Why single plebeian men care more about their statues than patrician men in relationships with women who are mostly leftist

Many Post-Christians I know have been damaged by Christianity and its failure.

Christian totalitarianism damaged them through burning as heretics European men who believed in God but denied the Trinity. Michael Servetus must have been the most famous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus

Then, when Europeans were allowed to deny the Trinity after the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 was passed, Christianity began to die.

The Trinity requires Christians to affirm that they worship an executed revolutionary as the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God who created the Universe, which is regarded as idolatry by Jews and Muslims. Christians have been aware for 2000 years that the Ten Commandments forbid idolatry and blasphemy while lacking the self-awareness to acknowledge that they were breaking God's Commandments. Jews and Muslims to their eternal shame have failed to correct them.

The other death blow delivered to Christianity was when the Americans quarantined the church from their state, leading eventually to widespread atheism.

Once the laws of God are in place, belief will follow. When belief goes, the laws of God will be repealed eg capital and corporal punishment, slavery, marriage between a man and a woman parenting properly their legitimate children of their marriage, fault-based divorce etc.

When the laws of God were repealed, atheism as well as satanic and totalitarian feminism destroyed their patriarchy.

Masculinity having been destroyed, Western Man is saying he doesn't care about his statues because his women don't care about his statues.

What is the point of having an Archbishop of Canterbury who is not even Christian?

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.

Redefining the terms of the Natural Law v Legal Positivism debate

The question of the connection between the law and morality is central to the history of legal philosophy. The debate, which has lasted from Ancient Greece to the present day, has been dominated by two broad categories of theory: natural law theory and legal positivism. Classical natural law theorists like Aristotle argued that laws were necessarily connected to man’s moral life, and had as their aim some higher moral – or divine – framework. Legal positivists, whose arguments dominated the 20th Century, argued that natural law theory confused the issue of what the law is and what it ought to be, and that laws could have authority irrespective of whether or not they were ‘good’.

Today, lawyers and Judges tend to think of their role as entirely morally neutral. The idea that the law should reflect, in some way, public morality seems a bit outdated. Why is this? Is it simply because natural law theory has been convincingly defeated? Perhaps the triumph of legal positivism reflects a collapse of moral consensus in wider society? Is there anything from natural law theory worth saving?

http://londonlegalsalon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/are-we-all-legal-positivists-now.html

I think it would be helpful to redefine the terms of debate so we know what we are talking about. My heart always sinks when people approach this debate with a discussion about morality, which none of us can ever agree on and which no one ever attempts to define.

To this end, I shall attempt to define morality in terms general and neutral enough to acquire the necessary consensus required to move this debate forward.

The purpose of morality is social cohesion.  

Religion is the means through which a society acquires social cohesion and is also another name for state ideology. It comes from the Latin "religare" which means "to bind". To bind what? To bind society. Religion is the means through which any society acquires social cohesion. This means that in every age we will have different ideas of what constitutes morality according to fashions of thinking and the spirit of the age.  Religion is therefore the means through which morality - different in every age - is instilled.  In Britain and the West, morality is no longer Christian, but PC Liberal, however much politicians insist that the West is Christian and witter on about its Judeao-Christian heritage.  It can be seen that PC Liberalism overrides the moral values of other forms of morality, because PC Liberalism is supported by legislation ie the Equality Act 2010.  It is already clear that all other ideologies are subordinate to it when a Christian couple was fined for refusing the custom of gay couple http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297171/Christian-B-B-broke-equality-laws-refusing-let-gay-couple-share-room-legally-turn-away-homosexuals-non-profit-organisation.html and a Jewish school was declared sexist and racist for having selection criteria that went against the rules of PC Liberalism.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8415678.stm Freedom of contract is no more, and a Christian baker who refuses to bake a cake of gay propaganda is threatened with prosecution.  http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/08/bert-and-ernie-gay-wedding-cake-northern-ireland-ashers-bakery

If morality is for the purposes of instilling morality, then what is the purpose of politics? I would say that politics is the process of imposing our belief of what  is moral on others.  If we are in government, this is what we can do to others.

