Archbishop of Canterbury admits doubts about existence of God
Justin Welby tells BBC radio interviewer there are moments when he doubts – but he is certain about the existence of Jesus
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/18/archbishop-canterbury-doubt-god-existence-welby
SHOCK HORROR: the Archbishop of Canterbury admits to being a Cultural Christian. He is certain Jesus existed, unlike some of the more fanatical and militant atheists who, not content with denying the existence of God, also deny the existence of His prophets.
"Why I think Jesus didn't exist: a historian explains the evidence that changed his mind."
https://t.co/GZV0Vs01bp Good, scholarly lecture.
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) September 21, 2014
What are we to make of Welby's doubts? If he cannot quite convince himself of this minor molehill of God's existence, how can he attempt the mountain that is the divinity of Christ?
From the way he is wittering on one can be forgiven for thinking that his thoughts about Christ are no more than thinking that Jesus is just one of history's good guys rather than God's Anointed Son Made Flesh born of the Virgin Mary.
Does this matter?
Yes, because it means even the Archbishop of Canterbury is so theologically ignorant and does know that he is supposed to believe that Christ is God - an absurd belief, I agree - or to lie about it if he doesn't.
Therein lies the ultimate deception and lie of Christianity: the requirement to believe this absurd idea or to pretend to believe in this absurd idea.
It matters if you believe that the problems of the West has its origins in the failure of its official religion - Christianity. It was of course the trinitarian nature of Christianity that made it antisemitic.
Let us examine for a moment the word "antisemite". Both Jews and Arabs are a Semitic people. Christians did not just hate Jews, they also hated Muslims, and this goes all the way back to the Inquisition. Why did Christians hate Semitic peoples? Because both denied the divinity of Christ. When Christians took their religion seriously they would deal very firmly indeed with the adherents of the other two Abrahamic faiths and conduct Inquisitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Trinity_Act_1813
According to a lecture reported on his website to have been given by Abdal Hakim Murad (Timothy Winter) "it was against the law to be a Muslim in Britain until 1812, with the passage through parliament of the Trinitarian Act (Islam does not have a Trinitarian doctrine); however as the Blasphemy Act applied only to those educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, the amending Act would in theory have applied to converts only to Islam and even then would not have allowed them to refuse to accept the Christian religion.
In the Middle Ages, Christians burnt heretics at the stake and in Salem they even had witch-hunts, not to mention Crusades and Inquisitions. Now, however, because the Archbishop of Canterbury no longer even knows he has to uphold the lie that he believes in the Trinity even when he does not, Christians have completely forgotten what they were like when they took their religion seriously.
Poor old Copernicus and Galileo who dared suggest that the earth went round the sun rather than the other way round!
Poor William Tyndale - executed for translating the Bible into English! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale
As for Christians who wanted to think God was a unitary whole rather than consisting of three elements, well, God help them. http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p268.html
The only advantage Christians naturally had was the frequent wars they would have against each other. They fought each other so much and so often Europeans became the most militaristic race on earth and the cause of the First and Second World Wars. If and when there is a Third World War it will again be caused by Europeans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
Eventually, after WW2, they got tired of fighting each other and settled themselves down to a lifestyle choice of wine, women and song as well as sex and drugs and rock and roll. Having utterly thrown out the baby of social conservatism with the bathwater of Trinitarianism, they are now a degenerate lot quaking in their boots fearing an imminent Muslim takeover.
And what would be the harm of Islam taking over? It would at least be a source of social conservatism, which respects marriage through forbidding extramarital sex.
What are the benefits of forbidding extramarital sex?
It would make men want to marry (in order to have sex and legitimate offspring) and also make women have legitimate children again.
It would end this dysgenic culture of tolerating sluts and bastardy leading to paedophilia, degeneracy and the decline in educational and moral standards, making the West poorer, stupider, weaker and more prone to the collective dementia that might precipitate yet another World War.
Social conservatism requires moral and intellectual respectability, and we cannot expect this to be forthcoming from the anti-immigration parties of the West who are racist, antisemitic, Islamophobic, xenophobic whose members are made up largely of uneducated and illegitimate plebeians.
Neither the Catholic nor the Anglican Church are fit for the purposes of maintaining the morals of the nation because the moral values propagated by the Bible are currently being subverted by its Commie Pinko Homo Lesbo Feminazi clergy who look upon the Church as a source of status and income even as they busily subvert its moral teachings.
Islam at least has the very practical idea of enacting Koranic principles as legislation which all must follow because it is the law of the land.
Which of the following do you think has the lowest entry threshold?
a) Becoming a Jew and living as one
b) Claiming to believe in Christ's divinity even when you do not because this is what is required to be a Christian and therefore one of the gang
c) Acknowledging that there is no God but God and Muhammad is His Messenger
The problems of the West are the problems of Christianity.
If neither Christianity nor Liberalism is fit for purpose - or if they have both become one because Christian clergy are no more and no less than creatures of the PC Liberal state - then another better ideology must be found to impose and maintain social conservatism. A theocracy comes to mind.
A theocracy is a society that abides by the laws of its God, but not all theocracies are the same because different deities require different practices and different laws.
If you had to choose between an Aztec theocracy and an Islamic theocracy the choice, if you wish to avoid becoming either a victim or practitioner of human sacrifice, is obvious.
Which would you rather do?
a) Live your life as a Jew
b) Pretend to believe in the absurdity that Christ is divine
For all sorts of pragmatic reasons one might not wish to be a Jew, eg antisemitism, the demands of being an observant Jew, and prefer the corrupting bargain that a Christian makes, ie eternal life, the forgiveness of sins in return just for pretending to believe that Christ is God. In other words, this would suit the hypocrite.
What about Islam? It has lower entry requirements with less rigorous dietary requirements and laws and does not require you to believe in an absurdity.
If Islam is "Judaism Lite" then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite".
Secular Koranism will also have the effect of making Jews better Jews and Christians better Christians through creating a legal environment which supports marriage and denounces rather than condones sluts.
Which gives you a better sense of being close to God?
a) The spirituality that is your reward when you know you have obeyed His laws
b) Believing falsely that you are in His presence
If we want to obey God's laws either for our own good or for the good of society, then we would have to enact them as legislation.
Those who find this idea objectionable are cordially invited to choose the verse in the Koran they find most objectionable.
But back to the subject to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Will he have have a role in a Khavian Britain governed under the rules of Secular Koranism? The position will not be abolished, fear not, but will be purely ceremonial, like Black Rod. Someone will need to crown the next British monarch, after all. Other than that I cannot see any role at all for an Archbishop of Canterbury who accepted the abomination of gay marriage without demur. If Charles wants someone else -perhaps Muslim - to preside over his coronation, I would certainly see to it that he has his wish, if a Muslim can be found to don the robes of an Archbishop of Canterbury and perform the ceremony with dignity and decorum as the world watches. I must say I find the idea of Tim Winter AKA Abdal Hakim Murad performing this ceremony a rather delicious one.
No comments:
Post a Comment