Translate

Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts

Sunday, 21 December 2014

Ekklesia asks who Jesus would shoot


Tuesday, 11 January 2011

Was the Lateran Treaty religious or political?

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

The difference between politics and religion is a distinction without a difference. 

Anyone who tells you different is a fool or a knave. 

Jesus said "I render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

Muhammad, not being a someone trying to get out of trouble with the authorities, treated religion as politics and politics as religion.  Islam is but an ideological weapon and it is surely about time the frightened and shell-shocked West pick it up to have a good look at this religion of peace and war. 

As one very clever Muslim told me once, you can only fight Muslims with the Koran ...

Monday, 22 February 2010

The Holy Trinity Explained, Christianity Exposed

There is a meeting today (which I shall not be attending) discussing whether the Islamic contentions to the Trinity are justified, and if the Trinity really is contrary to monotheism, between a Muslim and a Christian speaker.

I hope however that the following points will be made.

The Trinity "explains" Christ's divinity. Christians are not allowed to question God's mysteries. If they did they would find themselves being accused of heresy and blasphemy and liable to be burnt at the stake in the days when they took their religion seriously. Christians are therefore asked to believe in a "black box" theory that they are not allowed to question. It is no wonder then that "Christian" and "hypocrisy" so frequently go together.

Christ's divinity is necessary to Christians because otherwise he would just be another failed revolutionary who paid with his life.

Morally unimaginative people want, indeed NEED to believe in superstition and magic (and therefore Christ's divinity), just like children wish to believe in Santa and fairies.

Socrates was NOT a failed revolutionary, and he willingly died to make his point. He did not claim divinity, nor was divinity claimed on his behalf by his followers. His name lives on, arguably with more credit than Jesus's.

A philosopher who asks unanswerable questions is infuriating to the point of death.

Seeking the truth, speaking the truth and acting upon our knowledge of the truth is all it takes to be a revolutionary, though that is easier said than done. In the end, only prophets can do all three successfully.

The Prophet Muhammad was a more successful revolutionary than Jesus, and this is partly because he learnt from the mistakes of the previous ones and built upon their successes.

The Koran is a more comprehensive, clearer, more humane and easier to remember self-help guide to Mankind than the Bible.

Only pride and sloth - the most deadly of the seven deadly sins - prevents those us who deny this from acknowledging this.

Those who insist that Christianity is better yet refuse to read the Koran are stubbornly insisting that their Reliant Robin has a better chance of surviving an arduous journey than a four-wheeled vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine with its manual still in the glove compartment. For reasons of tradition, sentimentality and chauvinism, they cling to the old, incoherent and schismatic religion of their ancestors when a better version is immediately available.

Sunday, 24 May 2009

Would Jesus have voted BNP? Would the Prophet Muhammad?



I rather thank that in Jesus’ time, people would have been allowed to complain about foreigners and talk of sending them home, as they do in South Africa, without being persecuted and villified.

Would Jesus have voted BNP?

Bishop John Goddard’s comment on Sunday, Radio 4 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00khhp0 - that the BNP sow division was countered by Roger Bolton pointing out that the Church’s policy of allowing homosexual priests is in itself divisive.

In other words, politics and religion are divisive. Man is so divided and contentious that quite often, he would disagree with the opinions that he himself has held at another time.

Knowing what we do about Jesus, it is quite likely that he would have remained enigmatic and not voted.

Would Muhammad have said:

"Let us Muslims vote BNP because they have so many policies we agree on? At least, the BNP would not have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Muslims, like the BNP, did not support 42 day detention, and we appear to have similar views about the Holocaust, Zionism and Israel. Let us make a friend of an enemy, as the Koran advises us to do, and concentrate on things we are agreed on, rather than their Islamophobia, which may be more to do with ignorance and fear, which we may in time correct."?


EX-BNP MUSLIMS:
BNP-SYMPATHETIC MUSLIMS
Some BNP voters have 'legitimate views' on immigration, says Baroness Warsi
Ali Miraj: It's perfectly rational for the ignored white working class to vote BNP
Muslims would doubtless approve of the BNP’s stance on

1) withdrawing British troops from Muslim lands
2) the return of capital punishment
3) the return of corporal punishment

Indeed, Muslims may be concerned about immigration and see the connection between the EU and uncontrolled immigration, and wish to withdraw from it, as the BNP do.