The problem with this debate is that nobody really properly defines what natural law is because they confuse it with a kind of universal morality which they cannot define.  As I understand it, natural law was synonymous with God's law and in the West God's law came from a Christian God and can be found in the Bible.

As I see it, all the Abrahamic faiths promote the same kind of moral values and essentially promote what feminists would call the patriarchy through in effect forcing women into marriage because its alternative - prostitution, spinsterhood, a life of fornication, abstinence or lesbianism, was generally considered undesirable.

Social conservatism as I see it amounts to no more than the imposition of the rules of respecting marriage, which logically must meanthe prohibition of extramarital sex.  If in this day and age we as a society do not respect marriage, it is only because the overwhelming majority of people have premarital sex, which is a species of extramarital sex.  Indeed, we are encouraged and expected to do so by the government and the media in the form of literature, theatre, cinema, TV and even schools.  The easiest way to make men respect marriage again would be to simply forbid all forms of extramarital sex and punish any transgressions.  If this were socially and legally forbidden, no one will ever say again that marriage is "only just a piece of paper".

For the purposes of this discussion, it would be helpful to define natural law as anything that is in harmony with Biblical and Koranic principles, for we would then immediately know we what laws and what kind of morality we are discussing and rejecting and the reasons for so doing.

The Bible and the Koran are undeniably "sexist" and "homophobic" and clearly forbid extramarital sex.

It is also worth nothing that much of our PC Liberal laws go directly against the moral vaues of the Abrahamic faiths ie what constitutes natural law.  If this is how natural law is defined and perceived, then this would help clarify the terms of debate, and tell us what we are really for or against as individuals, and actually get us somewhere.

In a nutshell, we should regard natural law as laws promoting social conservatism forbidding inter alia extramarital sex, suicide and usury and legal positivism as laws promoting the opposite.

"Today, lawyers and Judges tend to think of their role as entirely morally neutral."

"Ours is not to reason why. Ours is but to do and die" has always been the official position of the legal profession and the judiciary, who are in effect mere "soldiers" of laws following orders. Lawyers can only work within the parameters of what the law and the legal process allows, ie apply it rather than make it, and it is up to criminals and politicians in the legislature to push the boundaries and see how far they can go. Of course, it is not completely unknown for the criminal, lawyer and politician to reside in one person.  

It should also be noted that the "I was only following orders" excuse does not always work, as those tried at Nuremberg discovered. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defense

"The idea that the law should reflect, in some way, public morality seems a bit outdated. Why is this?"

Because there is  no agreement about public morality in our society known for its diversity and people would rather not "go there" to avoid being accused of hate speech, presumably. In any case, the only "public morality" that is now allowed is PC Liberalism, and this means refraining from saying things offensive to the protected groups in the Equality Act 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_Act_2010

The Equality Act 2010 should be considered the 21st century equivalent of the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Trinity_Act_1813

Has natural law theory been convincingly defeated?

I would suggest that it has not been convincingly defeated because war was never officially declared, let alone fought.  PC Liberalism simply crept up on us unawares and we suddenly found it in our homes as a flood water, perhaps. In time it will recede, then we can begin clearing up the mess and think about how in future we can strengthen our flood defences.

"Perhaps the triumph of legal positivism reflects a collapse of moral consensus in wider society?"

The triumph of legal positivism is akin to a successful breaching of a society's defences when its leaders were asleep on the job, or who were perhaps like the Trojans ignoring Cassandra's warnings against bringing the Trojan Horse into through their city gates.

"Is there anything from natural law theory worth saving?"

Only if we think the moral values contained in the Abrahamic faiths serve a useful protective purpose. Clearly, those who value their right to have extramarital sex more than the need to respect marriage as an institution - ie social liberals - do not.

Is there any purpose to respecting marriage? Only if we think it useful to rear the next generation in in optimum conditions.

