Does the Archbishop of Canterbury think the state religion of Britain is PC Libtardism?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/04/african-christians-church-of-england-gay-marriage-justin-welby

African Christians will be killed if C of E accepts gay marriage, says Justin Welby

Archbishop says he has seen mass grave of Christians killed by neighbours who said they feared being 'made to become gay'

Friday 4 April 2014

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/12/homophobia-not-tolerated-schools-church-england

Homophobia must not be tolerated in schools, Church of England says

Archbishop of Canterbury says church schools must not turn 'a convenient blind eye to institutional homophobia'

Monday 12 May 2014


Is it possible that the Archbishop of Canterbury in May has forgotten what he said in April?

Is it possible that the Archbishop of Canterbury does not know that the nicer white people are to their gay people the nastier black people will be to their gay people?

Is it possible that the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't care really about African Christians being murdered for adhering to the faith that is perceived to be the faith of white people known to want to promote gay marriage worldwide?  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/25/gay-marriage_n_3651435.html

Is the Archbishop of Canterbury really not aware that the both the Bible and the Koran are "homophobic"?

Does the Archbishop of Canterbury really think that Christianity is PC Libtardism and that it is his job to promote PC Libardism?

Does the Archbishop of Canterbury believe that people who think of themselves as Christians are too stupid and illiterate to read the Bible and discover for themselves that the Bible and the Koran are definitely "homophobic"?

Can there be any doubt at all that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a creature of the PC Libtard state? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10828762/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-Justin-Welby-says-gay-marriage-is-great.html

Is the way the Church of England has liberalised itself the way forward for the Catholic Church?

Is Christianity fit for the purpose of maintaining the morals of its adherents when its corrupt clergy is now but a mouthpiece for the matriarchal governments of the degenerate West?

Can there be any doubt that the Church is more interested in putting as many filthy rotten stinking bums on its rotten pews so it can say its numbers are increasing than in fulfilling its purpose of maintaining moral standards through preaching the morality of the Bible?

Can you see the efficacy of the Koran which relies on its principles to be translated into law, and the corruptible and corrupt Christian clergy who will say black is white as long as they continue to derive an income from the Church they claim to serve but whose teachings they actually subvert?

What do you think the Catholic Church is doing when the Pope says he is cool with gay marriage and SSMs?

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/09/06/single-mother-says-her-heart-is-filled-with-joy-after-call-from-pope-francis/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2577366/Pope-Francis-stop-condemning-sex-civil-partnerships-hints-leading-cardinal-step-Catholic-gay-marriage.html

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-the-Pope-convert-to-Islam/141277252691901

Is the Muslim-Christian Forum an instrument of PC Libtardism?

http://www.christianmuslimforum.org/

Julian Bond - Director

Julian Bond has been Director of the Christian Muslim Forum since its launch in 2006. 

Before joining the Forum Julian studied Theology and Education at the Universities of Wales and Gloucestershire. After a very brief spell as a Prep School teacher he joined HM Revenue & Customs, with positions in audit, information systems and management consultancy.  However, a Civil Service career was excitingly and unexpectedly interrupted by a two year secondment to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Initiative in Christian-Muslim Relations in 2002. Many years of Civil Service training and experience came into their own as he planned and organised conversations and reflections with Christians and Muslims around the country. He was co-author of the inspiring report of these‘Listening Exercises’ which proposed, in July 2004, that the Archbishop support the creation of a national Christian Muslim Forum.

Julian is passionate about improving relations between Christians and Muslims in the UK and beyond. ‘Our religions do not encourage us to be negative about each other. I am excited by the track record and future potential of the Christian Muslim Forum in creating opportunities to meet, understand and find new ways of living and working together, inspired by a vision of radical friendship.’

