Thursday, August 21, 2014

As long as Obama spouts the fallacy that the Islamic State "speaks for no religion", we will never kill the root


It would appear that the barbaric Islamist who decapitated US journalist James Foley was a dude named John, probably from East London, who took a brief sojourn in Syria with his mates Mustafa and Aqueel in order to wage a bit of moderate Jihad against their smoking and drinking Ummah. But, you know Jihad: once bitten, never shy, never afraid, never wavering, and never averse to a bit of summary decapitation in the name of Mohammed for the glory of Allah, most gracious, most beneficient, most merciful.

It transpires that John had been captivated by the inspirational words of Winston Churchill, whom he encountered in the World War Two thematic module of his History GCSE: "We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in Syria and Iraq, we shall fight on buses and the underground, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength with shoe-bombs in the air, we shall defend our Caliphate, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the deserts, we shall fight on the airports, we shall fight in the cities and in the streets, we shall fight in the mountains; we shall never surrender."

There couldn't be a clearer geo-political fons et origo to explain John's theo-political praxis.  

But if not Churchill, then who? Tony Blair? George W Bush? Adolf Hitler? Who galvanised John to pack a suitcase, drive to Heathrow, fly out to Damascus and wage war against the infidel, heretic and apostate for the establishment of the Islamic State? What cult controlled him? What creed captivated his mind?

President Obama says the Islamic State "speaks for no religion", because "no faith teaches people to massacre innocents". In this, he takes Baroness Warsi's line that Wahhabi-Salafist Muslims are not Muslims at all, and the religion they follow bears no resemblance to any expression of Islam. The President adds: "No just God would stand for what (the Islamic State) did yesterday, and what they do every single day."

He appears not to grasp the Islamist worldview, which is as theological as it is political; as historic as it is present. Allah is not merely a "just God": he is perfect justice, and his prophet did no wrong. The people beheaded, tortured or massacred are not "innocents": they are corrupted by idolatry; tainted by the blood on the hands of Western warmongers; and damned by perversions of liberal democracy and moral relativity. We will never eradicate this cancer unless and until our politicians and religious leaders can bring themselves to acknowledge that the Islamist inspiration is a virulent quranic doctrine of God which is based on a particular reading of Hadith literature and a singular understanding of the Sunnah. It may be offensive to our Western sensibilities to say so, but we are so steeped in mushy multicultural GCSE notions of ill-taught RE that we have ceased to have any ability to discern the spirits, determine right from wrong, or distinguish between the forces of good and the legions of evil.

Centuries of scholarship bear witness to the mutability and multiplicity of the Islamic faith, which is as diverse and disparate as the myriad of Christian denominations. The problem is the ascendancy and dominance of a particular interpretation of Islam – the Wahhabi-Salfist strain – which seeks to agitate, occupy, subjugate, inculcate and deny liberty and justice to all who do not adhere to its notions of societal perfection. The Islamic State adheres to this "pure and unadulterated" version of Islam. It is by no means believed by the world's 1.9 billion Muslims, but it is practised by a disparate 10 million or so around the world, and that's only a conservative estimate. Their political vision is acutely theological:
(They) see life as being divided between the world of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the land of conflict or war (dar al-harb). Through jihad, they wish to extend the Muslim world so that all of humankind can live under its umbrella. They harken back to the Great Caliphate, when the Muslim world extended from Spain (then called Andalusia), across North Africa and the Middle East, down the west coast of Africa, and across the Caspian region to India and the Philippines. At its height in the 1200s, the Caliphate was a highly sophisticated civilization, responsible for many inventions and innovations in mathematics and science".
And so the vision of an Islamic Empire is revived. Its factions include Al-Qaeda and the Al-Nusra Front, not to mention Fatah al-Islam, Jund al-Sham, the Syria Free Army and the Abdullah Azzam Brigade. And let's throw in Jund al-Aqsa, the Syrian Martyrs' Brigade, Idlib Martyrs' Brigade, Ajnad al-Sham Islamic Union, Ahfad al-Rasul Brigade, Army of Mujahedeen, Ghuraba al-Sham, Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood. And that's just in one region: their platoons are trans-national and the fissures never-ending. They may lack a unifying commander-in-chief, but there is broad consensus on the religio-political strategy, which stems from a perception of Islamic appeasement, moral compromise and subjugation to the ‘Great Satan’. They cohere around the application of Jihad to defend the faith primarily against the evils of Zionism, Judaism, Christianity, secularism, and a plethora of corrupt manifestations of Islam. They consider it an unacceptable humiliation that the "Christian West" may demand concessions, impose conditions and dictate the terms of debate to the "Muslim world".

All of this is undoubtedly political, but it is also acutely theological.

The Muslims of the Islamic State may not speak for all Muslims, but they plainly call themselves Muslims and profess to speak for Islam. They may not be President Obama's type of Muslim or practise Tony Blair's preferred brand of Islam. But to reduce their religious beliefs to the status of a non-religion is to subjugate their devout worldview to the very notions of Western-Christian arrogance and imperialism they wage Jihad to defeat. And in such political ignorance and religious denial lie the seeds of our own decline, defeat and destruction.   

131 Comments:

Blogger Dreadnaught said...

If we seriously wish to defend ourselves we should:

Re-introduce the death penalty for terrorists and those engaged in supporting them.

Withdraw from obligations under the Human Rights Legislature and go it alone; the rest of Europe will follow.

Stop all immigration from Muslim countries.

Remove all Muslims employed in Border Control operations.

Withdraw passports from dual nationality British Muslims.

Close and demolish all Mosques.

Ban the Koran.

Every Muslim Terrorist was once a 'moderate muslim'

WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED UPON US.


21 August 2014 09:47  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

@ Dreadnaught

Every Muslim Terrorist was once a 'moderate muslim'

Islam is like a virus that may lie dormant in its host (the moderate Muslim) and then, at some stimulus, become virulent. The viral DNA is the Koran, which is always potentially lethal.

The virus may become active slowly ('radicalization'), or it may develop almost instantaneously ('Sudden Jihad Syndrome').

Whatever the outcome, all Muslims need to be regarded as potential terrorists.

21 August 2014 09:57  
Blogger Shadrach said...

Your Grace said,
President Obama says the Islamic State "speaks for no religion", because "no faith teaches people to massacre innocents". In such ignorance and denial lie the seeds of our destruction.
I am glad that you picked up on this exasperating view of the Islamic Crisis we now face.

Whilst a majority of Muslims live peaceable lives, they ignore vast tract of the Koran and Islamic writing to do so.

The truth that Obama, Warsi, Blair and Cameron ignore is that the foundational root of Islam calls for expansion through violence.

21 August 2014 10:10  
Blogger Guy Jones said...

Obama uses 'innocents', which is a Muslim code word. Why does the POTUS use Muslim terminology?

Other questions arise from this concept of innocence:

Is it OK to massacre the guilty?

What is the definition of innocent?

Who makes the decision? A judge, an Imam, a jihadi, a mob?

21 August 2014 10:10  
Blogger Guy Jones said...

Obama uses 'innocents', which is a Muslim code word. Why does the POTUS use Muslim terminology?

Other questions arise from this concept of innocence:

Is it OK to massacre the guilty?

What is the definition of innocent?

Who makes the decision? A judge, an Imam, a jihadi, a mob?

21 August 2014 10:10  
Blogger Ivan said...


The idiot Obama apparently does not realise that in the logic of Islam, guilt or innocence is defined by those resist or acquiesce to its depredations. Those whom the ISIS kill are guilty by definition.

Dreadnaught, you have been thinking well and clearly my friend. I salute your naked Easter Islander avatar, by way of admiration.

21 August 2014 10:13  
Blogger Len said...

The Koran is a manual for terrorists when will the West wake up and realise this?.

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

A great problem for us in the west is that the majority of our leaders and opinion formers do not understand Islam and have so capitulated to secular humanism that they are left without an effective answer to the menace of ISIS. We could be witnessing a new Dark Age in world history and politicians witter on about the need to be more Internet savvy and educate young Muslims to prevent radicalisation. There is no doubt in my mind that Islam is a Satanic death cult and that the vast majority of Muslims, while not radicalised are supine, hypnotised and blinded by the god of this world, the prince of the power of the Air. 50 years ago Enoch Powell prophesied rivers of blood in our country, so far it is, relatively speaking, trickles of blood. I am praying that we as a nation would wake up and call on God for forgiveness for our rejection of Him and that he would send revival and a spiritual re-awakening to our land and its people.

21 August 2014 10:27  
Blogger Albert said...

I think we need to ask why politicians aren't prepared to call a spade a spade. An answer seems to me to lie 100 years ago. At that time people smashed and looted German and Austrian shops because we were at war with those countries. No one wants to see a similar thing with innocent Muslims because a politician mispeaks.

In contrast, it was possible to (mis?)represent the Irish troubles as between Catholic and Protestant without worrying that your Catholic or Protestant neighbour was going to be mugged for their faith. This was because it was obvious to everyone that the issues in Ireland were Irish and that if the violence was religious it was anomalous in regard to each religious position.

