Thursday, December 30, 2010

Mohammed was a Liberal Democrat

Is that blasphemous?

Or a compliment?

What if the title had read ‘Mohammed was a Nazi’?

Or a member of the BNP?

Does anachronistic politicising serve any purpose?

Mehdi Hasan, the New Statesman’s Senior Editor (politics), certainly thinks so: to him, Jesus was ‘much more left-wing than the religious right likes to believe’.

Yet, as a Muslim (a particularly devout one), one wonders what he would make of the ascribing to his prophet the confines of a modern political narrative.

His is a crass and superficial piece, manifesting a caricature grasp of ‘the left’ and ‘the right’, quite ignorant of Christian theology and oblivious of 2000 years of socio-political history.

It is not appropriate to apply the terms ‘left-wing’ or ‘right-wing’ to a religio-political discourse on the complex relationship between Jesus and conservatism as the terms did not exist before they were coined based on the seating plan of the pro- and anti-reform groupings in the French Assembly in 1789. But since ‘the right’ has come to mean essentially the thesis of the individual, and ‘the left’ the thesis of the state, to posit that Jesus was ‘much more left-wing’ is absurd.

The ‘Jesus was a Socialist’ arguments are well worn. Over the past 60 years or so, the Labour Party has been seen to eclipse the Conservative Party in such recurrent themes as compassion, social justice and social responsibility. Much has been written on the Christian inspiration and moral purity of the Labour Party and that it ‘owes more to Methodism than Marxism’: the notions of loving one’s neighbour, caring for the poor, housing the homeless and healing the sick have been the great themes which have given the Labour Party its raison d’être. The Christian Socialist Movement in particular has been at the forefront of asserting that socialism is inherent to Christianity, and that a cursory reading of the Bible would confirm this and even that Jesus might vote Labour.

This is the essence of Mehdi Hasan’s thesis.

But he adds nothing new, and it is not remotely original.

Just the same old polemical left-wing tosh, but coming this time from a particularly divisive Muslim.

An obvious problem which Mr Hasan ignores (like all socialists) is that many ‘right-wing’ Christians have derived quite different social, economic and political implications from the same source. As Samuel Beer once observed: ‘Liberals, Radicals, Conservatives, and indeed in their days old Tories and old Whigs had relied on some version of the Biblical message.’

He does not engage with this heritage, but simply chooses to caricature modern expressions of it (like the American ‘religious right’).

But this suits his own ‘Muslim world’ narrative: his is forever a clash of civilisations; good versus evil; left versus right.

The Conservative Party (which presumably Mr Hasan classifies as ‘right-wing’) has always had a strong tradition of social concern and action which is rooted in Protestant Christianity and fused with the establishment of the Church of England. Some of the greatest movements for social reform have been led by Conservatives and their Whig and Tory forebears: Toryism has been as much a public theology as a political creed.

Does Mehdi Hasan have any idea what social projects the US ‘religious right’ are involved in? What they spend millions of dollars on?

Does he know how much they feed the poor, house the homeless or raise money for overseas aid?

Ah, no. Mr Hasan sees only the media narrative of ‘the left’: the American ‘religious right’ is obsessed with homosexuality and abortion.

And Jesus didn’t have an awful lot to say about either: he was busy being a good socialist.

Is ‘One-Nation Conservatism’ left or right? Is ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ left or right? Is David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ vision left or right?

Community is a fundamental human good because commitments and values are shared; the good life demands participation in a political community, and this requires communal participation in a political organisation of the widest scope, such as the nation state. The first of these claims is uncontroversial, and so, to a lesser extent, is the second, since it is concerned with the pursuit of the good through the assertion or acceptance of authority. But the third may be deemed to be incongruous with Mehdi Hasan’s Jesus, who is anti-state, anti-nationalist and anti-dogma.

