisprudence! Islam is intrinsically a Darwinian tool to steal women and property while feeling at rights with God about it. It comes with a mishmash of theology but it all boils down to sex and gold.

21 August 2014 08:31  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Ivan @ )8:31

I re-visited the BBC site to make sure I wasn't being unfair.

I'm afraid that, on a second reading, I've come to the conclusion it's for dhimmis and dimmies (those who can't see the BBC agenda).

21 August 2014 09:08  
Blogger bluedog said...

A sensational post of the highest importance, Your Grace.

It is to be hoped that every politician in the UK, and elsewhere in the English-speaking world, becomes familiar with the warning issued by the Archbishop of Mosul.

There must come a time when even the most blinkered ideologue is overwhelmed by the evidence and understands that something must be done.

21 August 2014 09:08  
Blogger Ivan said...


Explorer, the BBC as an instituition has many irons in the fire, but not one of which mean well for people who intend to think for themselves.

21 August 2014 09:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

Martin Marprelate @ 23.38 says, 'Our government may decide that it is necessary to go to war against ISIS, but we should be praying and working for the conversion of Moslems not discussing how to blow them up.'

Conversion of Moslems to what? If you mean to Christianity that's fine but you are proposing a generational process at best. The problem requires an immediate solution, both in the Middle East and closer to home, otherwise the Moslems go on blowing up Christians with impunity.

As His Grace points out, it seems important to take careful note of the Amel Nona's comment, 'Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here'.

We may need to draw a distinction between the individual or groups of individuals and the state. We also need to recognise that a religion that acts like a malignant political belief system should not deserve the privileges that are conceded by the state to religions. In other words, Islam should not be recognised as a religion.

If our politicians finally concede that Islam is a criminal manifesto that leads to criminal behaviour, it is surely time to end state subsidies to Islamic schools and madrassars, to end planning approval for new mosques and prayer rooms, to end rating concessions for existing mosques, and to end any acceptance of sharia. One could go further and require that all children in the UK be at least introduced to Christianity by the CofE, except where being taught by another recognised denomination.

At present, the presumption that Islam is equivalent to Christianity threatens the destruction of the British state and its replacement with an Islamic state based on sharia. The precedents are everywhere.

Cancelling current privileges for Islam will arguably drive Islam underground. But there is no suggestion of a ban on Islam, merely a proposal to contravene the UN Human Rights Declaration and to discriminate against Islam by raising obstacles to its propagation.

Critics will immediately point to the potential unintended consequences. Not the least of which may be even greater repression of Christianity in Muslim majority states or localities.

Raising the bar against Islam would be an electoral smash hit in the majority of constituencies if adopted on a tri-partisan basis.

21 August 2014 10:29  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Did I mention that we're doomed?

21 August 2014 10:55  
Blogger The Explorer said...

bluedog @ 10:29

So what if Islam were to be driven underground?

At least it would give the message that its political dimension has been recognised.

And that at least some future Western dhimmis are not resigning themselves to their future status without a struggle.

21 August 2014 11:00  
Blogger The Explorer said...

bluedog:

Meant to add: brilliant post!

21 August 2014 11:02  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Rambling Steve:

It may be that Christians are doomed in the short term: by those who can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul.

But if I didn't believe in the soul, I'd be afraid of being doomed outright by those who can kill the body.

21 August 2014 11:04  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thank you, Mr Explorer.

One could also suggest a ban on dual citizenship where the non-British allegiance is a Muslim majority state. Such a discriminatory measure would inhibit the terrorist gap years that are currently so much in vogue.

21 August 2014 11:38  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Martin Marprelate (23:28)—There is no Koranic equivalent to the verses quoted above
The nearest the Qur’an gets is 48:29 with its ‘Mohammed is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.’

They have been known to have a great effect on Moslems when they hear them for the first time
Forgive my cynicism but the effect is probably, ‘We can do what we like with these fools and they’ll never retaliate.’ When one religion restricts the Golden Rule to its own followers and another applies it universally, the latter is at a permanent disadvantage when the two religions live cheek by jowl.

@ bluedog (10:29)—The sound of a nail being hit squarely on the head. I think it’s fair to say that Islam doesn’t so much lead to criminal behaviour as encourage criminal behaviour.

21 August 2014 11:51  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Explorer

Exactly. See C S Lewis' 'The Last Battle'. Also the fictional 'Disciples' Manual' which includes a 'Good Martyrdom Guide' referenced in my post apocalyptic kindle novel.