The trouble with Islam and the Middle East, is that it is not so easy for people to make that distinction, and so the risk of identifying Islam as a cause is that it invites violence against innocent Muslims who are as appalled as everyone else. That would be wrong in itself and would lead to more radicalisation.

The problem, as I have pointed out before, of not identifying Islam as a cause of violence is that it creates the impression that Muslims are always the victims, which is anything but fair and leads to more radicalisation.

21 August 2014 10:41  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

Re-introduce the death penalty for terrorists and those engaged in supporting them.

Forgive me for stopping you there, but didn't we create a century of violence in Ireland by taking that policy in Dublin 1916? You call it the death penalty for terrorists. They call it martyrdom. In any case, it doesn't look like death is much of a deterrent.

21 August 2014 10:44  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Ivan

Thank you. The avatar is actually one of Anthony Gormley's cast-iron self images. One of a hundred gazing westward in a public art installation named 'Another Place' at Crosby beach on the Mersey Estuary.

21 August 2014 10:46  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Albert

I'm in no mood for sidetracking - let's keep to the now please; even if you are getting bored with the topic.

21 August 2014 10:50  
Blogger IanCad said...

Good Lord Dreadnaught @ 09:47. You are the most astonishingly misnamed poster on this blog.
Fear is evident in almost all that you write.

Talk about overreaction!
Come on man! Get a backbone.

21 August 2014 10:52  
Blogger Ivan said...


At its height in the 1200s, the Caliphate was a highly sophisticated civilization, responsible for many inventions and innovations in mathematics and science".

No matter how many times the stake is driven through this tissue of lies, it refuses to die.

The Caliphate was just a glorified harem. Since when did it come to science and mathematics, or innovations? To get an idea of the stuff that passes for technical writing among Muslims, just go down to the local mosque and read the crap that is passed as their science in their bookstores. Everything is there in the Queeran or the hadiths, including advice on how to conduct ablutions with pebbles. The idiots don't have a fraction of the intelligence of the Greeks whom they copied from.
Explorer is already onto this.

The fact of the matter is after a brief interregnum caused by the rapine of the Muslims, the trajectory of progress continued with the Europeans.

Joseph Sobran, catches the stupidity of those who would credit these low-IQ morons with anything like what is claimed in order to make them feel good:

Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.



21 August 2014 10:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

What's that quote about those who don't learn from the past?

Anyway, I can make all my points without reference to the past. In your fear (well put IanCad) you are proposing things that are wrong in themselves and are going to make matters worse.

21 August 2014 10:54  
Blogger Ivan said...

Albert, taking Muslims out of passport and border controls make sense. There is nothing wrong with it. Just normal precautions.

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

Despite all the posturing, bluster and bullying, Muslims have an inferiority complex (a well balanced Muslim is one with a chip on each shoulder).

What they crave is 'respect' from the kuffar. Since, due to intellectual decline caused by centuries of inbreeding, the chances of gaining respect by winning a Nobel prize are rather small, they instead seek gangsta style respect whereby they want to be hated and feared by the kuffar. Winning friends to influence people isn't their strong point.

The best way to deal with this psychological state is to treat Islam, it's book and its baby-bonking prophet with complete contempt, derision and ridicule. The ridicule is especially important. No gangsta who craves respect will want to be associated with a cult that has become a laughing stock

21 August 2014 11:07  
Blogger Irene's Daughter said...

These cruel, brutal murders, all of them, are terrible and we can only weep with those who are victims of religious zealots of whatever creed. And we can all see the hand of the evil one in them.

But I can't help wondering. Has anyone ever preached/proclaimed the true 'Gospel of Jesus Christ' to 'John'? Or any other British Moslem, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist or Humanist for that matter? Probably not since it is rarely preached anywhere these days. Not even in most churches where the staple diet is a sugar ridden candy-floss of a message designed to make us all feel good rather than to bring us to our knees in repentance.

If someone had preached the Truth to him then this young man might have been able to see a difference between the call of Jesus to sacrificially love our neighbours even if they do not love us in return and the call of the powers of darkness behind Islam to destroy everyone who doesn't agree with his own particular version of truth.

If someone had preached the truth about Jesus to him then he might not now be a brutal murderer on his way to hell fire but a repentant sinner on his way to eternal life in the very presence of God.

No wonder God has said that judgement begins at the 'House of God'. The 'House of God' in Britain has failed to serve either Him or its neighbours but instead has allowed all kinds of beliefs to mingle with the Truth. They have allowed men to set other gods, who are not gods, before His Face. We have allowed the building of an ever growing mixture of high towers in every town and we have no desire to pull any of them down. And what we are seeing in the tragedy of this young man's life is the outworking of this failure.

O Lord, in Your wrath please remember mercy. Forgive the failures of Your Son's Church and bring it to repentance. And Father, please turn these zealous young men to Jesus. Amen

21 August 2014 11:20  
Blogger FridgeMagnet said...

Try phoning LBC and saying that. Yesterday, on the John Stapleton show, this happened, and is a good example of quite a few calls. (Caller)"Islam is a religion of peace, and ISIS are not Islamic in any way." (Stapleton)"Nobody would argue with that."
Nobody?

Later, on the Julia Hartley-Brewer show, the same sort of thing happend, but she at least can explain things a little better in a wider context. A caller to her show suggested that there had been quite a bit of "PC correctness" going on in these terms. Julia said that the presenter has to be careful not to stir things up, which is understandable (and probably what Obama is doing), and conceded that we're not seeing fundamentalists of any other religion causing these problems (what Obama should also concede).

We should be grown up enough to understand that there is "good practice," ie the one that fits best with Western societies, and "bad practice," ie the one that doesn't. But they are both from the same religion, even if scholars etc go on about "misinterpretation" which, if nothing is done about it, will be an excuse for the next 500 years if society as we know it still exists.

21 August 2014 11:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Ivan,

And if it turns out that a small minority of Jews are leaving the country to go and bomb the Palestinians, will you remove all Jews from passport and border controls?

And what are you going to do with these innocent people who have been presumed guilty without even the option of proving their innocence? It's their jobs you are removing.

And why stop at border controls? Why not take them out of schools lest they teach religious violence, or hospitals lest they commit an atrocity against the sick? or remove them from food production because they might put broken glass in the baby food? or from grocery stores because they might poison the vegetables? or half a hundred other jobs that innocent Muslims do perfectly well, if not better?

We are talking about people here, innocent people, and we are talking about justice for all. Weaken it for some and it is weakened for all.

21 August 2014 11:20  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Albert

Go back no further than 1939 and examine how this country set about defending itself in securing its borders as a first response to external threat and internal 5th columnism. The other Twerp may as well dash down to the conscientious objector creche now before he soils himself in public.

21 August 2014 11:22  
Blogger gentlemind said...

If you substitute I.S. for Planned Parenthood and then re-read Obama's speech, you get an exact match. 50 million massacred innocents so far, with Obama's approval.

21 August 2014 11:31  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

The cases are not alike. We were at war with Germany. We are not at war with Islam.

21 August 2014 11:34  
Blogger Shadrach said...

Dreadnaught said...
let's keep to the now please
In defence of Albert and to attack most politicians, if we only look at the NOW we fail to understand where we came from. Without looking carefully at history, we fail to appreciate the lessons of the past. If Bush and Blair had not been so arrogant about their ability to conquer and had looked at history, they would never have invaded Afghanistan.

I was in the woods with my dog this morning and there are many trees that have fallen or been felled. However out of their stumps have grown many new trees. Kill the fanatics of the Middle East and many more rise up out of the fallen.

Even Jesus spoke of this principle regarding his own life;
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

It might seem a human/Godly principle applicable to all mankind that death does not extinguish a strongly held motivation.

As it has been said, the only sure way to overcome a nation is through their hearts and minds.

Such is the work of Canon Andrew White, showing the love of Christ in a visible and compassionate way. However, that does not exclude in my book, killing the bastards who are trying to kill you.

21 August 2014 11:36  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dreadnaught @ 11:22

Not only fear, but now False Witness. That is, if you are placing conscientious objectors amongst the ranks of the cowardly.
Better Google Desmond Doss for starters.

It is precisely that, because of the likes of you, tyrants arise.

Twerp.

21 August 2014 11:53  
Blogger bluedog said...

Albert @ 11.34 says, ' We are not at war with Islam.'

But Albert, Islam is at war with us. We know that because Islam tells us, frequently.

Can you not see that?

Is it not Just to act in self-defence?

21 August 2014 11:53  
Blogger Ivan said...


Albert, its a precaution merited by oft stated desire of many Muslims to Islamise the UK. Jews fighting in Israel have no designs on the UK or anywhere else. The Muslims clearly have. Those who are there in Iraq and the many more who are waiting in the wings, make use of any loophole to further their agenda. I appreciate that this is discrimination. But what can we do?

21 August 2014 12:02  
Blogger Preacher said...

Rabble rousing is not the answer, it will lead to the sort of persecution of non violent Muslim people living here & further the aims of the radicals.
The Muslim population in the free World must show greater rejection & condemnation of IS & all it stands for.
IS is the cancer, but the body it's destroying is Islam itself.