There has been a sense in which the Church of England has been ‘the glue that binds’ and has furnished a distinct religious identity. The Conservative Party has traditionally embraced this religious dynamic, not least because any institution in a democracy around which the majority may be found to coalesce is a useful mechanism in the public sphere for the formulation of moral unity and the communication or subtle imposition of a notion of the common good. The challenge now for politicians is precisely that of church leaders – to forge a polity and a practical theology in a context in which there is no unity of culture, no unified morality and no shared religious worldview; to grasp the ephemeral spiritual ‘mood’ and the incoherence of the conflicting socio-cultural forces. It is for the Conservative Party under David Cameron to find its via media mode of government – the equilibrium between resistance and adaptation, between assimilation and confrontation, and between ‘neutrality’ and the articulation of confessional Anglican conservatism.

One might think this ought to be a laudable pursuit of ‘the left’ as well.

But they are busy with their clash of civilisations.

And with caricatures of those of us on ‘the right’.

And with worshipping ‘another Jesus’.

In Christ (that is, in the Jesus of the New Testament, which Mr Hasan believes to be corrupt), there is neither political left nor right, but the consistent exhortation to all to recognise the rule of God in their lives and exalt righteousness in the nation.

That, Mr Hasan, may be the honest, sincere and noble pursuit of all believers, however they cast their vote.

89 Comments:

Blogger Bryan said...

That tired old saw, that "Jesus was a socialist" is as absurd as it is persistent. Jesus taught individual, personal responsibility for aiding the poor. He taught that you and I are to give to the poor and to love our neighbors, not that you and I should form political parties to force Caesar to love our neighbors, to cause him steal from the rich and give to us... er the poor.

You are correct, the message taught by the Lord Jesus Christ transcends our abysmal politics as our One True Ruler is He Himself.

30 December 2010 at 12:40  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Excellent!

Since joining this blog I'm becoming a Conservative after many years of supporting who I now despair of.

Yes, same old, same old, I'm afraid!

Jesus didn't object to 'dogma' just the imposition of 'dogma' to justify corruption and exploitation of the poor and down trodden.

Dogma - derived from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"

An established belief or doctrine, authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from.

St Peter's great discourse on Pentecost outlined the fundamental beliefs of the early church, revealed to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit, including acceptance of Jesus as the Christ, His birth, death and resurrection, repentance and Baptism.

Dogma or revealed truth?

30 December 2010 at 12:41  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Ps - meant to say:

... after years of supporting Labour, who I now despair of.

30 December 2010 at 12:44  
Anonymous Byrnsweord said...

A noble and considered response to a very limited thesis, Your Grace.

30 December 2010 at 13:29  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Your Grace is clearly correct in all respects.

IMO anyone who seeks to divide the common people into good=left, bad=right, should be treated with the greatest disrespect. The best thing to do with these people is LAUGH very loudly at them.

For it is not people who consider themselves to be either right or left wing who are evil, but those who seek to divide the innate will of the common people in such an artificial, ever changing and therefore easily manipulatable manner.

What socialism is supposed to represent today, has radically changed almost entirely from what it was supposed to be only 30 years ago. In many ways what was once reactionary is now left wing, and that which was once radical, is now right wing.

If left/right wing ever actually meant anything at all it is this.

Left wing is a method by which the establishment creates, therefore manages the thesis.

Right wing is a method by which the establishment creates, therefore manages the anti-thesis.

Therefore the middle is what the establishment long since chose to be the synthesis.

We are divided, and as such we are far more easily ruled.

It really is that simple, and long has it been so.

Democracy is not the best method of running the affairs of man, picked from a very bad list of presented alternatives.

Democracy is one of the very worst of methods, as democracy depends entirely on mind controlling the general population, largely without them knowing that they are being so, every single second of every single day.

Democracy therefore is not a battle between right and left, but one between US,(the common people,) and THEM, (our owners.)

A battle for our conscious and sub-conscious minds, that we have so hopelessly lost so many times, we are now in imminent danger of losing the entire war forever.

30 December 2010 at 13:37  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Assuming that Jesus existed and was anything like the Bible stories describe then in today’s terms yes he would have been a socialist. A few simple reasons: support for the redistribution of wealth, concern for the underprivileged and outcast and the notion that taking the moral high ground was the right thing to do regardless of consequences.

Naive? Yes of course but he was a young idealist not made cynical by the knowledge of history and human behaviour that we have today. Conservatism is born from pragmatism and realism not idealism. Of course we would prefer a world where all were equal and that social and racial differences had been ironed out. Sadly our evolution in common with all species is about survival and that is about being the fittest, not the kindest.