What would happen if we give up the practice of marriage? If we did, most children and people would be illegitimate and we would become increasingly a nation of sluts and bastards. Is there a problem with illegitimacy? http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/ Is there a problem with becoming poorer, stupider, more depraved and held in hatred, ridicule and contempt by the rest of the world? Jamaican levels of illegitimacy are over 85%.  http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070204/focus/focus2.html  I would have thought so, but not liberals, it seems, who have sanctified the slut and really cannot see the problem with illegitimacy, which is akin to suffering an inferior race to flourish within your race at the expense of the legitimate. Perhaps everyone else is right and I am wrong. None of the stuff I fret about will come true, will it? These are only prophecies contained in an old old book about a deity it is no longer fashionable to fear.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/why-white-race-is-declining-in-numbers.html

What is morality really? It is a set of rules designed to maintain and perpetuate the strength of a society beyond the lifetimes of its current members.  Most childless people, and people who care nothing for their children or the next generation, and who do not believe in God, would not trouble their heads too much on this question, I imagine. "This will last my lifetime", they probably think.

These days it would not be socially acceptable to point out that people without children probably vote, vote think and behave in a  more selfish and short-termist way than parents with legitimate children that they love or that female MPs voted in a conspicuously different way to lower the standards of sexual morality when it is obviously true. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html These days, it seems to be socially acceptable for men to avoid offending women and to even say that they are afraid of offending women. Perhaps that makes sense if they have women in a position of authority over them and who could easily deprive them of their job, status and income.  Legal positivists should be pleased about this, I imagine, while natural lawyers are in a state of traumataised horror, awaiting a malicious accusation of a historic sexual offence in a state of pitiable and emasculated helplessness.

"The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women

The Bhagavad Gita:

"Out of the corruption of women proceeds the corruption of races; out of the corruption of races, the loss of memory; out of the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and out of this all evil." 

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-bhagavad-gita-indicates-position-we.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/what-debate-between-natural-law-v-legal.html
What the debate between Natural Law v Legal Positivism should really be about

Victor Shannock, a Catholic, appears to say that those who deny the Trinity are the antichrist

http://biblelight.net/antichrist_and_jesus.htm

This means Christians regard Jews and Muslims collectively as the antichrist.

Is it not time to defenestrate this intolerant, irrational and totalitarian religion from Western civilisation?

As I have already said, the last service the Pope of Catholicism can do for mankind is to renounce usury, apologise for the hypocrisy of Christianity and convert to Islam in order to become the Pope of Islam.

The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly evil since it was this belief that started the Inquisition.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Those denying the Trinity were deprived of the benefit of the Act of Toleration, 1689. The Blasphemy Act 1697 enacted that if any person, educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, should by writing, preaching, teaching or advised speaking, deny that the members of the Holy Trinity were God, or should assert that there is more than one god, or deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures to be of divine authority, he should, upon the first offence, be rendered incapable of holding any office or place of trust, and for the second incapable of bringing any action, of being guardian or executor, or of taking a legacy or deed of gift, and should suffer three years imprisonment without bail.

An Act of 1812-1813 excepted from these enactments persons denying as therein mentioned respecting the Holy Trinity.

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

That was the kind of thing Christians used to do when they took their religion seriously.

Now that they no longer taken their religion seriously, you have Catholics priests and MPs promoting gay marriage together with Rowan Williams the Commie Pinko former-Archbishop of Canterbury.

Only a Christian chauvinist who has read the Koran would continue to insist that the Bible is a better rule book than the Koran.

@1party4all there is no free grace - no salvation offered in Islam, from the standpoint of the Cross Muhammed was a false prophet
— victorshannock (@victorshannock) February 18, 2013

@1party4all you may find this interesting re the New Testament teaching on those who deny the incarnation - biblelight.net/antichrist_and… …
— victorshannock (@victorshannock) February 18, 2013

If none of the papabili can bring themselves to renounce usury, then we will know once and for all  the rotten state of the Catholic Church.

Victor Shannock claims that I have been misrepresenting his views at:

I have had to block @1partyforall who has been grossly misrepresenting my views on the incarnation and the antichrist, & been spamming
— victorshannock (@victorshannock) February 19, 2013

How so?

He has blocked me so he does not have to explain.   I have not misrepresented his views at all, and taken care to quote him verbatim.  His own words are enough to condemn him.  Remember, it was not Jews or Muslims who started the Inquisition nor was it they who conducted the Crusades.