Personally I believe that Islam offers neither peace in this World or salvation in the next. But people are free to choose, without free will we are just automatons not human beings.

But the lack of evangelism present in much of the Christian Church - Lots of good music, social activity & social concern, but no gospel, no Cross, no sacrifice for sin, no call to repentance or conviction of sin so no need for a hedonistic society to worry about it's day of judgement. Leaves us with nothing to offer those from Islam or any other faith who are seeking God in this World.

What's happening in the Middle East is the fruition of lust for temporal power, greed, anger, hate envy etcetera. All the things that Satan stands for & all the things that much of the God rejecting West want too. The only difference is that they use the excuse of a religion & the West uses none, just politics, words & liberalism.

Yes we need a revival, & only God can send it. But Revival ALWAYS begins with repentance in the Church, then a spiritually clean, empowered people attract others who want what they see the Church has received.
It's not too late yet but time is running short.

21 August 2014 12:06  
Blogger Preacher said...

Well said Irene's Daughter.

21 August 2014 12:09  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, your communicant is confused.

You say, '... we have ceased to have any ability to discern the spirits, determine right from wrong, or distinguish between the forces of good and the legions of evil.'

And then, 'But to reduce their religious beliefs to the status of a non-religion is to subjugate their devout worldview to the very notions of Western-Christian arrogance and imperialism they wage Jihad to defeat.'

How can we Western-Christians see Islam as wrong and evil without being branded as arrogant imperialists?

Should we worry about being seen as arrogant imperialists?

One is tempted to see the insult as a compliment in the context of Islamic patterns of behaviour.

21 August 2014 12:14  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Re 'the golden age of Islam', it's worth considering the great Islamic power, Turkey.

The greatest architect was Greek.

The civil service was largely staffed by captured Christians.

The elite troops, the Janissaries, were captured Christian youths trained up as Muslims.

The pick of the Topkapi Harem was supplied by Circassian (Russian) slave farms. Over time, the Sultans had almost no Turkish blood in them.

21 August 2014 12:16  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Preacher

Rabble rousing is not the answer

Rabble rousing is not the proposition. Civil Defence is common sense.

21 August 2014 12:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

President Obama can't say much else without overthrowing the entire Western ideology about religion and its place in society. Religion is supposed to be incidental. How then can he say "Islam is the problem." The only way to address that problem is to recast our understanding of religious freedom. It would ever so slightly re-introduce a necessary connection between citizenship and faith. As in "You can't be both a Muslim and a citizen of the Crown." This the dilemma faced by the West. It is trapped by its own ideology. It doesn't know how to fight a religion in its midst - a religion that is hostile to every fiber of western being.

carl

21 August 2014 12:25  
Blogger Time For Tea said...

Had anyone seriously considered the possibility that Mr Obama himself is a Muslim?

Opponents of him in America have been keen on that theory for a while amongst other conspiracy theories. Certainly things he has said and statements made from the White House would leave the possibility open.

White House publication on 11th August 2010, 'Statement by the President on the Occasion of Ramadan' ends with 'I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.'

Not sure there will be many non-Muslims who did the same thing over the last 6 weeks even in this country's all inclusive political sphere.

At the very least he is an apologist and looks to be a sympathiser. Maybe he simply does it to protect himself.

He seems to hold evangelical Christians in contempt. He certainly practices value relativism, he is perhaps his own god.

' “I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.” '

It would paint the current events in a very different light if he were a Muslim or actively hated the Christians.

Politically in America it would be suicide but he's not got another term to fight for so why worry about it? Ingratiating yourself to the Middle East in the current climate can do no harm really to someone like him. Tony Blair spent lots of time there after his time as PM ended despite starting a war there so it's not out of the question. Again it could go a long way to explaining statements like we see in His Grace's post today...

21 August 2014 12:27  
Blogger Len said...

Islam is at war with us,this statement doesn`t seem to have sunk in yet with some people?.
To see IS as some sort of 'radical fringe group' is a mistake many are making.IS is fast becoming an army gathering people from the civilized west to establish an Islamic caliphate and they are succeeding with only America opposing them.IS is well funded well equipped and well motivated.
Supposing your God tells you that murder is ok, that rape is ok, not only permitted but actively encouraged that killing others and yourself is the best act you can perform for your god then you have an extremely dangerous religious sect to deal with.When IS becomes the dominant terrorist group many others will join them.

21 August 2014 12:41  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Turkish Golden Age: Part 2

Until imprisonment was initiated instead, the first task for a new sultan was to strangle his brothers. The assassination squad was made up of slaves with slit tongues and punctured eardrums: armed with silken bowstrings.

When Murad IV was given a blunderbuss, he passed a law enabling him to shoot the first three people he saw every day. He sat on the palace walls, blasting away. When people learned to hide, he went looking for them.

Ibrahim II drowned his harem, all 280 of them: tied up in sacks and dumped alive into the Bosphorus.

Ibrahim, however, was foolish enough to rape the Mufti's virgin daughter...

You couldn't make this stuff up.

21 August 2014 12:58  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

"You can't be both a Muslim and a citizen of the Crown."

A Muslim's first loyalty is to Islam end even then to whichever faction is appropriate to their parental position.

If Islam had never been allowed to take root in the West there would still be a clear definition based on nationality, as it did was the Jews and others that settled and served their Country.

The Border Agency should be part of the Ministry of Defence, manned and disciplined under Military Law - a suitable extension to completed military service, with applied accumulated service benefits.

It seems it is impossible for Westerners to understand the mindset of Muslims. And before the 'bleeding hearts' get animated, this is a broad view expressed.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, born into our country should have to swear an Oath of Loyalty at 18, like that taken before being accepted into the Armed Forces. Consequences for treasonable acts should incur the severest penalties.

21 August 2014 13:01  
Blogger Ivan said...


Explorer, one has to have a heart of stone not to feel for the life of terror that the future Sultan's brothers led. A few hundred of them, eating, sleeping, scheming with their mothers all day long, waiting for the dreaded day when their father died and all hell breaks loose. How terrible their lives must have been.

By contrast Phillip II's illegitimate brother Don Juan was given command of the fleet at Lepanto and could dance a jig wherever he wanted.

21 August 2014 13:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

A Muslim's first loyalty is to Islam

Is that any different from saying "The first loyalty of a Catholic is to the Pope and Magisterium."

carl

21 August 2014 13:15  
Blogger 4thwatch said...

Taqiyya Seems to be the watchword in these difficult times when it comes to addressing the Western populous. I mean anyone who has had a close encounter with Islam either through upbringing or study would instantly recognize the method being employed, wouldn't they?

21 August 2014 13:22  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Is that any different from saying "The first loyalty of a Catholic is to the Pope and Magisterium."

Yes it is; that is, until the Catholic Church's followers declare war on all non-Catholics and claim their lives and land in accordance with the authority conferred on them by the New Testament and practices of J Christ.

21 August 2014 13:35  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

Well YG, you of course know why Mr Obama tweeted like he did. He of course knows that it was predicated on religion.

The reason he wants to distance their actions from the religion is to avoid saying/inferring that he is at war with Islam. As I understand it, all strains of Islam believe that they are obliged to fight if Islam is attacked. By saying the enemy is not a follower of the religion he seeks to cement them as outcasts.

That said, I can't really disagree with YG. I think we need to meet the threat head on. Make muslims pick sides.

Dreadnaught at 09:47

There is another, better way:

Encourage non belief in Islam.

1. Politicians and commentators should stop talking about it like it is a credible ideology. It isn't. Preceeding and/or succeeding any comment about Islam should be the words "of course, it goes without saying that Islam itself is a baseless ideology, illogical and completely lacking both in evidence and reason."

And 2. as I've repeatedly said, ban islamic faith schools.



We are long overdue a religious debate and currently we are having the wrong one. We shouldn’t be debating which part of islam is true or how islam should be interpreted. We should be debating whether Islam itself is all a load of old bollocks.

This will at least encourage muslims to question their beliefs and not just blindly obey what their parents told them.

21 August 2014 13:35  
Blogger Preacher said...

It seems that many communicants today vacillate between the Gestapo & Clockwork Orange as the solution.
Kill them all, inter them, deport them, or brainwash them.

21 August 2014 13:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The Secularist's contempt of religion is exceeded only by his fear of religion. For it has the capacity to provide what Secularism can never provide - meaning and purpose. If only men would be content to live meaningless lives and die meaningless deaths...

Why is the West so fearful and so incapable of response? Because it has tossed aside its spiritual heritage for a bowl of soup. It sees the inevitable consequences of its worldview - a population too weak and too self-absorbed to form families and raise children - and fears it might be displaced. In its fear it shows its weakness.

How long can a culture survive when it believes in nothing? How long before despair and hopelessness drive it into a death spiral of pleasure seeking and the inevitable boredom that follows? What is the point of spending money on kids when everything is futile? Vanity and dust overcome all. The motto of the West has become "Eat, drink, and be merry, because death is forever."

The problem is that the West cannot confront Islam with truth. It has no capacity to fight religion with religion. It has no means to de-legitimize Islam. It can only confront Islam with its brittle relativism. And that is a terribly weak weapon against those who possess no compunction about beheading infidels.