Some conservatives have recognised that within this “greed is good” driven model are obligations for those on the top of the pile to help those at the bottom although the US Christian Right show little appetite for helping their less privileged citizens.

It is plain stupid to try and justify conservative values by claiming they originated from Jesus or the Bible. They didn’t but that shouldn’t bother you. Unfortunately your search for “authenticity” leads you to concoct unreasonable links between your political and your religious beliefs.

30 December 2010 at 14:40  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Your Grace writes of the challenge for State and Church of forging a workable national community in a country that is losing, or has lost, the elements that create and maintain a true nation: a shared culture, morality and religion.

Whatever State and Church manage to cobble together, it will be far removed from a nation state; at best, it will be a balancing act between the competing racial and religious tribes that now make up what used to be a country so at ease with itself that it earned a reputation as a highly tolerant nation that welcomed refugees from failed states.

Thanks to 60 years of mass immigration, particularly the importation of Islam, Britain herself now faces the prospect of becoming a failed state. Did our politicians, from the late 1940’s on, believe that we could absorb the Third World and Islam and remain a successful nation state, or, did they set out to break us?

30 December 2010 at 14:53  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
In my humble opinion The Lord set the standard that all men should aspire to, but seldom do.
In a feeble but well meant attempt to reach the said standard, various political parties were formed with the idea that several heads were better than one when resolving the issues of the day.
The successes & failures of these parties waxed & waned with time.
Eventually they hardened & shrank into the rigid system that now exists.
Needing direction having lost the map they sought a super party (E.U) to lead,(shame they'd never even heard of maps). So now we are all at sea without charts or rudder.
Thus I feel that the Lord is as King of Kings & Lord of Lords, neutral but I pray that He takes the helm soon or we will all be politically shipwrecked.

30 December 2010 at 15:03  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I always knew the Lib Dem policies had a touch of the wild warmonger about them. :-)))


I think Jesus was a Conservative really. He was an enabler in that he showed people how to think and use their brains in ways they hadn’t thought of before and to improve their lives and to share their surpluses with their neighbours.

I think his miracles both inspired and frightened people but showed lateral thinking in a crisis.
And that if people followed him they too would learn more and become better people as they learned to respect instead of killing each other. I think he was probably a little arrogant and that did him no favours. But he was a visionary and a very intelligent man.

30 December 2010 at 16:57  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

Cranmer

It seems to me you and Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have a great deal in common when it comes to socio-economic affairs.

Pity there's such a seemingly wide gulf on matters Spiritual. Mind you, I do recall your politics and religious views were changeable and somewhat confused.

You must surely be incensed by the design of the European flag and the Catholic traditions of the continent you have set your face against

"God's Servant First"

30 December 2010 at 17:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why must you mention the British National Party yet again? Is to jog us into contrasting today’s sham new Conservative party with the patriotic Tory party of old?

The Conservative Party has long since died and has been reduced to a bit part in a ridiculous masquerade of ‘democracy’ in a ‘third world’ region (Cardinal Walter Kasperof words) of the EU super-state.

The truth is dawning to many that we are ruled by a single quisling party with three names. There is no clear blue water. Policies on the EU, globalisation, the man-made global warming hoax, immigration and moslem appeasement are all identical. Where any difference exists it is only in implementation.

30 December 2010 at 17:27  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

ANON
17:25

Why, mis-quote, partially quote, or misconstrue statements??

“When you arrive at Heathrow you think at times that you’ve landed in a Third World country.”
Cardinal Kasper

“All he was saying is that when you arrive in Britain today it is like landing in Islamabad, Mumbai and Kinshasa all at the same time, because there are so many cultures and religions and races from all over the world.

“He was simply saying that Britain is no longer a mono-cultural country. There was nothing racist or xenophobic in that."
Monsignor Oliver Lahl

30 December 2010 at 18:06  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus; Gal 3:28

Always the one trying to find balance between Indic culture and Christianity, I cannot help but notice how the Male Female statement in this verse is kind of similar to the shiva shakti of the Hindu belief, left and right unity in one body a male female balance.

Right only wins over wrong.