Julian Bond is more a Liberal Democrat than a Christian. Such a person would regard the right to have extramarital sex between consenting adults as more important than any moral precept that Abrahamic faiths might promote, ie marriage, which must necessarily and logically mean the prohibition of extramarital sex. http://bogpaper.com/the-liberal-party-a-haven-for-sexual-perverts/

He has already blocked me on Facebook and Twitter and behaves as if the right of consenting adults to have extramarital sex has been won for all time and that there is nothing further be said on the matter.  He also deleted a rather interesting exchange we had on the subject.

Claire Khaw Why would you object to following God's laws, if you do indeed believe in God?

Julian Bond Yes, I believe the Nicene Creed, what is your opinion of it. You previously mentioned God, not God's laws ( whatever they may be). What is the relevance of God's laws (maybe especially for an atheist) in this discussion and in England and Wales, especially when laws were given to Moses for a different people group?

Claire Khaw Both Muhammad and I have agreed that all the Abrahamic faiths have the same moral precepts and these precepts it is your intention to ignore and marginalise, it seems.

Tom Short Claire sorry to interrupt but God is not a governmental controlled product or anything in the likes of that. Yes most of the societal laws that exist are developed from religious laws because they have a good benchmark but in no law does it state that you have to believe in God to obey the law. The laws of man are just that the laws of man. In the monotheistic religions they have all stated that we are created in Gods image and Jesus stated to put love for others above laws.

Julian is one of the nicest Christians I know and if he chooses to take up Jesus' teachings above those of Law and Biblical law then he is proving to be one of the best Christians there are.

Tom Short Also Claire how can you be an atheist when you are proposing fusion of government and religion?

Julian Bond Claire, apart from standing against homophobia and appreciating the Archbishop's pastoral approach I don't think I have marginalised any 'law'.

The Christian Muslim Forum has not taken any position on anything to do with homosexuality.

Claire Khaw You don't have to believe in God to agree that the commandments Thou shalt not kill/commit adultery/steal/bear false witness make perfect sense.

To say you are not homophobic is taking a position on homosexuality. To say that you are is also taking a position on homosexuality. I suppose you could forbid the discussion of this subject, but that would be counter-productive and futile.

Julian Bond Claire, this discussion is on my own page, it is not a Christian Muslim Forum discussion. You're right though, as I said, I have my own personal opinion.

Claire Khaw The Bible and the Koran are clearly "homophobic" so it would appear that you are saying it is more important for you to be a Liberal Democrat than a Christian.

Perhaps subscribing to the Nicene creed allows any so-called believer to take any position that is obviously contrary to Bible while allowing him to plead his belief in the Trinity as his admission ticket to heaven, as long as he expresses remorse for his sins.

Tom Short And whilst I agree with that Claire those laws already exist but others like stoning someone to death for being raped for example is not one that should come into play. We are human and as such we should make laws that benefit all of man not just those who fear homosexuals with the rights to marry might then start to go for the straight people. Because that is rational. In a world that proclaims equal rights in all places but those countries that are not developed enough to have governing systems like we do I say that it should be equal all the time and all round.

Not a problem Julian you know what I am like by now.

Julian Bond Not sure why you're interested in political allegiance, why you think there might be only one 'true' Christian position ir what relevance it has to an atheist. I don't know what you mean by 'protection', I'm not aware of any.

Claire Khaw Only those who subscribe to Trinitarianism are Christian, and only Christians go to heaven. That is the whole point of this doctrine.

Everything else - good works, brave deeds etc - count for nothing.

          Julian Bond That's the protection? You seem to have more interest in it than I do!

Tom Short Jesus said to put love for all above the bibles laws. The whole reason of being a Christian is to follow Jesus's example not the Church. And the The Noble Qur'an has Jesus in it also so they too have the 'protection' to choose love. Muhammad never killed people instead tried to guide them if possible.