Secularism is losing the war. For all its wealth and pride of place and smug self-assurance about progress and enlightenment, it fears it is all slipping away. Islam is not the specter in the night, but the mirror that reflects the flaws of a worldview grown very old very fast. It is that image that so terrifies the West.

carl

21 August 2014 13:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

So you would have been all in with Cromwell then?

carl

21 August 2014 13:57  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I'd Probably have been hanged as a heretic - a good old christian practice once the burning was abandoned.

21 August 2014 14:18  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

Carl

Another one confusing secularism with atheism...

"Secularist contempt for religion". Yes, my secular Christian friends often voice their utter contempt for religion whilst sitting in their Sunday pews, attending christenings and praying to the Lord Jesus Christ.

21 August 2014 14:20  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Syd

And how would you set about any of that, that in an ideology has been extant and consistently violent for 1500 years in every land in the world?

Rhetorical question only.

21 August 2014 14:23  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl

Welcome back and Jack hopes all is well with you and your family.

"Is that any different from saying "The first loyalty of a Catholic is to the Pope and Magisterium.""

Jack understands the point you are making. However, a Catholic's first loyalty, like any other Christian, is always to Christ - not to a nation state and not to a particular Pope. Isn't this the same for every Christian?

True, a Catholic should follow the established moral teachings of the Church as a citizen and also if elected as a politician and resist anything that contradicts the Gospel.

It is not part of Catholic teaching to kill all those who do not follow the Church or submit to the authority of the Magisterium or to wage a physical and violent Holy War against non-believers if called upon to do so by Pope Francis.

21 August 2014 14:24  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dreadnaught @ 13:01.

"Treason"

Perhaps not too far apart here.

The only citizenship should be through "Birthright"

It always amazed me when living in the USA that citizenship for immigrants could be obtained by commiting what, IMO, is, in itself, a treasonous act. That is, forswearing allegiance to one's native land.

Loyalty, one of the truly abiding virtues, is blithely cast aside.

I'm sorry but, in my book, such a person is untrustworthy.

I do not think that a born and bred subject should have to swear an oath.
Fidelity is implied in citizenship.

21 August 2014 14:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

Been under the weather for a few days. I am going back to work today, however. We'll see how I do.

carl

21 August 2014 14:29  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

Dreadnaught

It could be sorted in a generation.

21 August 2014 14:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Sidney Deane

There is the Secularism envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Then there is the Secularism of the French Revolution. It is the later form which is ascendant, and the later to which I refer.

Too many people preach the former even as they practice the later

carl

21 August 2014 14:33  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Far from the Islamic State speaking for no religion, it appears to follow the teachings of Islam to the letter, but even if Obama and other Western leaders admitted that the Islamic State is the apple of Allah’s eye, we would remain powerless to kill the root because the root is Islam, its beliefs and adherents. The root can never be killed, it will always be with us, so we must learn to defend ourselves against it.

With the benefit of hindsight, propagating the root in Western soil was not the smartest move—unless it was done for the very purpose of destroying the West, in which case it’s in the running for the smartest move ever made—but Islam is now flourishing here. It remains to be seen if the West develops the popular will and the political will to confront it. The signs are not encouraging.

21 August 2014 14:34  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

forswearing allegiance to one's native land

Can't be treason unless the offense is of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign or
a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

One surrenders all previous rights and responsibilities on surrender of your passport when you receive the other.

21 August 2014 14:54  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Sid

Its the HOW, not the how long.

21 August 2014 14:57  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

Johnny Rottenborough

"The root can never be killed, it will always be with us, so we must learn to defend ourselves against it."

Religions die out all the time.

If we had lived x thousand years ago, this blog and its followers would have been fanatically praying to Zeus - the one true god. Similarly, IS would have been killing in the name of Odin - the one true god.

It just so happens that the current popular ones are known as Islam and Christianity, where instead of Odin we have Allah and instead of Zeus we have Yahweh.

Noone believes in Zeus anymore do they. I mean, christ, talk about ancient! Don't people know Yahweh is all the rage these days!


As a committed Pastafarian (we are real, please do not scorn), I think we will be the new hip religion on the street soon - FSM willing!

21 August 2014 15:04  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Sidney Deane.

Somehow after those last comments, beloved as they are by all the freethinking avid Dawkins followers for whom such snippets are a well trodden set of memes (thought patterns to the rest of us!)we can kinda guess you didn't study history or theology.

Odin? You seriously equate Odin with Jesus?

If you think about it that is spectacularly weird. Do question your assumptions and compare like with like..

No reputable scholar would ever say that Jesus was fictional. I hope that you do know that- at least.

21 August 2014 15:48  
Blogger C.Law said...

Albert, I completely agree with your concern for the vast majority of muslims who are decent people who only seek to get on with their lives in peace, making things better for their families, just like the rest of us. These people are muslim merely because their parents were muslim, and their parents before them. Most of them, while devout, have not given deep thought to their religion as a whole, just like many self-identifying christians.

However, there is a huge caveat to this concern which has been brought out by the Preacher, who said above "The Muslim population in the free World must show greater rejection & condemnation of IS & all it stands for." Unfortunately, they do not. While they do not do so the rest of us must necessarily question whether they really reject the interpretation of IS and the like and if they do not reject this interpretation where does that leave them, and us?

21 August 2014 15:57  
Blogger Owl said...

"They may lack a unifying commander-in-chief, but there is broad consensus on the religio-political strategy"

YG, are you sure there is no unifying commander-in-chief (under whatever name)?

It does seem to be more like multiple battalions of the same army.

A first step could be to declare IS and all the groups you listed as illegal and anyone joining one of them could be arrested and sent to prison (minimum 100 years) on their return home.

When is the very wide forehead going to wake up and see the enemy for what it is?

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

Preacher said @12:06
The Muslim population in the free World must show greater rejection & condemnation of IS & all it stands for.

That would be like asking them to tear out vast tract of the Koran. Or it would be like saying Christians should ignore the Old Testament.

For both Christians and Muslims, their faith is ultimately based on all of the text, not just part. If they ignore the 'Bad' bits, they can no longer be Islamic. They become something as yet un-named or maybe 'Moderate Muslims'

I have a particular distaste for luke warm Christianity. Rev.3:16 tells us 'So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth'

21 August 2014 16:46  
Blogger B flat said...

I am glad that some people understand that IS at present is waging open war on all who do not subscribe to their strict view of Islam. It is painfully evident that the "post-Christian" West is currently unable to comprehend that so many people could actually be so strongly committed to their (or any) religion. So we who live our religion seriously can see the danger, but are powerless, having headless chickens as leaders.
I know I would rather have Dreadnought in charge of the country at this time, than Cameron or the EU.

Are the fighters for IS not psychopaths? Even if they are "stopped" as the Pope said, what is to be done with them subsequently? How can anyone bear the possibility of having them free in the same town, on our streets? Is the decapitation in Greenwich not sufficient warning for us? The death penalty seems the only just and safe solution for a civilised society to impose, as an appropriate retribution for the IS soldiers free decision to join these modern criminal barbarians.
As for reasoned dialogue with the Muslims, I would be in favour but do not see how it could happen. We had prelates eager for "inter-faith" contact (not evangelisation!) who served no useful purpose except to be useful idiots and tell us that all is well. On the other hand, how much harm has been done to our future by the Saudi-endowed Muslim infiltration of our educational system, our legal system, and our politics?
Please listen to a few minutes of this lecture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFO1AtjoUoo

At 22.00 The Project of the Muslim Brotherhood to dominate the west is described.
At 23.30 the situation in Europe is introduced.
At 25.00 begins the unmasking of the infiltration of America by the Muslim cultural Jihad and at 26.10 we see the answer to the question (put by Time for Tea at 12.27) about Mr Obama's behaviour over the Middle East.

The film was uploaded in 2011, long before ISIS had come to the attention of most people. We have overslept.

21 August 2014 17:01  
Blogger Sidney Deane said...

Lucy Mullen

I was actually equating Odin with Allah, if you read again.

Odin and Zeus were just the first gods that came into my head the point was that the gods people worship depend on those that happen to exist at the time.

And this point was in relation to Jonny's comment that we will never be able to rid ourseleves of Islam. If that were true we'd still be believing in gods of years gone by.

21 August 2014 17:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Some excellent posts. I particularly liked your succinct expression of the uses (and abuses) of the word "secularism" @1433.

21 August 2014 17:28  
Blogger Albert said...

Sidney,

And 2. as I've repeatedly said, ban islamic faith schools.

Are you aware that each of the 7/7 bombers went to secular schools? Granted, the sample is small, but it ought to give pause for thought: somehow that wonderful education of secular, liberal inclusivity did not prevent those men becoming suicide bombers. I wonder why that is.

We should be debating whether Islam itself is all a load of old bollocks. This will at least encourage muslims to question their beliefs and not just blindly obey what their parents told them.

Again, this is completely to misunderstand the religion. Muslims aren't Muslims because they have sat down with Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and decided that a rational examination of the evidence shows Islam is true. From a Muslim perspective (or for many Muslims, at least), human reason, with its questions, is not an authority. What you have suggested there would be to many, an example of idolatry - placing human reason above the revealed words of Allah. You won't eliminate Islam that way, you'll only alienate Muslims.