Alternatively (as I'm sure you have) read the New Testament accounts of the Last Days. Reference in Boof of Revelation about true believers being beheaded '...whoever kills you will think he is giving service to God'. He who endures to the end shall be saved, but for the west I'm afraid its a case of Mene Mene Tekel Parsin..Daniel chapter 5.

'Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.'

Our Crusader ancestors whose dire deeds saved the west from jihadism had several advantages over us. Leadership, faith, purpose and the lack of a huge fifth column for a start. Our dhimmi leaders are still in full denial mode.

21 August 2014 17:36  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

...Book of Revelation.

21 August 2014 17:38  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Martin Marprelate. When this man first heard Christ’s words as brought to us by the gospels he was but a young child. Even then he thought “this is not going to be easy”. In one’s defence, he is mere flesh and blood in a corrupt world with a somewhat irascible temper at times. Was it ever not so for mankind, but some of us do our best with our limited abilities to emulate Christ in our puny mortal way. In other words Sir, there is NO guilt that yours truly can admit to. Nothing to be guilty for, apart from the original sin of being alive, or so he’s been told that he is guilty thereof.

Christ would understand - He might be somewhat miffed that the Inspector has not sold his worldlies and given the proceeds to the poor, that then would number himself of course - but as we find with even the most determined evangelist, YOU haven’t sold up either. Have you ?





21 August 2014 18:55  
Blogger Martin said...

DanJ0

"You are showing all the drone-ish, repetitive, mantra-intoning signs of being under the influence of a religious cult or something. It's a little disturbing, to be honest. "

Whatever, of course it is disturbing, I'm reminding you of what you try so hard to forget, that you know God exists, just as everyone does. That you pretend otherwise in not a surprise.

Perhaps you should consider that it is Christians, my forbears in the faith, who fought for religious liberty in the UK, a religious liberty that you are so keen to dismantle on behalf of your religion. There is little difference between the Moslem jihadist & your religion for both seek to suppress all other religions but their own.

BTW, The BBC is pretty ignorant of Christianity itself.

21 August 2014 19:55  
Blogger Martin said...

RSA

"Did I mention that we're doomed? "

Well the nations are & unbelievers are, but not the believer.

21 August 2014 19:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin, not only are you a religious nutter who asserts that black is white in the real world, you are a blatant liar to boot. Moreover, what is driving you to play your broken record to me all the time is clearly your disgruntlement about being called up about your homophobia, prejudice, lies etc on that earlier thread. You might want to work on that unChristian motivation on the basis that you really ought to be displaying signs of sanctification if you are actually what you claim. That you don't suggests to me that you don't actually believe in a god yourself, just like an a-theist like me, but are merely pretending deep down that you do. Perhaps whatever cultish influences you are subjected to makes it difficult to acknowledge that?

22 August 2014 01:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin :"There is little difference between the Moslem jihadist & your religion for both seek to suppress all other religions but their own."

You live in some sort of fantasy world. I have a long history here of standing up for religious freedom in a plural society like ours. Compare that with what is going on in the thread above in the conversations between Christians about Muslims and your disconnection with reality becomes stark.

22 August 2014 02:00  
Blogger IanCad said...

Martin @ 19:57, in response to RSA's assertion that we're all doomed, wrote:

"---the nations are & unbelievers are, but not the believer."

So, the deadly "OSAS" (once saved always saved) doctrine is alive and well.

And, entirely contrary to scripture.

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:21-23

22 August 2014 08:48  
Blogger Martin said...

DanJ0

"You live in some sort of fantasy world. I have a long history here of standing up for religious freedom in a plural society like ours. Compare that with what is going on in the thread above in the conversations between Christians about Muslims and your disconnection with reality becomes stark."

Except the only religious freedom you stick up for is your own. Indeed, you call me homophobic, that silly word that is supposed, by those who are perverted, to silence all opposition. That doesn't seem much like sticking up for religious freedom to me. Indeed, I'd call you a hypocrite.

"not only are you a religious nutter who asserts that black is white in the real world, you are a blatant liar to boot. Moreover, what is driving you to play your broken record to me all the time is clearly your disgruntlement about being called up about your homophobia, prejudice, lies etc on that earlier thread."

If you want to think about fantasy worlds you really ought to start with you pretence that, as far as you know, God does not exist. You know God exists and so do I so you can quit your lying.