Claire Khaw You just have to say you are sorry for saying God is cool with being gay, and  Trinitarianism is a totalitarian doctrine. It is time Christians realised this. It was also the raison d'etre of the Inquisition.The Koran clearly and uncompromisingly denies the Trinity while affirming the Virgin Birth, which is interesting.  I am aware that Christians in the West never think of the Trinity, because they are not encouraged to do so. It is after all the Achilles heel of Christianity. If they think too much about it they would start doubting its "truth" and ask questions that if answered honestly and logically would end them up no longer being Christian once they can no longer say with any sincerity that they truly believe Christ is God Himself.

It is this doctrine that facilitates so much Christian hypocrisy and cant.

It is quite clear that being a Liberal Democrat is more important to you than being the kind of Christian that faithfully follows the will of God as stated in the Bible, and the Bible is in fact undeniably "homophobic".

You will of course insist that it is possible to be a gay marriage promoting Liberal Democrat *and* a Christian, because no one has dared to point out that this is in fact logically impossible, just like it is impossible for it to be both raining and not raining at the same time.

Tom Short Do you know how many sects there are in Islam and in Christianity? Each and every single one has a different doctrine to follow and each and every one follows what they believe to be right. The Orthodox church of the East has just as many sects as the trinitarian, Evangelical, Protestant and Catholics. The only one that would agree with what you are saying are the Puritans.

And yes the Qur'an does state that Jesus is another prophet not the son of God and yes it does affirm the Virgin birth but during the days of Jesus's birth and the times of Muhammed being a virgin was the terms for someone who was not married. I think it is safe to say that we have gone beyond the days of Constantine, the Puritans and the current lot of Extreme Muslims who wish to kill the gays.

What you are talking about does not compute with the religions overall message. There is as much hypocrisy in both. I wouldn't make a habit out of slandering Christians who wish evolve with the times and accept that people can be gay as well as straight.

No what you are proposing is impossible. There are too many religions in this country for your way to work. Too many people who have children out of wedlock. Too many atheists.

And of course the bible is homophobic the ones who wrote it were Roman Christians under the rule of Constantine.

Claire Khaw  The existence of sects is irrelevant to the existence of scripture, which undeniably expresses views about LGBT people that would now be considered "homophobic" by the 21st century libtard.

Since you are free-loving pagan, I am wondering how and why you think you can speak with more authority than any of us. We already know how little you respect the institution of marriage and that believe that it should be your sacred right to have sex with anyone anywhere anytime.

I am quite sure what I say does not compute with people of your ilk, who cannot understand how and why anyone should wish to question your sacred right to have sex with anyone anytime anywhere, but this is unfortunately what the Bible and Koran says, whether you like it or not.

Perhaps when you become dictator you can throw all these books on the scrapheap and burn them, dancing naked round the bonfire in the manner that pagans of old used to do.

While you worship sexual freedom, sexual licence and sexual incontinence, there are those of us who see the purpose of regulating our sexual desires and moral restraint, if you don't mind.

Perhaps before too much longer PC Libtards will force us all to be gay, paedophiles, corporophiliacs, practitioners of incest and bestiality as well as necrophiliacs, fornicators and adulterers. And then there will be heaven on earth, as people like you would see it. What I am proposing is perfectly possible in theory, though I am sure most of the sexual degenerates in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland would rather go to hell in a handcart than contemplate giving up their sacred right to have extramarital sex. Revolutions, however, have been known to happen.

I am afraid all these Interfaith types in the Christian Muslim Forum in fact wield no power because no one listens to them. They are chosen to run these little groups precisely because they are unobjectionable little twerps who cannot possibly offend anyone and will toe whatever line is required of them to seem moderate and inclusive.  They also agree to run these little groups because they already know that only people like them will want to join their pointless little groups.  If Anjem Choudary and his lot turned up to one of their little interfaith meetings they would probably call the cops.

Will he call the cops if I turn up to his lunchtime meeting on 10 June in Whitechapel?  http://www.christianmuslimforum.org/index.php/calendar/forum-events?task=view_event&event_id=214  We will have to see, won't we?