The reality is that not all Muslims are violent or bad. Those that are not need not worry us. Those that are, believe something like the following, I think: Islam is shown to be true when a particular brand of Muslims fight battles and win. It shows Allah is with them. These people will be far more likely lose that belief when their particular brand of Islam starts losing battles than rational arguments.

21 August 2014 17:40  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The RAF honed its bombing skills in northern Iraq in the 1920s and 1930s.And some here say we do not learn from history!

21 August 2014 17:56  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Sidney Deane (15:04)—You’re right. I made the mistake of looking at population trends when I should have clutched at wishful thinking.

‘Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades – an average annual growth rate of 1.5% for Muslims, compared with 0·7% for non-Muslims. If current trends continue, Muslims will make up 26·4% of the world’s total projected population of 8·3 billion in 2030, up from 23·4% of the estimated 2010 world population of 6·9 billion.’—Pew

21 August 2014 17:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

You are very correct. I would take Dreadnaught's loyalty oath - indeed I did so - but it was always understood that my obedience never extended any further than the scope of the states' lawful authority.

The struggle is not over the state but over the conception of what the state should be. The unity of the state must be undergirded by a common ideological perspective. That foundation is typically provided by religion. Secularists (after the French model) are trying to found a state on a worldview that believes in nothing. They want the concept of Truth relegated to the status of man-made construct. But how then do you define the boundaries of society? There is nothing to constrain the players that all the players agree upon. Secularists are just sort of trusting to cultural inertia. That's a foolish hope since they have already established each man as his own Truth. So they get very nervous when something powerful and non-Secular comes along. They don't know how to constrain it given the tools they possess. It wouldn't matter if the underlying values are largely common ... but they aren't. It reveals the fundamentally religious nature of man's society. Secularists want to maintain parts of Christianity while discarding the metaphysics of Christianity. But the former rests upon the later which they discover to their dismay when dealing with Islam.

So suddenly you hear talk of banning the Koran and demolishing mosques. But such displays of fear only make Islam more confident.

carl

21 August 2014 18:04  
Blogger Albert said...

IanCad is right on the loyalty oath. The turn what is essential inbuilt into the bonds of society into some kind of contract is to devalue it. In any case, as Locke pointed out, the value of an oath to each individual varies according to his wider moral outlook:

'Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist'

Whereas a Christian, swearing by God, does something far more serious and binding. Moreover, there are the limits of the oath and its interpretation. I would gladly swear an oath to my country, but I would take is as obvious that the oath did not cover the state requiring me to do something immoral or contrary to my religion, for example. Accordingly, the value of the oath could rendered fairly worthless in two ways.

21 August 2014 18:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

So suddenly you hear talk of banning the Koran and demolishing mosques. But such displays of fear only make Islam more confident.

and individual, innocent Muslims, more fearful...

21 August 2014 18:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

Exactly. Because that is where it must go. You can't define a group of people as enemies without expecting individuals in the group to be treated as enemies. And there is utterly no way to parse the good from the bad before the fact. The one provides camouflage for the other. And so a fearful people will make no distinction and in turn create fear.

carl

carl

21 August 2014 18:22  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...


As an ex-serviceman you know damned well that fear can be overcome with confidence and confidence grows from positive cohesive action. Fear in itself is not a sign of weakness; failure to recognise fear in yourself and in others is stupidity.

I agreed Banning the Koran and demolishing mosques would be the cherry on the cake but that can wait until Islam is kicked out and far of our shores: take the sugar off the table and the ants eventually piss off.




21 August 2014 18:28  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 August 2014 18:32  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl

Excellent points.

"The unity of the state must be undergirded by a common ideological perspective."

And currently we have the Russian model ('hooligan' laws and a lack of tolerance for liberal opinion) and the Chinese model (physical repression of dissent and all religions registered and their leaders appointed by the state) for dealing with what they consider to be seditious undermining of the nation's ideological foundations.

"Because that is where it must go. You can't define a group of people as enemies without expecting individuals in the group to be treated as enemies."

Plus, the group of people defined and treated as enemies will start behaving as enemies. A rudimentary knowledge of social identity and group theory tells us this. Stereotype all Muslims as Jihadists in waiting and treat them as such and we are heading in the direction of dismantling democracy altogether.

21 August 2014 18:44  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

carl

You can't define a group of people as enemies without expecting individuals in the group to be treated as enemies.

Bloody ell man - its Islam that problem to be tackled Islam not soddin Muslims as individuals.

They can of course consider several solutions to their dilemma if they still want to live amongst us in the West: - drop the ideology and find a better life focus system; become atheist, no one will kill apostates from atheism even if you drop out. Become a Christian, could do worse, there's plenty of sects to tempt you; or simply go to where you feel better served.

21 August 2014 18:46  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

This creature John is a British black man then ! To be expected really - black and muslim being the very worst mix of all, as Fusilier Rigby’s family will attest to. It’s dangerous because it brings together so many unpleasant racial attributes, you see. A negro’s propensity to extreme violence combined with a desert paedophile’s philosophy that you can do no wrong in your struggles to set men free under Allah. It’s enough to make any sensible chap wail and ask what has happened to our once fine country that gave the world so much that we gladly import these dodgy lesser peoples and congratulate ourselves on ‘doing the right thing’.

As for Obama, are we seeing cruel (self) deception or Realpolitik at work. We have to give the man some credit, for wherever his sympathies truly lie, the faith of his father perhaps, he has been overtaken by events. He needs to take the Islam out of Islamic State, because failure to do so will alienate Arab countries in the region whose leadership are just as appalled (probably) as the rest of the world. So, like the cunning opportunists before him, he puts his hand to cover his eyes and extols that the only Islam really is the peaceful kind, as seen in countries with strong arm men in charge, and security forces that really can keep their wretched populations at bay.

By the way, if the tragic images of the Arab muslim unleashed and fulfilling his racial inevitable hasn’t killed ‘the legitimate hopes and benefits’ of establishing democracy in the Middle East stone dead, one really will despair, because unless the blighters obtain atomic weapons and ‘democratically vote’ to use them on the West including Israel, nothing will. After all, did not the Gazans democratically elect Hamas to help them fulfil their aims and ambitions, apparently at whatever the cost, as Churchill would have understood it. {AHEM}

21 August 2014 18:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

If you had confidence in the ability of Secularism to defeat Islam, you would not have made the very first post on this thread. What is the threat posed by Islam after all? Will it swoop up through Turkey in a massive human wave of conquest? No. The threat is identified in one word - children. And how do children become a threat except through displacement? Again and again we return to the decadent West aborting and contracepting itself into oblivion. How is it that a culture once so vibrsnt has become so selfish and self-absorbed and yet still feels entitled to all it possesses. That is the malady of the west. Believing in only the Self, it serves only the Self. Yet it wants to maintain its place. Possessing no strength to compete it threatens those who would displace it. Displace it how? By the horrendous act of having children.

The weakness of the West may be seem in its hostile response to the non-aggressive act of conceiving and raising children. The West doesn't much care for that responsibility any more. And yet it doesn't want to be held to account for its sloth and selfishness.

So it starts seeing enemies and ponders the merit of violence.

carl

21 August 2014 19:02  
Blogger Roy said...

I'm just watching the Channel 4 News. It started with Jon Snow asking "how can we stop British people [travelling to the Middle East to join the Islamic State]."

Is there any genuinely British people who are not heartily sick of hearing jihadis described as "British." They may have British passports but that simply shows how treacherous the behaviour of the last Labour government was in throwing the floodgates open to immigrants with not genuine connection or loyalty to this country.

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

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 August 2014 19:31  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

carl

Introducing your favourite Aunt-Sally to the thread in your first half sentence is way below par for your particular talent and suggests, that you either have no faith in Christianity's future or any future as we know it at all. Is Evangelism still a means of propagating Christianity? I think it definitely used to be when I was a nipper.

Are Christians not actively knocking on doors in Deerborn MI or Bradford UK? You know out there on the cobbles amongst all that majority, the much vaunted finest of Islam's cuddliest and moderate muslims? If not why not? or are you just out for a bit of fun at the expense of realism.

Either way I'm out.

21 August 2014 19:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

I'm just reflecting on these two statements:

its Islam that problem to be tackled Islam not soddin Muslims as individuals.

and

They can of course consider several solutions to their dilemma if they still want to live amongst us in the West: - drop the ideology and find a better life focus system; become atheist, no one will kill apostates from atheism even if you drop out. Become a Christian, could do worse, there's plenty of sects to tempt you; or simply go to where you feel better served.

I just don't think you can distinguish so easily between "kicking Islam out from our shores" and the individual Muslims. You ask them to find a different belief system. Why? Because you take them to be at war with us. But most Muslims aren't at war with us, and they are outraged by those who are. Why then should they be forced to change their religion? They will say (and my own reading of the Qur'an confirms this) that the kinds of violence that are motivating your policy are condemned by Islam. Why would you want them to give up a religion that they hold condemns what you don't want them to do? How will that help?