"You might want to work on that unChristian motivation on the basis that you really ought to be displaying signs of sanctification if you are actually what you claim. That you don't suggests to me that you don't actually believe in a god yourself, just like an a-theist like me, but are merely pretending deep down that you do. Perhaps whatever cultish influences you are subjected to makes it difficult to acknowledge that?"

Fact is, I doubt you'd know what sanctification was if you stubbed your toe on it. You are typical of the so called Atheist met with on the web, arrogant in your pretence and demanding that we all bow to your little god of self. Indeed, your sexual proclivities are simply down to that worship of self where you gave at a mirror image of yourself and think it love. I'd say grow up, but Atheists seem incapable of doing so.

22 August 2014 18:15  
Blogger Martin said...

Ian

Why would you think that Matthew 7:21-23 refers to believers any more than the seed that falls on the unprepared soil has anything to do with them. There have always been those who thought they were saved and there's not a few of them in high office in the CoE and other churches.

22 August 2014 18:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 August 2014 20:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 August 2014 21:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "Except the only religious freedom you stick up for is your own."

Why do you lie like this over and over again? Have you no sense of shame at all? It's a matter of public record here many times over that I support religious freedom in the UK. This is yet another example of how you deny the real world because you find it too inconvenient.

"Indeed, you call me homophobic, that silly word that is supposed, by those who are perverted, to silence all opposition."

In truth, I'm happy for you to continue as you shoot yourself in the foot each time. Public sympathy grows for gay people in proportion to the moral degeneracy of religious nutters like you. Look at the behaviour of the Westboro Baptist Church as an example.

"That doesn't seem much like sticking up for religious freedom to me. Indeed, I'd call you a hypocrite."

Homophobic and vicious people like you disgust me yet I still defend your right to freedom of religious belief in our plural society. I do the same for Muslims, and have done so many times down in these comments over the years, despite their religious beliefs about homosexuality. Of course, you bury your head in the sand about that over and over because it is too inconvenient for you.

"If you want to think about fantasy worlds you really ought to start with you pretence that, as far as you know, God does not exist. You know God exists and so do I so you can quit your lying."

That's merely one of your groundless beliefs. You cannot justify it nor show any evidence for it. Clearly I am an a-theist as my comments consistently show over the years I have been here. I expect you're reduced to this sort of strange cultish behaviour because you find the real world uncomfortable. It must be a bit of a nightmare to come across a liberal, homosexual a-theist like me who is prepared to stand up, look you in the eye, and completely refuse to be intimidated. Your time is passed.

"Fact is, I doubt you'd know what sanctification was if you stubbed your toe on it."

You display no evidence of it here as far as I can see. You're just some spiteful and vicious homophobe, hiding behind a religion to justify your immoral actions. I have met lots of online Christians like you in my time, bringing Christianity into disrepute amongst the general population.

"You are typical of the so called Atheist met with on the web, arrogant in your pretence and demanding that we all bow to your little god of self."

I demand no such thing of course. I support Article 9 of the ECHR as I have said many, many times down here in many different situations, including the rights of Muslims despite the antipathy of the religion towards people like me. You have to resort to lying blatantly in the face of the evidence in the real world. Shame on you.

"Indeed, your sexual proclivities are simply down to that worship of self where you gave at a mirror image of yourself and think it love."

Private sexual acts between consenting adults are none of your business yet it's typical of religious nutters like you that you try to make them so. That you deny the obvious fact that many same sex couples love each other as deeply as any other couple shows just how black and twisted your mind is. You even admit to wanting to criminalise it again, merely because the thought offends you. That's the irony here. It is you who wants to be the oppressor here. Your conscience ought to be plaguing you at this point but you appear to have suppressed it until it lies pretty much comatose. At some level I pity you beyond my disgust.

"I'd say grow up, but Atheists seem incapable of doing so."

I'd say accept the real world and adjust your religious beliefs accordingly but you seem incapable of doing so. It's the same with racists as far as I can tell, like with you the malaise is too deep for most of them to recover from.

22 August 2014 21:01  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo

"I have met lots of online Christians like you in my time, bringing Christianity into disrepute amongst the general population."

And yet you appear to continually seek them out on here and attempt to provoke the very responses you say you despise.

Jack wonders why that is. Is it to bring Christianity into disrepute generally or just in your own mind?