Is ‘One-Nation Conservatism’ wrong or right? Is ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ wrong or right? Is David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ vision wrong or right?

It all depends whether Jews and Bonds are involved somewhere because neither are christian.

30 December 2010 at 18:35  
Anonymous Bishop Joseph Goebbels D.D. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

30 December 2010 at 18:36  
Anonymous len said...

For Muslims to say that the New Testament is corrupt opens up a whole new revelation about which book is the truth .........Bible or Koran.

read on;

www.lightforthelastdays.co.uk/

Articles - Islam - Bible or Koran.

30 December 2010 at 19:11  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Chancellor More said...
Cranmer
30 December 2010 17:03

Dear Mr More

Being in a state of confusion, is a perfectly sensible state to be, in this most confusing of worlds.

Trust not those that profess to have found the truth, trust only those that are still seeking it.

However it seems that you have put your trust in one of the most untrustworthy of places. Sorry THE most untrustworthy place yet invented by man.

For The Pope does not just claim to know all the answers, he claims to be the mouth-piece of almighty God on planet Earth. Which means he does not just believe he knows the TRUTH he is claiming that he IS the TRUTH.

Are you absolutely certain that you can trust this man or the organization he heads-up. If so then what evidence could you possibly have for such a wild and plainly irrational belief?

Have you ever considered that Pope Benedict XVI may be talking out of his proverbial back passage?

That he does not even believe more then a few words that come out of even his own mouth?

That he is really only the figure head of the most long standing, rich, powerful and influential propagators of highly organized crime ever known to mankind?

Are you absolutely CERTAIN beyond any doubt that the above is not at least the essential truth of the matter?

If so then may I please, please, please, come round to your house any time day or night, and attempt to sell you some perfectly useless double-glazing, that will never actually get delivered, at the knockdown price of only 3 times the normal cash price?

Or how about a second-hand car, with a dodgy MOT and tax disk, no log book, 2 blown gaskets, only 3 wheels, and 12 previous owners, all of which were speed addicted traveling salesmen, at only slightly more then the price of a new one?

30 December 2010 at 19:26  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

Atlas shrugged

Such crass rudeness; and such demonstrable malice and hatred towards a body you seemingly know little of.

Do show some restaint and be cautious in your profanities lest your words condemn you or you corrupt the minds of others.

"Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you."
Matthew 7:6

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet,"
Matthew 10:14

"God's Servant First"

30 December 2010 at 20:50  
Blogger HeavensForfend said...

As it so happened your grace, I also wrote about this topic, and despite coming from very different political perspectives I think, we seem to have coalesced around the same sort of conclusion- I do though have a little quibble with this paragraph-

"Community is a fundamental human good because commitments and values are shared; the good life demands participation in a political community, and this requires communal participation in a political organisation of the widest scope, such as the nation state."

You note the third point as being incongruous to Mehdi Hasan's Jesus, but I would have to say it's also incongruous to the gospel Jesus.

Jesus is portrayed as being quite ambivalent about the State- render unto caesar yes, but the point is to give unto God what is God's- he is always challenging the orthodoxies of the scribes, pharisees and saducees- he doesn't identify with them, he goes his own way. The Biggest one of all of course is that he totally subverts the notion of Messiah- the Jewish people were expecting a political Messiah, a liberator from the Romans who would become a new King of a united Israel, a restore justice and peace to the community. In terms of participating with the nation state, I think it's fair to say that this 'messiah' didn't really do a lot.

Obviously because his mission was bigger, objectively different- distinctly otherworldly.

And of course, to pretend that Early Christianity wanted anything to do with the civic Roman world and its idolatory would be extremely untrue to history.

http://lastlefts.blogspot.com/2010/12/politics-of-jesus-no-fast-answers.html

30 December 2010 at 20:58  
Blogger Crusader said...

Alan shrugged

I've met your type before pal.

Go anywhere near his home with any idea of fraud or theft on your mind and you'll suffer the consequences.

If the state doesn't protect him I will.

30 December 2010 at 21:18  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

In his New Statesman article Mehdi Hasan feels free to pose many questions about Jesus and His life. Rather than speculate on that, a comparison, for example, of His 'warrior' life with that of the prophet Mohammed would have been more illuminating.