And how exactly, are you going to implement this policy? I mean, without undermining their basic human rights? Earlier on, Carl claimed:

They [secularists] want the concept of Truth relegated to the status of man-made construct.

That being the case, human rights also are simply a man-made construct. Lo and behold, all the demands here from secularists for Muslims to have their human rights violated. If this is what it is like when the wood is still green!

This then is the problem: the West has lost all basis for its morality. Result: at the first sign of trouble, truth claims it claimed to be foundational are ditched in the name of unjust violence. Without truth the West has no culture to defend itself without violence. It is secularism that is permitting Islam to be a threat to the West.

21 August 2014 19:45  
Blogger Albert said...

As the final point isn't clear, by violating Muslims' rights in the name of violence, you are ditching your own culture and allowing yourself to become a clone of the extremists. And since when has the kind of thing you are proposing worked? You would sell your Western soul, make martyrs out of Muslims and yet Islam would grow as never before.

21 August 2014 19:48  
Blogger IanCad said...

I'm going to jump in here Dreadnaught. @ 19:37.

What you have written is disturbing to us Christians who claim to take the Great Commission seriously.

No! I for one hang my head in shame.


A Muslim, tending the flowers outside his mosque just after our services have concluded.
Do I engage him in conversation? Comment on the beauty of the landscaping? Make a friend?
No. Another time perhaps. Maybe he wouldn't want to talk with me anyway.

The evasions and excuses are legion. As are the opportunities.

We shall not pass this way again.

As an aside; it is generally held by the Muslims of Dearborn that 9/11 was the worst thing that could happen to them.

21 August 2014 19:59  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Roy. Excellent point. What's wrong with 'Muslim British'. Everything you need there, and us folk no longer annoyed.

21 August 2014 20:10  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

You know Albert - you so remind me of the Preacher played by Jack Harkins at Rorke's Drift in the film Zulu. I cannot take your comments seriously and have no inclination to respond.

'Trot along now - there's a good Gentleman'

21 August 2014 21:16  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Sticking with film analogies Dreadnaught, you remind Jack somewhat of the sheer arrogance of Lord Chelmsford and Sir Bartle Frere in Zulu Dawn. They too failed reason and didn't understand the true nature of the situation they faced.

General Lord Chelmsford:
"For a savage, as for a child, chastisement is sometimes a kindness."

Sir Henry Bartle Frere:
Let us hope, General, that this will be the final solution to the Zulu problem."

Zullluuuuuu ....

21 August 2014 21:50  
Blogger Martin said...

GM

Excellent point, we have people murdering inconvenient infants, many certainly illegally in the UK, and the state does nothing about it.

21 August 2014 22:24  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (19:02)—The threat is identified in one word - children. Again and again we return to the decadent West aborting and contracepting itself into oblivion

The overarching threat is mass immigration. Britain has ‘welcomed’ Third World cultures with higher birth rates for the last 60 years and then 2004 saw the start of the East European invasion. High immigration and high birth rates have put greater demand on the housing stock, increasing the price, and they have also held down wages, making housing more difficult to afford—the UK house price to earnings ratio has risen from 3·5 to 4·8 over the last 60 years (see Table 2 on page 5 of this PDF). The result is that, ‘Fearing the cost of childcare, extra food, schooling and housing, millions of couples cannot fathom having children before their 40s. Hundreds of thousands of people in their 20s and 30s have accepted that they will have to rule out a family altogether.’

Mass immigration has made Britain an incomparably worse country in which to raise a family. Please direct your anger not at the couples who are doing their best to cope but at those responsible for transforming a First World nation into a cesspit. Your cooperation is appreciated.

21 August 2014 22:38  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Preacher @ 13.52 says, 'It seems that many communicants today vacillate between the Gestapo & Clockwork Orange as the solution.
Kill them all, inter them, deport them, or brainwash them.'

Brainwashing is certainly the least complicated option, but can we not describe that as 'conversion'?

On a wider point, and this will never be accepted by His Grace's pacifist communicants, who seem uncharacteristically silent at present, it is axiomatic that wars are only won by those who match or exceed the ruthlessness of their opponents.

This dictum applies to wars of the abstract as much as it applies to wars of the physical. Most wars combine the two and our jihad against Islam is no exception. Importantly, it is necessary to define two things, what we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

Christian, or at least, non-Muslim jihadis have yet to reach agreement on either of the pre-conditions mentioned above. The Western political class is self-evidently failing in jihad leadership, as His Grace proves.

21 August 2014 22:41  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

You can say that all you like, but if we follow your model (which is so impracticable and immoral, that it cannot be taken seriously), we become the very violence and intolerance you object to.

But as you are so disturbed by the world around you, remember this: no one can blame our present situation on Christianity, it all happened on the secular liberal's watch.

21 August 2014 23:23  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ernst sees that the MSM (just watched Sky News report about Muslims and their 'ISOLATION')have gone into overdrive as Islamic apologists.

Three young Muslims explained they were British (What does this bland statement even mean to them?).

One female said she felt scared to state she was a muslim after ISIS reports in the media (The headscarf and asian look might have been a clue to any curious inquirer, my dear! and no condemnation against ISIS, just "we are different kind of muslims" *YAWNS* We keep hearing the same tired old mantra, don't we?) and feared she could not "go out on the street to protest..." (her conclusion was clinically/cynically terminated in the report. Most likely finished with ..."against the jewish atrocity against gazan muslims"?!). Allowing her to finish her sentence would never do, now would it. What would the people think? Why would a muslim feel the urgent need to 'protest'...they are 'British' as they stated, aren't they?

The same thing happened after the murder of Lee Rigby, with muslims given airtime to state their fear and the violence they suffered after the event, despite Andrew Gilligan of Telegraph showing it was muslims themselves falsifying the acts themselves.

We appear to have enemies against the genuine well-being of our nation whenever and wherever you look. It don't look good...SCARY.!!!

Blofeld

21 August 2014 23:25  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

JR

Immigration is self-limiting. It will only go on so long as the economy and political environment can sustain it. You aren't going to become a Muslim country through mass immigration. In fact, I don't think you will become a Muslim country at all. It's the fear of it that will drive the changes. And that fear isn't going to go away once the walls to immigration go up.

millions of couples cannot fathom having children before their 40s.

Right. It's too expensive to have children in one of the richest countries in the world. However did the human race survive to develop the welfare state? Well anyways, the collective desire to choose a higher standard of living by procreating fewer children (or no children at all) is why you started letting in all those immigrants in the first place. Capitalism needs a work force.

And you went and found it.

carl

21 August 2014 23:29  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Well anyways, the collective desire to choose a higher standard of living by procreating fewer children (or no children at all) is why you started letting in all those immigrants in the first place. Capitalism needs a work force. And you went and found it.

Exactly. The correct order of causation is essential here. What's been going on on thread all day is people beginning with a conclusion (namely get rid of Muslims, innocent or not) and then fit the narrative to the conclusion.

The problem with the West isn't Muslims. It's stupid liberalism.

21 August 2014 23:34  
Blogger Martin Marprelate said...

Golly! Smell the fear!
Thirty years ago it was the Angry Brigade and the Red Army faction. Where are they now?

'I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a native green tree.
Yet he passed away, and behold, he was no more; indeed I sought him but he could not be found'
(Psalm 37:35-6. Read the whole psalm).

Anyway, David Cameron is going to teach the Moslems good British values like abortion on demand, same-sex 'marriage,' drunkenness and promiscuity. So that's alright.

22 August 2014 00:00  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

JR

You do talk nonsense at times to bolster your master race ideology. The threat posed by Islamists has not been caused by economics. The first wave of West Indian immigrants were good, God fearing Christians encouraged to come here because they were needed. No possibility of violent Jihad from them based on a *Holy Book*.

When Jack married and was blessed with children he didn't expect a brand new house and home, all fully equipped and furnished with a double garage. No, he and his wife just got on with it, so to speak, rented, and muddled through as best we could - knowing it would all work out. Hard work and effort meant after a few years, by the kindness of God, money troubles faded. Apart from Christ, children are the greatest treasure a man and woman can receive on this earth.

Watch TV and all the programs about house buying and about all the fancy flipantries *needed* today - plus cars for everybody. Wall to wall luxury, new clothes, conservatories and not forgetting the mandatory foreign holidays twice yearly. All for what? To satisfy and fill the hole left by an absence of faith, that's what.

The start of of the decline in family life and children? In Jack's opinion, the 1930 Lambeth Conference when contraception was approved in limited circumstances. The first Christian Church to condone it. Then, in 1958, the Lambeth Conference decided the responsibility for the number and frequency of children was a matter for the consciences of parents in ways they decided. Look what's actually happened since.

Look to liberalism - in society and the church - for the root cause of our ills and present democratic solutions consistent with our long cherished values.

22 August 2014 00:21  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Martin M

And contraception - or doesn't this count?