23 August 2014 01:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I provoke them by simply being here, as you demonstrate often enough. You ought not to be getting involved yourself but you simply can't keep away. You know why that is.

23 August 2014 05:36  
Blogger Len said...

Danjo want to prove Christians are hypocritical
small minded loonies.
It seems a few help him in this?.

23 August 2014 10:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Actually Len, that's not true at all. Let me be clear here about a number of attributes.

I know that there are many very intelligent Christians, and some very stupid ones too of course. No doubt in intelligence terms, the spread falls approximately in proportion to the general population. I have no doubt the more intelligent ones recognise the way of the world and their position in it very well.

In terms of goodness, I have no doubt there are very many good, kind, and decent Christians living in the UK, and that Christians who use the Internet to argue their religious interests are probably a fairly poor representation of the whole. Similarly with a-theists and a-gnostics, as it goes.

As far as sanctification is concerned, I'm an a-theist and so I don't believe that sanctification happens in the real world. However, I think many Christians appear to show signs of it because Christianity in its best light is aspirational, and ought to lead to better behaviour on the whole. That, within a community, is probably a Good Thing. Indeed, I think associated charity work bears this out.

Yet pointing out mean-spirited-ness is a powerful argument against theism on the Internet nonetheless. I have noticed many times that Christians in real life are self-censoring when in a religious community, cleaving to a common ideal, but individuals taken out of that peer-group and anonymised often behave rather differently.

In the quiet of an armchair, I certainly do not think a belief in Christianity, or in theism in general, indicates mental illness or being a loony at all, though as an a-theist I think believers are deluding themselves at some level or other. I confess I find it odd but I don't think I can be criticised for that as an outsider.

An inclination to hypocrisy is part of human nature as far as I am concerned. We're all guilty of it at times. That said, Christianity lends itself to self-righteousness and a tendency to judgement, in my opinion, and I see lots of Christians fall into that state of mind online. A pointed comment ought to rectify it, but often doesn't for deeply entrenched views. But hey, that's life.

As for homophobia, I will say again in black and white (though I doubt it will make any difference whatsoever to those who sweep evidence under the carpet here because it's inconvenient to them) that I openly acknowledge Christian sexual morality is not homophobic in itself. When I call it, it's almost always because it is displayed in language and tone and behaviour over time. I certainly don't think everyone here is homophobic, though I realise that the condition/orientation probably makes most uncomfortable for religious reasons.

Finally, I am a liberal, homosexual a-theist posting comments under a 'right-wing' Anglican politico-religious blog. I naturally have positions of my own, which I write under the articles. One of which is that Christianity is one of a number of explanations of our reality, and that it is a contested explanation in our plural society. I think people need reminding of that at times. It's not inherently malicious. The 'politico-' bit implies that we need to live together and somehow carry on, you see.

23 August 2014 11:17  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Len

Yes, on both counts, and mea maxima culpa for the assistance given him in the past.

23 August 2014 17:17  
Blogger Martin said...

DanJ0

”Why do you lie like this over and over again? Have you no sense of shame at all? It's a matter of public record here many times over that I support religious freedom in the UK. This is yet another example of how you deny the real world because you find it too inconvenient.”

All I've seen you support is the wimpy weak Christianity that doesn't challenge your worldview. A Christianity that merely sits in an armchair is no Christianity at all. Let anyone challenge you, let them suggest that Atheism is wickedness and you reject it.

”In truth, I'm happy for you to continue as you shoot yourself in the foot each time. Public sympathy grows for gay people in proportion to the moral degeneracy of religious nutters like you. Look at the behaviour of the Westboro Baptist Church as an example.”

The problem here is that you, the moral degenerate, are accusing me of moral degeneracy. Yes, I'm a sinner, but I am a sinner who has seen the grace of God and I want to warn other sinners of God's wrath and commend to them the mercy of God. Sadly that is not what WBC seeks to do, they place themselves on a pedestal and condemn others. And public sympathy is totally irrelevant. Public sympathy was very much with those hammering on the door of Lot's house, and not at all with the angels inside.

”Homophobic and vicious people like you disgust me yet I still defend your right to freedom of religious belief in our plural society. I do the same for Muslims, and have done so many times down in these comments over the years, despite their religious beliefs about homosexuality. Of course, you bury your head in the sand about that over and over because it is too inconvenient for you.”