Very interestingly, he has deleted his tweets.

Christians equate Christ with God. No wonder their religion is failing.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/death-of-god.html

Just think: they equate their God with a failed revolutionary they decided to worship as a deity.

Not one Christian can honestly explain the Doctrine of the Trinity without ceasing to be a Christian.

Do you think the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury or York believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity?  Do they hell. What they are doing is paying lip service.

Do as I say, not as I do, they will say to you, when you have revealed their unbelief.

Have you noticed how Christians start looking shifty the moment you ask them about the Trinity? You should try it and see.  

The only reason why Christians believe Christ is God is because they don't want to do the hard work a Jew needs to do to remain a Jew and because they despise Muslims, who, like the Jews deny the Trinity and abhor the idea of a divine prophet.  

"It is a weakness of human nature to hate those whom you have wronged."     

http://quotationsbook.com/quote/18667/

How have Christians wronged Jews and Muslims?

Let me count the ways: the Inquisition, Crusades, the turfing out Muslim Arabs to make way for the Jews they have been persecuting for centures in Christian Europe in their ignorant and arrogant antisemitism.   In other words, robbing Peter Arab to pay Paul Jew.  

As for those who call themselves Christians but don't know they have to believe that Christ is God or else go to hell - because if you don't believe that you ain't Christian and all non-Christians go to hell, doncha know -  I only have pity for you and your ignorance.

Actually, only the non-white non-cultural Christian truly understands the nature of this bargain unlike the ignoramuses who think they are Christians because they are not Jews or Muslims (whom they despise), and call themselves Cultural Christians.  (That is why these Oriental converts and evangelists are always proclaiming Christ is Lord to all and sundry in that annoying way, to show everyone else that they believe, even if deep down inside they do not.) These Cultural Christians never enter a church save when they are called upon to attend a wedding.  They know they feel comfort a the sight of a church spire and feel alarm and distress when they see a minaret, and that is what makes them Christian, they think to themselves.  

Or they might go to church for a bit, until their children get into the church school of their choice, because they cannot afford school fees.

What else do these disgusting Christians do?

They pretend to eat the flesh of Christ and drink the blood of Christ like some cannibal who thinks that eating a dead human being, especially one that they also think is God, will give them special powers. Yep, that is what Christians call Communion and the Eucharist, don't you know.

What was it Hitler said about telling a big enough lie?

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

in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

How can believing in a lie and making others believe in the same lie possibly make you a better person and make your society a better society if you are so hypocritical and so cowardly you never condemn anything at all, not even gay marriage?

Instead of enjoining good and forbidding evil, as the Muslims are meant to do, the Christians spend their entire lives convincing themselves of a lie while tolerating all manner of evil and waste their compassion on the worst of people because theirs is a masochistic religion for women and slaves.  

There is a reason why Christianity and Hypocrisy go together like Horse and Carriage ....  

British Jews too have gone native in the land of Unctuous PC Extremist Liberalism.  When an Orthodox Rabbi brightly suggests on Woman's Hour to Dame Jenni who calls him "Zvi" that all who wish to marry should first become civilly partnered with the option  of converting it into marriage later, you know that the stench you are smelling is the rotten corpse of Western civilisation.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/most-unorthodox-orthodox-rabbi-commends.html

The mystery of the Trinity cannot be solved without ceasing to be a Christian and the time has come to disestablish the Church of England

According to Christians, Christ was more than a prophet of God, he was God Himself.

So, God seduced Mary (in the way that Zeus had a habit of doing to mortal women listed at http://devdutt.com/the-infidelities-of-zeus/), gave birth to Himself, and then sacrificed Himself to save us from our sins.

The Holy Spirit is just the agency of God (and Christ) through which miracles are accomplished, and therefore all three are one.   How can this be, you ask?  The cleverer Christian clergy would invite you to imagine a pyramid with three facets ...

The Inquisition was all about forcing people to say they believe in this SHIT.

These days, ignorant Christians don't even know they are supposed to believe in this SHIT.