22 August 2014 00:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Albert and Carl (Our blog's own Alas Smith and Jones but without mel smith and griff rhys jones intellectual prowess or laughs *chuckles*)

" Carl,

Well anyways, the collective desire to choose a higher standard of living by procreating fewer children (or no children at all) is why you started letting in all those immigrants in the first place.(Immigration was encouraged by the British Nationality Act of 1948, which gave all Commonwealth citizens free entry into Britain. FREE ENTRY!!! It is hard to halt entry when it's guaranteed, now ain't it?) Capitalism needs a work force. And you went and found it (After ww2 we needed an influx of workers but hardly the continuous flood that has persisted. You will find that the majority of workers underpricing natives here are eastern european...Have'nt heard of Bakri your local muslim builder or Peduil the halal plumber yet?).

Exactly. The correct order of causation is essential here (Wish you had stated one but we live in hope?). What's been going on on thread all day is people beginning with a conclusion (namely get rid of Muslims, innocent or not) and then fit the narrative to the conclusion (Hardly. Islam is a problem waiting to happen but how do you solve a problem like Mohammed? The astute know what lies ahead if it is allowed to run amok, unfettered).

The problem with the West isn't Muslims. It's stupid liberalism." If old Ernst remembers rightly, Ratzinger backtracked and got the wobblies after standing up to Islam...Liberal was he??? Hilarious.

It's called cowardice and effects all and sundry to varying degrees until we find ourselves in our current predicament. Ernst really calls a spade a spade and stands by it.

Stick with Aquinas, there's a nice old duffer.

Blofeld

ps

I suppose condemning muslims would be the same as condemning rc's seeing as Pope jp2 said in 1985 at a conference for young muslims "Christians and Muslims, we have many things in common as believers and as human beings....We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God...." http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1985/august/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19850819_giovani-stadio-casablanca_en.html

He nicely sidestepped mentioning Jesus as THEIR needed Saviour. An opportunity missed that you cannot see St Paul or Peter making.

What a Pope and what an ambassador for Christ !!

22 August 2014 01:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny :"High immigration and high birth rates have put greater demand on the housing stock, increasing the price, and they have also held down wages, making housing more difficult to afford [...]"

Ironically, it was the baby boom and increased longevity due to a better lifestyle and better healthcare that put the pressure on with the so-called demographic timebomb playing out.

22 August 2014 01:31  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (23:29)—You aren’t going to become a Muslim country through mass immigration
● My comment does not mention Britain becoming a Muslim country. When it comes to the economic and social effects of mass immigration, I make no distinction by colour or religion: it is all harmful to the indigenous population.

Right. It’s too expensive to have children in one of the richest countries in the world
● Well done. You have just called those millions of couples liars.

the collective desire to choose a higher standard of living by procreating fewer children (or no children at all) is why you started letting in all those immigrants in the first place
● Back to front, I’m afraid. The immigrants were let in (against the wishes of the people and without their consent), the resultant pressure on housing made it more expensive to settle down, and British couples were forced to have a smaller family or, in some cases, to abandon their dream of having a family.

Capitalism needs a work force
● Capitalism had a workforce but the workforce wasn’t cheap enough so capitalism flooded the country with immigrants to hold wages down.

@ Albert (23:34)—See my reply to carl jacobs.

@ Happy Jack (00:21)—your master race ideology
● See my reply to carl jacobs about making no distinction by colour or religion.

22 August 2014 01:37  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

HJ

"The start of of the decline in family life and children? In Jack's opinion, the 1930 Lambeth Conference when contraception was approved in limited circumstances. The first Christian Church to condone it. Then, in 1958, the Lambeth Conference decided the responsibility for the number and frequency of children was a matter for the consciences of parents in ways they decided. Look what's actually happened since.

Look to liberalism - in society and the church - for the root cause of our ills and present democratic solutions consistent with our long cherished values. "

R.U.B.B.I.S.H. it's D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Ernst

22 August 2014 01:41  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

ps

You don't need 10 children to be a family but you do NEED a Mother and Father sticking through thick and thin to hold the family together...as you have stated above in YOUR marriage!

Ernst

22 August 2014 01:44  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Blowers

Not all Roman Catholics accept the inter-religious dialogue approach that came from Vatican II. Certainly, it resulted in many errors and mistakes. Poe John Paul may be a recognised as a saint but this doesn't mean his approach in this area was infallible!

However, you, like many of its critics, who rely on statements made out of context, fail to understand Rome's call to engage in a discussion with Islam and Judaism founded on a rational discussion of the known attributes of God and the worth of all individuals. Long may this approach continue.

With Jews and Muslims this starts from the premise we have something in common and worship a Supreme Being who values each of us. Together, by searching and discussing our Holy Books, we may come to a better mutual understanding. Whether this bears fruit is another matter altogether.

Like you, Jack believes the Church should evangelise in the name of Jesus Christ. But just how far will this actually get us with Muslims and Jews at this stage? There is so much violent history and baggage between us that we need to find common first based on who God is and some over-arching principles of freedom of faith and worship and the value of individuals. That was Pope Benedict's message as Jack understands it. You should know by now that Rome always plays the long-game and trusts in God to convert people once His message is freely preached and the ground has been prepared.

Ps

Started work yet? And how's that troublesome back?

Jack is getting ever more excited as the 'Day of the Duckling' approaches. Only 5 weeks now!!!!

22 August 2014 02:06  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Pope - not Poe!

And common ground - not common.

22 August 2014 02:08  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Blowers

Don't you see that once you break the link between marriage as a partnership for having and raising children and condone artificial methods of birth control, it no longer needs to be a life long relationship? Or heterosexual for that matter. It becomes a matter of *self-fulfilment* and *sexual expression*. Divorce follows the acceptability of sex for sex sake. So does abortion.

It never entered Jack's head not to have to children or to consider divorce. The two went together like a horse and carriage. Marriage was always life long for the purposes of having and raising children.

22 August 2014 02:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Blofeld

Re: Alas Smith & Jones

Why do you do these this to me?

My first reaction was "Why is he comparing us to the characters in a minor TV western from the early 70s?". But then I decided you didn't mean "Alias Smith and Jones" and you hadn't simply miss-typed "Alias." Which left me with a problem. "What exactly were you referring to?" Off to google and YouTube and 33 minutes of "The Best of AS&J.". I think I laughed twice. And I felt guilty both times. Well, OK. The car plunging over the cliff followed by "Let's try that three point turn again, shall we?" was funny. Other than that ...

Now, being a comedic genius myself, I obviously possess no affinity for (the ironically named concept of) "British humor." So I don't see how your comparison works at all. In fact, I am somewhat mystified by it - I, the certified comedic genius that I am.

carl

22 August 2014 02:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Not all Roman Catholics accept the inter-religious dialogue approach that came from Vatican II. Certainly, it resulted in many errors and mistakes. Poe John Paul may be a recognised as a saint but this doesn't mean his approach in this area was infallible!" His speech was purposely contrived and shamefully he denied his Saviour before sinners. How shameful is that as his ambassador on earth (Rome alleges).?

However, you, like many of its critics, who rely on statements made out of context (How so?), fail to understand Rome's call to engage in a discussion with Islam and Judaism founded on a rational discussion of the known attributes of God and the worth of all individuals ( Is Allah the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob/Israel..He never mentions it once in the Koran ). Long may this approach continue.

With Jews and Muslims this starts from the premise we have something in common and worship a Supreme Being who values each of us(Good Lord, fella. The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob IS Our God...Allah is NOT). Together, by searching and discussing our Holy Books, we may come to a better mutual understanding. Whether this bears fruit is another matter altogether.(You are an infidel and unequal to a muslim.Convert or suffer the temporal consequences at their hands.Jesus says we are all sinners and need Him, Deny him and suffer the eternal consequences. Happy hunting finding that elusive mutual understanding)

Like you, Jack believes the Church should evangelise in the name of Jesus Christ (So what stopped the Popes, then and now). But just how far will this actually get us with Muslims and Jews at this stage (Muslims and Jews have gone to the grave unsaved, have they not, by Rome's silence when given a platform?!)? There is so much violent history and baggage between us that we need to find common first based on who God is and some over-arching principles of freedom of faith and worship and the value of individuals. That was Pope Benedict's message as Jack understands it. You should know by now that Rome always plays the long-game and trusts in God to convert people once His message is freely preached (When was it?) and the ground has been prepared (Then when will it, if you don't preach. The ground must be ploughed before the seed laid) .

Ps

Started work yet (In just over a week. Mrs B has got me doing jobs before I start..The slave driver *Giggles*)? And how's that troublesome back (Spread to my left shoulder and arm...may have rheumatoid and taking so many anti inflammatory tablets I rattle when I walk.)?

22 August 2014 02:56  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Happy Jack
"Look to liberalism - in society and the church - for the root cause of our ills and present democratic solutions consistent with our long cherished values."
The thirty years of Troubles in Northern Ireland?

22 August 2014 02:56  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Jack is getting ever more excited as the 'Day of the Duckling' approaches. Only 5 weeks now!!!! (OMG. How time flys. Trust and pray all is well with you all)

Don't you see that once you break the link between marriage as a partnership for having and raising children and condone artificial methods of birth control (Two separate issues to old Ernst but a happy family whether 2 or 12 children is key...Contraception is an RC issue. Remember RC's, like Muslims are born into their faith. Non RC's are converted as believing adults, A christening to Ernst is an associate membership..Full membership is on confessing Jesus as an adult and therefore truly believing He died for you personally), it no longer needs to be a life long relationship (Children are a blessing given by God NOT a necessity of a happy marriage)? Or heterosexual for that matter. It becomes a matter of *self-fulfilment* and *sexual expression*. Divorce follows the acceptability of sex for sex sake (Divorce can also be because you foolishly chose poorly a partner for yourself before discovering that lust is NOT love). So does abortion.

