The Voice of Reason: Islam Lite

Showing posts with label Islam Lite. Show all posts

Sunday, 29 September 2019

A more natural and logical conception of God

When people lose faith in themselves, they are left with putting their faith in God. The Abrahamic faiths represent three different routes to the same deity.

If you are Christian and feeling exploited by Jews and invaded by Muslims, you would feel that you are left with Islam if you want to remain a gentile. Islam is "Judaism Lite" and Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite".

Also, if your faith depended on your capacity to believe that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God, it would weaken first compared to the one who believes that because there was a Creation, there must have been a Creator and that Creator was the Abrahamic God who created a logical universe whose written instructions to mankind are contained in the Koran.

As my Consort Church of Entropy said, a religion is easier to believe if it requires less suspension of disbelief. She claims her Entropism is easier to believe because she equates God to the Universe. Her reasoning is that because the Universe obviously exists, so does God. However, all she has done is the equivalent of pointing to box of frogs in her room and saying "That box of frogs is God" and then claiming "I have pointed at God." This is of course pure sophistry and sleight of hand.

Having accepted the attributes of the Abrahamic God and His narrative, we would naturally be awed by this divine concept, particularly if it were the mere invention and imagination of a mortal man called Abraham. The story of Pygmalion is that Aphrodite answered his prayer by bringing to life the sculpture of the beautiful woman Pygmalion himself sculpted and yearned to marry.

If this was indeed how the Abrahamic God was created, then God is indeed greater than His Creation (who conceived of Him and conjured Him into existence by an act of imagination).

We don't literally need to believe in God. All that is necessary is that we consider the possibility that God might exist according to the Abrahamic narrative, and then consider the possibility that He might protect us and our society, nation and civilisation if we obeyed His laws. This is so low-maintenance that an agnostic such as myself naturally slips into this mode of thinking, which is now my default position. The high-maintenance belief of being Christian requiring the affirmation by the Christian concerned that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of the Abrahamic God can thus be rationally and readily abandoned because of its patent absurdity and idolatry in favour of a more natural, logical and non-idolatrous conception of the Abrahamic God.

Sunday, 21 September 2014

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.

Thursday, 10 July 2014

A pro-Israeli view of a British gentile

"According to ABC News, Hamas rockets can now reach half of Israel's population. Today they aimed at a nuclear reactor, though the rocket was shot down. Why put up with this?

I am watching shouting Palestinians on the news. They are like Middle-Eastern Liverpudlians. If I were Israel I would deport all the remaining Palestinians to surrounding Arab countries. There is no such country as Palestine, after all.

Allowing them to continue to occupy the Gaza strip is merely fashioning a rod for one's own back. When they are all gone people will soon forget they were ever there. This would be better than bombing their women and children every few years in reprisal for rocket attacks. Best idea is to move them a safe distance away. In fact, as an Israeli I wouldn't tolerate a settlement so near my borders that was sending rockets further and further into my territory. As always, I am amazed at the forbearance of Israel."

"It could reduce the constant claims of 'genocide' and eliminate the need for regular bombing by annexing Gaza once and for all, dismantling Hamas and humanely deporting the remaining Palestinians. It is what Russia or a genuinely strong country would do. Having to live alongside a bunch of constantly rebellious Palestinians must be humiliating for Israel. It would be as if the United States had failed to deal properly with the Red Indians so the Americans are still attacked whenever they venture into the great plains!"

"Israel will no doubt attract international condemnation for bombing a disabled care home, but what good does tit for tat bombing do? Case for conquering Gaza seems unanswerable."

"It would be quite reasonable for Israelis to force regime change in Gaza, the administer the territory until it no longer poses a threat. Indeed, concessions could even be made to a less belligerent Palestine, just as smart new sports facilities were built in Brixton to discourage locals from rioting in the future. Israel hasn't really grown up enough as a nation: it worried about world opinion, yet Hamas easily beats in the propaganda war."

************************
Why is the West indifferent to the fate of Palestinian Arabs in Israel?
http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/115677967233
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/slavoj-zizek-dares-not-say-what-i-say.html

Not only is the West indifferent to the Palestinian Arabs, they are also indifferent to the Israelis. If either side completely exterminated each other, the average gentile non-Muslim British voter would only shrug his shoulders. This is because the average gentile non-Muslim voter has distrusted the Jew for centuries and certainly dislikes having Muslims in his country.

Campaigning Muslims against the suffering of Muslims like Asghar Bukhari are barking up the wrong tree. Not only are gentile non-Muslim Britons indifferent to the death of Palestinian Muslims, they are also indifferent to the Israelis. Worse, British Muslims are also indifferent to the death and suffering of Muslims in other countries.

The only way to make them care is to offer a solution. My solution is Secular Koranism which for some reason Asghar refuses to discuss.

I am basically saying:

The Israel project will fail unless Israel is a theocracy, because God did not want diaspora Jews coming back and just turning the modern state of Israel into a mere colonial outpost to provoke its Muslim neighbours.
The Old Testament is too harsh stoning people to death at the drop of a hat.
The New Testament is too vague and caused the Inquisition to be inflicted on Jews and Muslims.
The Koran is the Goldilocks religion for Israel.
If Islam is "Judaism Lite", then Secular Koranism is "Islam Lite".
A Caliph is basically a leader governing his state in accordance with Koranic principles.
A Caliphate is state governed according to Koranic principles.
Once Israel is a Caliphate governed by a Caliph, then the Jews, Christians and Muslims in it can co-exist together in one unitary state in a co-mingled crowed. 17:104 http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/017-qmt.php
Judaism = Thesis; Christianity = Antithesis; Islam = Synthesis.
All the Abrahamic faiths promote the same moral values of a patriarchy and all worship the same God. The only issue is which religion gives guidelines that would achieve human flourishing in this life.
Secular Koranism is a completely new idea that most orthodox Muslims hate and cannot bear to discuss.
Secular Koranism, while a theocracy in the sense that it is about infusing the laws of your country with Koranic principles, does not require anyone to convert to Islam nor will there be a corruptible priesthood be brought into existence to administer its laws. Any secular judiciary is capable of interpreting and applying Koranic principles if they are made aware of them.
Under Secular Koranism brothels would be legal. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/verse-in-koran-implicitly-condones.html
Under Secular Koranism a man may have up to four wives, if he has the means and the temperament to deal with 4 mothers-in law.
Under Secular Koranism husbands may chastise their recalcitrant wives in the manner described at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/how-wife-beating-and-divorce-would-work.html
Under Secular Koranism there will be slut-shaming. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts
Under Secular Koranism we will have government by referenda. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shura
Under Secular Koranism usury will be abolished and we can all default on our debts and start again.
Under Secular Koranism the citizen will have a constitutional right not to be taxed more than a flat rate income tax of 20%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums
Secular Koranism will abolish all totalitarian thought-crime anti-discrimination legislation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-discrimination_acts, because the Koran states that "There is no compulsion in belief." 2:256
Secular Koranism will also abolish no fault divorce and require couples to agree marriage contracts before they can legally marry so that in the event of a divorce fault can be easily apportioned. In any divorce fault starts at 50/50 because at the very least the parties chose the wrong person to marry and must accept responsibility for that.

Translate