There you go, using your magic word again. Sorry, but there is nothing homophobic about me. I'm not afraid, nor do I suggest violence as a solution, I warn of the wrath to come. Christians are quite different you know, they want to see people saved, not stoned or beheaded.

”That's merely one of your groundless beliefs. You cannot justify it nor show any evidence for it. Clearly I am an a-theist as my comments consistently show over the years I have been here. I expect you're reduced to this sort of strange cultish behaviour because you find the real world uncomfortable. It must be a bit of a nightmare to come across a liberal, homosexual a-theist like me who is prepared to stand up, look you in the eye, and completely refuse to be intimidated. Your time is passed.”

It's no nightmare to come across “a liberal, homosexual a-theist”, you're really no different to the general run of humanity whose god, as the Bible tells us, is their belly. Like the animist in the jungle you merely create a god in your image, in your case your intellect, and bow down before it. All men know that God exist, that is quite plain, and all men pretend there is no God until God breaks in and changes them.

23 August 2014 21:05  
Blogger Martin said...

DanJ0

”You display no evidence of it here as far as I can see. You're just some spiteful and vicious homophobe, hiding behind a religion to justify your immoral actions. I have met lots of online Christians like you in my time, bringing Christianity into disrepute amongst the general population.”

So you demonstrate you don't know what sanctification is. Let me tell you a secret, Christianity has always been in disrepute among the general population. Seems you have met Christians online, it's a pity you took no notice of them. And you use your magic word again.

”I demand no such thing of course. I support Article 8 of the ECHR as I have said many, many times down here in many different situations, including the rights of Muslims despite the antipathy of the religion towards people like me. You have to resort to lying blatantly in the face of the evidence in the real world. Shame on you.”

Of course you do, indeed the ECHR is a document that encourages you to do so.

”Private sexual acts between consenting adults are none of your business yet it's typical of religious nutters like you that you try to make them so.

If you kept you sexual activity private no one would be mentioning it. You make it our business by waving it in our faces.

”That you deny the obvious fact that many same sex couples love each other as deeply as any other couple shows just how black and twisted your mind is. You even admit to wanting to criminalise it again, merely because the thought offends you. That's the irony here. It is you who wants to be the oppressor here. Your conscience ought to be plaguing you at this point but you appear to have suppressed it until it lies pretty much comatose. At some level I pity you beyond my disgust.”

Sorry, but I fail to see how encouraging another in sin can be defined as love. I'd be happy happy to see it criminalised again for the harm it does.

”I'd say accept the real world and adjust your religious beliefs accordingly but you seem incapable of doing so. It's the same with racists as far as I can tell, like with you the malaise is too deep for most of them to recover from.”

The real world is the one I inhabit, where God will require of every man the justification of his words and actions.

23 August 2014 21:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "All I've seen you support is the wimpy weak Christianity that doesn't challenge your worldview. A Christianity that merely sits in an armchair is no Christianity at all. Let anyone challenge you, let them suggest that Atheism is wickedness and you reject it."

I don't support Christianity, you moron, I support a right to freedom of religion. As for rejecting challenges to a-theism, of course I do if I think I have good reason. It's like you don't understand the very basis of freedom of speech or something. Sheesh. It's no wonder you're cult-fodder, you don't seem to be able to do critical reasoning.

"The problem here is that you, the moral degenerate, are accusing me of moral degeneracy."

The difference is, sweetheart, that I don't accept your basis for morality because I'm an a-theist so it's wasted breath for you. However, I judge you by your own moral standards and find you wanting in many respects. In particular, a commitment to honesty which is woefully lacking at your end given the blatant untruths you are throwing around.

"There you go, using your magic word again. Sorry, but there is nothing homophobic about me. I'm not afraid, nor do I suggest violence as a solution, I warn of the wrath to come. Christians are quite different you know, they want to see people saved, not stoned or beheaded."

*shrug*

Your language, tone and behaviour over time speaks for themselves.

"All men know that God exist, that is quite plain, and all men pretend there is no God until God breaks in and changes them."

That's an irrational and groundless religious belief which you are using both as a shield from reality and a weapon, albeit a laughable one.

23 August 2014 21:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "So you demonstrate you don't know what sanctification is."

*shrug*

It's hardly a secret on Google even if I were in doubt at the start. Dodo knows to his significant cost from past encounters how powerful that accusation is when Christians behave as though they have never known the Holy Spirit.