It never entered Jack's head not to have to children or to consider divorce (Most people want children as old blowers did but who marries with divorce on their mind...It comes after crisis's that test what we have). The two went together like a horse and carriage. Marriage was always life long for the purposes of having and raising children (Indeed, if you are blessed with them but having 14 children KNOWING you cannot afford them is irresponsible. Happiness is quality not quantity as is the numbers of believers the almighty requires as His family) .


Nighty Night fella. God bless you and your family.

Blowers

22 August 2014 02:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Carl

I was thinking more of this as your discourses with Albert pan out on the blog go...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQicl2US5UA *Sniggers*

22 August 2014 03:14  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Blofeld

I heard tonight that "Starship Troopers" (which I might consider the worst adaptation of a novel ever if I could bring myself to acknowledge that the movie even exists) was a comedy and only British audiences laughed in the right places. Boy, does that explain alot.

I watched the clip. Come on, now. It was hard for me to get through it. Just a bunch of double entendres. Albert and I would never do anything like that. It would be unnatural.

Albert and I, we understand each other. He's wrong. I'm right. Unless he agrees with me. Then he gets to be right, too.

carl

22 August 2014 03:47  
Blogger keltikboy said...

Would you let a suspected pedophile babysit your kids ?

22 August 2014 06:58  
Blogger Albert said...

Blofeld,

Thank you for suggesting Carl and I are like Alas Smith and Jones. I think you are unfair in suggesting Smith and Jones lack our intellectual prowess and laughs, though.

22 August 2014 09:16  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 August 2014 10:59  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Happy Jack (00:21)—The God-fearing West Indians have bequeathed a legacy we could do without. In 2010, London’s black population of 12 per cent committed 54 per cent of street crime, 59 per cent of robberies and 67 per cent of gun crime.

@ DanJ0 (01:31)—This parliamentary PDF is packed with titbits, including, in Box 1: ‘BME groups now account for 73% of the UK’s total population growth, due to differences in fertility rates and some inward migration.’ The statistics are derived from the 2001 census, before the East European invasion pushed immigration even higher. By 2013, Britain’s population was growing the fastest of any EU country.

22 August 2014 11:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Albert and I, we understand each other. He's wrong. I'm right. Unless he agrees with me. Then he gets to be right, too.

Carl is always right, except for when he disagrees with the Catholic Church.

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

They're both wrong when they disagree with Happy Jack.

23 August 2014 00:35  
Blogger Len said...

You are all wrong when you disagree with God.

23 August 2014 10:30  
Blogger Albert said...

As are you Len.

23 August 2014 12:08  
Blogger Len said...

At least I admit it albert and don`t just call it a' tradition?.'

23 August 2014 13:12  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Tired of this.

Tired, tired, tired.

Just drop me a line when the West wakes up, hand me a rifle and I will do what our ancestors did from the conquest of Spain until the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Why do we have to keep reliving history and the consequences of appeasement?

23 August 2014 16:10  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Len

Happy Jack would never disagree with God. Jack has a Church, headed by a Divinely appointed steward, who holds the keys to the kingdom on behalf of Christ, who lets him know what's what.

23 August 2014 19:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

At least I admit it

Where exactly did I not admit it? Now this part of the thread is in jest. But notice: Carl started this by saying he was right (in fact he implied he was always right). I never claimed either of those things for myself. And yet you over look that, and make is sound as I was claiming to be right.

Strange set of priorities.

23 August 2014 21:52  
Blogger Len said...

Unlike some I admit to the possibility to being wrong and If I am wrong I want to know about it.Catholicism (as far as I can make out) does not rule out the possibility of being in error which make it entirely possible to include error in its theology.
As Paul said ( 1 Thessalonians 5:21)
" but test everything; hold fast what is good"
The only thing that can be considered 'good' in the estimation of God at least is that which He has spoken and endorsed.

And that leaves whole chunks of Catholic theology outside of this realm.
Dare you test catholic theology against the truth of God`s Word?. I think not.... but to keep repeating the same Catholic based theology as a 'mantra' does not convince me and I suspect this is because you dare not test catholic dogmas because if you find fault on one part of Catholic theology the whole edifice will collapse.And that is what would happen.Perhaps it is more comforting to hang onto an illusion than to tear that away and to face the truth?.

Albert you claim I have a strange set of priorities but yours are even stranger when you place more weight behind the words of Catholic theologians than the Word of God Himself?.

24 August 2014 09:32  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Len

Really you don't understand Roman Catholicism at all and its position on settled dogma and doctrines, and those not settled; or the relationship between scripture, tradition and reason; or the respective parts played by theologians and the magisterium.

24 August 2014 12:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Albert you claim I have a strange set of priorities but yours are even stranger when you place more weight behind the words of Catholic theologians than the Word of God Himself?

How many times do we have to go through this? It is not that I place more weight on the words of Catholic theologians than on the word of God Himself, it is that I place more weight on the interpretation of scripture of Body of Christ, the pillar and bulwark of truth than I do in your interpretation of scripture.

We have been through this so many times, that I think we face a choice between thinking you are dishonest and thinking such matters as the word of God are too great and too marvellous for you. Either way, your position cannot be defended.

24 August 2014 12:54  
Blogger Len said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 August 2014 17:12  
Blogger Len said...

And who is the interpreter of scripture Albert?.
We have been through this many times and I am trying to think you are not being dishonest or deceitful in your answers?.

24 August 2014 17:26  
Blogger Len said...

Are some scriptures difficult to understand?. Undoubtedly so but do we need to go to a human agency to clarify matters especially one that claims 'infallibility' as the RCC does and also claims total control over interpretation of scriptures and even the authority to create scripture?.
Obviously not so whats the answer?.

2 Pet. 3:15-16 does say that Paul wrote some things hard to be understood and no one denies it; however, neither does that verse, nor any other, tell us that we must go to the RCC for' the true meaning'. Instead, we are commanded and exhorted: grow in knowledge (2 Pet. 3:18), study (2 Tim. 2:15), exercise senses (Heb. 5:14), search (Acts 17:11), receive (James 1:21), read (Eph. 3:3-4), desire it (2 Pet. 2:2), let it unfold (Psalm 119:130), meditate on it day and night (Psalm 1:2) hear it read (Rev. 1:3), have it preached (2 Tim. 4:2-4; 1 Pet. 4:11), test what is said (1 John 4:1; Matt. 7:15-16), prove all things (1 Thess. 5:21). This is God's way--the only one He gives--for understanding the holy Scriptures.

24 August 2014 17:42  
Blogger Len said...

And of course there is the Holy Spirit who will lead us(Christians) into all truth but the RCC have replaced Him with the Pope so no wonder Catholics are so confused and ultra defensive of their un- biblical irrational religion.

24 August 2014 17:46  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I'm afraid that, over and over again you discredit Protestantism.

Protestantism is a religion that claims for the individual the capacity to make private judgements in questions of faith. To do that, of course, one needs to understand those questions of faith. But (assuming you are not being dishonest), by your constant misrepresentation of Catholicism you show you do not understand those questions. Therefore, Protestantism makes a false claim. But that claim stands at the heart of Protestantism. Therefore, if you are honest, Protestantism is false. You're not helping your own cause.

But also see this. This present argument between you and me began because Carl teased me in a good-natured way. I teased back, and HJ joined in. But then you decided to turn it into an occasion to attack Catholicism. It was good-natured until you did that, and I politely suggest that if your comments were music, they would be in a different and dissonant key from the other comments.

24 August 2014 19:24  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Len

Just to reassure you, there is no 'spiritual detention' for a Roman Catholic. Far from it. Indeed, there is a liberty in the certainty of Truth it brings. One is free to focus on Christ and not have to continually seek answers and ask endless, in human terms, irresolvable questions. It's a peaceful and trusting way of living one's faith.

Jack is neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar. He understands neither Greek nor Hebrew; nor Latin for that matter. The bible would be poorly understood by him. He is humbled by the Gospel and by great minds that have devoted their lives to understanding and teaching its mysteries. Also by the simple and profound insights of its mystics and Saints. What an abundant treasure trove of riches to have available. Also knowing the writings will challenge but never damage one's faith because the Church has laboured for millennia to guard Truth.

Read the bible alone and rely on my own spiritual readiness and health to be fully open to workings of the Holy Spirit? No, Jack would sooner stay where he firmly believes Jesus intends him to be.

Jack wishes you well with your own journey. However, he will continue as best he can to put you right on Catholicism. Jack will try to keep this amicable and so should you. We'll both fail, of course!

Have a look at these conversion stories if you want to gain a real insight into Roman Catholicism. Simple human stories of men and women converting to Christ.

25 August 2014 00:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older