Islam does not endorse PC-liberalism of tolerance (of promiscuity, single mothers, widespread illegitimacy leading to the lowering of standards of education and behaviour, the drug and pub culture of this country etc).

Their religion tells them to forbid what is evil and enjoin what is good.

What we must now decide is whether it would be a good thing to tell the Lib-Lab-Con how much they are hated, by voting BNP.

Perhaps it is time to show the Church too, that it is so out of touch with the British people that its condemnation of the BNP will result, perversely, in more votes for them. The Anglican Church has embraced the values of our unofficial religion of "tolerance", Moral Relativism and homosexual priests, while refusing to defend the interests of the white working classes, who never go to church anyway, not even to get their children into a decent church school. These days, the white urban proletariat are more likely to find themselves going to mosque than church.

The Anglican Church, being complicit in the political establishment's determination not to discuss immigration or address any of its problems honestly, except to condemn anyone who questions it as "racist", no longer holds any moral authority.

The incompetence with which they have made their views known is laughable.

If I were Archbishop of Canterbury (and what an Archbishop I would be!) I would have questioned the ridiculous BNP assumption that Jesus would have voted for them.

If I were Mufti of Britain (and what a Great Mufti I would be!) I would point out how much common ground there is between the BNP and Muslims, and hint that most Muslims would be happy voting for them because they like their policies, as most non-Muslims do, if only they were not so Islamophobic and obsessed with race.

Sunday, 25 January 2009

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.

Thursday, 11 December 2008

The Boy Jesus at the Temple - The Stepfather's Version

Luke 2:41-52 (New International Version)

The Boy Jesus at the Temple

41Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"

50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.






SCENE:
Mary and Joseph come upon Jesus after three days' of inconvenience and anxiety thinking they had lost their son.

MARY [to Jesus]:
Jesus Christ! We've been looking everywhere for you! What the hell on earth did you think you were doing? Where have you been?? Dad and I have been worried sick!!!"

JESUS [to Mary]:
Which dad do you mean, Ma? Do you mean your husband, or do you mean my real dad?

[looks skywards with a significant expression]

Anyway, I knew you would come back for me. My real dad says I am Son of God and when I grow up I will be a prophet. One of the very useful things you can do if you are prophet is predict the future and I predicted you would come back for me. Anyway, don't you know I had to be in my father's house?"

JOSEPH:
What the bloody hell do you mean? Stop talking utter rot. This [he gestured] is not my house!

JESUS:
I didn't mean you. I meant my real dad.

[Jesus looks up at the sky and back at Joseph defiantly.]

You're not my real dad. [turning to Mary] Is he, mum?

JOSEPH:
What???!!!!

[to Mary] So, you've told him about your "virgin" pregnancy, have you? Well, you could have given me some notice about that so I would at least have known I would no longer have parental authority over that, that little bastard. [He spits out the last word and glares angrily at mother and child.]

MARY:
Oh, Joseph. Please don't say that!

JOSEPH:
Yes, Mary. I knew I was a fool to marry you when everyone had said you had been putting yourself about. Jesus, you are superior supercilious little shit. Every time you go on about your other dad like this again, I will put you in your place and remind you about another interpretation that could be made about your origins. DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND, Son of Mary? [putting his face very close to Jesus']

JESUS:
Er, yes, dad. [sheepishly]

JOSEPH:
And remember, Jesus, m'boy, it ain't easy being prophet. People hate a know-it-all, preaching at them to be cleaner, neater, more giving and forgiving and telling them that nothing they do will ever be good enough. The rich especially hate being told that their chances of getting into heaven are virtually nil. No one likes a Communist Revolutionary and people like them and you are going to be make a lot of enemies who will wish you ill.

Now, Jesus, tell me the worst sort of punishment you can think of if the Roman soldiers want to punish the worst sort of people to cause them the most pain. Can you think of it, you little know-it-all?

JESUS:
Er, crucifixion?

JOSEPH:
Crucifixion, what, Jesus?

JESUS:
Crucifixion, er, dad ...

JOSEPH:
That's better, my son, and don't you forget that, or it will be the death of you.

​@WoodStoneAndSteel asks about the lolcows of the world

2:00   Incorrect diagnosis Chaste women 3:00  Political economy Abolishing no fault force 5:00  Socialising 6:00  Disposable relationships 7...