The truth is that the Pope and the Archibishop of Cant doesn't either, nor does your vicar or "vicaress", who will be instantly uncomfortable the moment you ask him or her about the Trinity.

The Church will be happy if it manages to get an ignorant congregation to uncomprehendingly recite the Nicene creed.

Muslims and Jews of course deny the Trinity because they see through the SHIT that it all is, and that is why Christians hate and fear them with such visceral virulence.  Occasionally, the hatred and fear of Christians of those who do not share their Trinitarian beliefs is manifested in great events of bloodletting and persecution, eg the Crusades and the Inquisition, with a few pogroms here and there over the centuries, the most recent of which was Hitler's Madagascar Plan.

Christianity as a religion should be dumped precisely because it is both TOTALITARIAN and DIVISIVE. Once it got over being totalitarian and divisive and started being ECUMENICAL and INCLUSIVE it proved to be UTTERLY INEFFECTUAL

Charles the future king would go along with this from the sound of things.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html

If Charles had been Muslim he wouldn't have had such a hard time over Diana and Camilla, nor would Edward have suffered the loss of his throne for his love for Mrs Simpson, who might have been an OK Queen, who knows.

Actually, if Henry Tudor had been Muslim, there would have been none of the problems he had over defying Rome about finding a wife to bear him a son, the fallout of which has  resulted in centuries of religious persecution by Christians of other Christians.

And that is why I say it is time to disestablish the Church of England (which is these days full of Socialists, Commies, Liberals, Feminists and subversives like the Archbishop of Cant who have made it unfit for the purpose of instilling in the British respect for the institutions of Family and Marriage).  British Muslims in particular should not be afraid to say this.

Day 3: "Unpersonnned" by the Today Programme BBC Censor

I wonder if the BBC will allow me to respond to these slurs on me and my party.  Now that would be a test of their impartiality, would it not? 

I deny saying that the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves.  Indeed, I am making another point that is much subtler, which is related to the causes of the Inquisition and Trinitarianism. 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150115278798552&set=a.10150090122118552.297642.510028551&bcode=VVRiA#!/thetodayprogramme/posts/173491089358282 

27 December 2010


Bill Major

Agreed Jason. Bill Sykes -you can't find a trace of Claire Khaw because once they take your name off, it vanishes from every posting. You become a non person. Strange but true.
Caron, did you object and "Flag" her?

We are used to her wind ups, which is what they were - she knows how to wind us up but that was no reason to take her off.

Caron Kendall yes I flagged her - after the Jews brought the holocaust on themselves comments

Caron Kendall Can we also remember that Claire is not just some harmless commentator, she is a political activist for the BNP, A political party that has spread hatred and intolerance throughout inner city communities and whose philosophies if left unchallenged lead straight to the gas chamber

Why Christianity is more prone to schism and totalitarianism than Islam

I wonder how much worshipers actually bother about religious doctrine in contrast to their favourite rituals of their religion.

If people were being honest, having read the Koran, they would have to agree that there is nothing particularly contentious about it.

What they do not like, probably, is the prostrations that come with the Islamic way of worshiping Allah, and prefer hymns, incense, sitting in pews in grand ancient buildings ...

Many Cultural Christians probably do not really believe that Christ really is God or that they are eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood when they participate in Holy Communion.

Perhaps the Muslims who do convert to Christianity do so simply because they prefer the showmanship of Catholic rituals, not because it came upon them, as in a revelation, the mystery of the Trinity. (Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that the totalitarian horror of the Spanish Inquisition was a direct response to Muslims and Jews who blasphemously questioned the very vulnerable and incoherent doctrine of the Trinity, which of course  "explains" Christ's divinity.)

However, reading a little around the subject of religious intolerance in England, it seems that the Muslim way is less schismatic because it is simple and undisputed.

Catholicism involves great concentration of power and centralisation too. Islam is more diffuse because it is more securely standardised - no arguments about how they worship or which prayer book to use.

Clinging to Christianity is the moral equivalent of clinging to your Reliant Robin when you have a BMW (with its handbook still in the glove compartment) and know you have a long and arduous journey ahead of you.