Why the Koran rejects the Trinity

Christianity is the religion of women and slaves, Nietzsche said.

It insists that its adherents proclaim the lie of the trinity, ie that Jesus is the Divine Begotten Son of God, because their very salvation depends on it.

You can imagine what doing this for a whole lifetime would do to your character. You really would be completely stupefied by the effort or be such a practitioner of deceit and hypocrisy you would have deceived yourself on most important matters of morality, as well as made yourself unable to tell the difference between a truth and a lie.

Hitler's contribution to the establishment of the state of Israel should be acknowledged

If it hadn't been for Hitler Zionism would still be dead in the water. Why do Zionists never acknowledge Hitler's contribution to the establishment of the State of Israel? The laws against Holocaust Denial are there to prevent the denial of Hitler's massive contribution of 5 to 7 million Jews.

When they celebrate the birth of their nation, does it occur to them to celebrate Hitler's birthday too? (It is 20 April 1889 if anyone's interested.)

This was what made Western Christian guilt kick in after they acknowledged centuries of being nasty to the Jews. Anti-Semitism was and remains endemic in the West. (It should be pointed out that the Semitic races include Arabs too. Hatred of Jews and Muslims remains sustained and visceral in 21st century Culturally Christian Europe.)

Now, is there something about Trinitarian Christianity that makes Christians particularly intolerant of any forensic analysis of its doctrine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom

There used to be laws that made it very inadvisable to deny the Trinity if you want to hang on to your job or your life.

Why would people wish to deny the Trinity? Because it is reasonable to do so, I would have thought. It is such a dishonest and irrational doctrine that many ignorant white people who call themselves Christians are not even aware that they are supposed to believe in it. This is because of the "bums on pews" policy of desperation that lets anyone in, promoted by an Anglican Church who represent a religion that is no longer fit for purpose.

All the Abrahamic faiths are meant to promote family values. Anglican Christian doctrine does not quite manage this, does it?

Many Christians are made to recite the creed without comprehension. You can be sure it exists because it is only the non-European Christians who know what it's all about. They at least know what the deal is: believe that Christ is the Divine Son of God and you will be saved from hell, whatever your sins.

Still not quite getting it?

Let me simplify it then:

"It is not enough to believe in God. You have to believe that Christ is also Divine Son of God. Sorry, but this the non-negotiable essence of Christianity. That is why the Jews, Muslims and Unitarians are gonna roast in hell. The Inquisition was to save these people from themselves."

The Inquisition was what happened when too many Jews and Muslims started denying the Trinity. Only something like the Inquisition could shut them up good and proper.

The Koran explicitly denies the trinity because it is irrational and amoral. To say God is One in Three is still polytheism and idolatry. Well, it is, isn't it?

Does it sound a bit like a liberal democracy invading other countries to save them for themselves? For their own good? Like Iraq and Afghanistan? You betcha!

Christian guilt thus saw it is as politic to rob the land of Peter Arab to pay Paul Zionist as well as to conduct the occasional pogrom.

Why do the words "Christian" and "hypocrisy" go hand in hand?

We hate and fear the people we have wronged.

Does a religion that makes you declare a lie to be truth have an effect on your intellect and your morals and indeed your very civilisation?

It can be seen that the period of Roman decline can be linked to Constantine's conversion of his empire to the religion of women and slaves.

Is it not about time we disestablished the Church of England, and put something more fit for purpose in its place?

I don't suppose this country is quite ready for a Mosque of Britain, but it would probably be as well to start talking about it, to prepare the ground, rather as Cameron today is now gingerly preparing us for changes in our lifestyle expectations and what diminished expectations we ought to have have of the state for the next few decades ....

I can already think of a lecturer in divinity who would make an excellent Ayatollah of Cambridge.

Bullying = being rude, unkind, unreasonable, offensive, insistent etc

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/29/susan-hill-author-bullying

While bruises heal, words are remembered.