"Of course you do, indeed the ECHR is a document that encourages you to do so."

Yet the evidence to the contrary is scattered around the blog over years of my commenting, including at the end of the Bishop of Leeds thread below. It's impossible to deny with any credibility, yet to try to do so anyway. You make yourself look like a lying toad, or a simpleton, or perhaps both.

"If you kept you sexual activity private no one would be mentioning it. You make it our business by waving it in our faces."

I fully expect to be able to have the same rights as heterosexuals, distributed across the public and private space. Yet you want to make it illegal again. You admitted it on the earlier thread which has left you with this unresolved anger. I am not suggest your minority religious acts should be done solely in private, nor that they should be illegal again. You are the potential oppressor here, not me. You are the strange person with unpalatable views as far as the general public are concerned. You are the person who needs to make you case, as the rest of us look on in bemusement and not a little disgust now.

"Sorry, but I fail to see how encouraging another in sin can be defined as love. I'd be happy happy to see it criminalised again for the harm it does."

Even the Roman Catholic pope recognises that same sex couples are fully capable of the sort of love that a different sex couple may experience. Yet you try to deny the reality of that sort of love, presumably just because you are uncomfortable with the idea. The evidence is there for any normal person to see. But this area is yet another one where you are divorced from reality by your weird, cultish religious beliefs.

"The real world is the one I inhabit, where God will require of every man the justification of his words and actions."

You keep telling yourself that, matey, from your position of no objective knowledge of the fact. As no doubt people of other religions tell themselves the same thing, even when it blatantly contradicts your version of theism. There's no point telling me, without prefixing it with "I believe that", like intelligent people would do, recognising the contested nature of their religious beliefs in the real world, and in our plural society.

23 August 2014 21:47  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo,

"Even the Roman Catholic pope recognises that same sex couples are fully capable of the sort of love that a different sex couple may experience."

Where did he say that?

Pope Benedict has stated Church teaching in recent times and these have been endorsed by Pope Francis:

"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

"According to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies 'must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided'. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however 'objectively disordered' and homosexual practices are 'sins gravely contrary to chastity'."

"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the church's pastors wherever it occurs... The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in work, in action and in law."

"Above all, we must have great respect for these people who also suffer and who want to find their own way of correct living. On the other hand, to create a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage, in reality, does not help these people."

Pope Francis is shifting the pastoral emphasis away from condemnation towards compassion for suffering sinners, not the basic teaching of the Church.

Here's what he's said in his much reported interview with Antonio Spadaro:

“We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound.

In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this.

During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person."


This was said in the context of Christians living in situations that from the point of view of the church are irregular. Christians that, in one way or another, live with "open wounds" - same-sex couples being one such group. He is trying to change the nature of the interaction between professed Christians who are living with and who should be resisting homosexuality.

Then he went on to make some statements challenging more traditional Catholic approaches:

“A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’

We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation.

It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing."


Nothing in the above contradicts anything the Catechism says in paragraphs 2357, 2358 and 2359

23 August 2014 23:17  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

"Dodo knows to his significant cost from past encounters how powerful that accusation is when Christians behave as though they have never known the Holy Spirit."

Ah, dearly departed Dodo who is now serving time in blog purgatory somewhere for his past sins. May he rest in peace.

Martin
#
You may be wasting your time and energy.

Happy Jack has reflected on the words of Popes Benedict and Francis, as well as the CCC.

The homosexual inclination, being an objective disorder in itself, will pose significant barriers to those suffering it and its wounds - social, personal and spiritual.

Perhaps for some Christians the burden is too great to bear without special support and assistance from the Holy Spirit. The intrinsic moral evil it tends towards will also present significant barriers to belief in God and the workings of the Holy Spirit.

23 August 2014 23:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 August 2014 06:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Actually, no, I won't feed his obsession. Also, I'm done with you here too, Martin, though I expect you still have unresolved anger to deal with.

24 August 2014 07:35  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo

Before you disappear, so we're clear, you have not answered where Pope Francis allegedly suggested this:

"Even the Roman Catholic pope recognises that same sex couples are fully capable of the sort of love that a different sex couple may experience."

Did you make it up?

As Jack pointed out above, any such *recognition* would contradict all the teachings of the Church.

24 August 2014 11:23  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Such a lot of fuss over hiding the sausage...there are weightier matters to worry about I think. ISIS for example...

25 August 2014 09:47  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older