A recent exchange I have had with humanist reveals the degree of intolerance that people who ostensibly subscribe to a liberal ideology of tolerance are capable of.

The only solution is for us all to resolve to become stronger, thicker-skinned, more forgiving and kinder.

Easier said than done!

Geert Wilders: "Islam is not a religion but an ideology"

Geert Wilders, the Dutch Islamophobe who believes Islam is evil, said:

"I view Islam not as a religion, but as a dangerous, totalitarian ideology - equal to communism and fascism. Aren't I allowed to say so?"

Since he has indeed said so, it falls to non-Islamophobes to deconstruct his statement.

The fact is that all religion is but ideology. It is a distinction without a difference, and made to appear profound by those who believe there to be a difference because they are two different words.

The Koran - a work of genius - has a verse for every situation advocating both sides of the argument, eg peace or war, forgiveness or punishment.

If Man is both good and evil, then it follows that his interpretation of God's Word will be done to suit his purpose, which may be good or evil.

As for Islam's alleged totalitarianism, this is a danger any ideology is vulnerable to. After all, all anti-discrimination legislation is in fact totalitarian, because it forbids us from acting as we would wish and infringes our freedom of association and contract. There are many who would now argue that feminism and PC-liberalism are in fact totalitarian.

Wilders is also concerned that Islam is political.

But of course it is, since every moral decision we make is in fact political, eg whether we speak up or shut up on any matter likely to upset someone, when we are with friends, family, employers, customers, and anyone at all with the power to help or hinder us.

In short, Wilders' claim that Islam has the potential to become (or is already) totalitarian should not be greeted with the shock and horror that it is now being received, but with a shrug of the shoulders.

Wilders is saying nothing new. All the things that we do and say and all ideologies have the potential to be wrong, foolish, evil and destructive.

We lose our liberty when we prefer unquestioning obedience to the cultivation of a questioning mind.

We lose our liberty when we choose not to question in order to be safe.

We keep our liberty when our political system encourages us to ask questions and receive proper answers.

We lose it when we choose not to offended and impose censorship on those who would offend us.

As I have said many times before, a one-party state or an Islamic state need not be totalitarian. In fact, it is less likely to be totalitarian if we take the teleological approach to God.

Why did Man create God?

To comfort him and to keep him safe from fear and harm.

By always asking ourselves what evil a verse of the Koran is intended to forbid, or what good it is intended to enjoin, we will be more likely to use wisely this excellent book for the guidance of humanity.

If being Muslim means attaining the peace of submitting to God, and that God is but Truth, Reality, Knowledge and Reason tempered with Mercy, then what is there not to like about Islam? I speak as an atheist believing that it is not in fact necessary to believe in God to be a good Muslim.

If the Islam we in the West see is not to our liking, then it is perhaps time for the West to seize the initiative, and appropriate the Koran in order to serve ourselves better.

Religion comes from the word "religare", the Latin of "to bind", to keep together a society that will always have a tendency to fragment and disintegrate, men (and women) being what they are and always will be.

Society will always need its adhesive, and for this reason God - the most powerful being Man could imagine - will always be used for political purposes.

It is invariably Christians who cannot accept or understand this truth, crippled by their knowledge of this meaningless statement Christ gave the Roman authorities to get himself out of trouble: "I render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and God that what is God's."

In contrast to this unconscionable separation, the Holy Trinity of Religion, Politics and Morality is implicitly acknowledged in the Koran.

It is only Christian Hypocrisy that denies this Truth.

If Muslims are perceived as primitive, dangerous and fanatical, it is only because they have distorted their religion and allowed it to be perverted to suit the purpose of their leaders, who are themselves corrupt, ignorant and mistaken.

If it were not for the fact that the West has lost its own sense of self-belief, it would seize this excellent book and use it for its own benefit, in a manner more creative, progressive and liberal (in the best sense of that word) than the ones who were born into this faith.