It's an odd freedom of expression that permits 'anything goes' for Christianity while just wearing a black dress disguise generates complaints from Islamists:
http://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2010/12/christmas-competition.html

30 December 2010 at 22:53  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Friends

If Jesus walked among us today would we recognise Him or listen?

Do we see the face of Christ in our brothers and sisters? In the starving, the persecuted, the homeless, the poor, the frail, elderly, sick, disabled and the asylum seeker? Do we love our neighbour as ourselves? Who is our neighbour?

In His wisdom God allows the 'Prince of this World' to create division and roam around stiring up selfishness, greed, fear, envy and insecurity.

Was Pope Gelasius I (492-496), who posited the idea of a unity of Christian society, so wrong?. He proclaimed that the two governments of sacerdotium and regnun, each with separate powers, were merely the spiritual and the temporal arms of a single Christian commonwealth.

As we head towards a godless world state where 'human rights' are seperated from our moral responsibilities, from God's plan for us, isn't it a good thing that the Church of Rome, alone, is trying to exercise a Christian influence within an emerging European State?

It seems the clash of the 'Two Swords' is upon us. Since the dismissal of the authority of the church, modern man lives in a world of rifts and ruptures dreaming of a way that will restore the unity of his lost vision, or dreads this possibility!

Communism, Facism, Capitalism, Democracy? How about Christianity? Worth a try, surely?

30 December 2010 at 22:55  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew wearing tzitzit on his robes. I somehow think few would recognise Jesus other than in their own image. He certainly upset both parties in The Sanhedrin.


As for Muslims or as they were once known - Mohammedans - they seem more prone to worship Chairman Mo than any recognisable God of The Old Testament. It is rather L Ron Hubbard in the desert and their brand of heretical Neo-Paganism is simply an oil-fuelled religion in our times

30 December 2010 at 22:55  
Anonymous srizals said...

Mr. Voyager, kindly I suggest that you educate yourself before implying Muslims ever worshipping a man. Mohammedan was a wrong term coined by the not-so right. That is why no one used it any more, except you.

31 December 2010 at 00:02  
Anonymous not a machine said...

He couldnt be a lib dem the quoran clearly states what to with those who are not believers.
There is awful ignorance of what we once understood about freedom. law and God in this country . It seems to be falling into the lap of polticians more and more as the other bodies have been neutered.
I do wonder if we havent somehow managed to corrupt things to the point where we no longer understand them . I am not sure if we are happy either as there is no "rest" so to speak , but we are perhaps in a time of changeing the failed for the new .
Waiting for godo may become a mtaphore for waiting for a response .
Perhaps people will get buried with there blackberrys , to take with them to the afterlife , floral tributes "he was good twitterer" .
If Allah was a lib dem thinker ,it is hard to imagine all of them even Ms Tether sitting blank faced with beards , trying to avoid sharia sentence .

31 December 2010 at 00:09  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

I am certain Jesus would not have belonged to any political party as His opinion of WHO the poor are/were means a completely different thing compared as through the eyes of MEN.

Presuming that poor means having little or nothing, which it does PHYSICALLY, (which is what MEN define as poor) whereas the POOR in relation to SPIRITUAL THINGS, as related to God's Word, was much more important to JESUS and He fed and tended to the needs of the physical poor who are visible.
What about the SPIRITUALLY POOR, who are harder for us to discern and see to help..

Poor in physical needs lasts a short time (I am not saying this is not important) but poor in spiritual needs has ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES.

A human being's eternal destiny was ALWAYS more important to Jesus than their physical needs, HE WAS THE GREAT PHYSICIAN!

Mark 14:3-9
3 And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head.
4 And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made?
5 For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her.
6 And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.
7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
8 She hath done what she could: she is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying.
9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

Matthew 5:3
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 6:20
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."

Both Parties, Conservative and Labour, may have started based on Christian principles but DO THEY CONTINUE IN THEM?.
I sincerely doubt it.

Matthew 15:8
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

31 December 2010 at 00:14  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Not a machine said. 31 December 2010 00:09

Brilliant!

'Perhaps people will get buried with there blackberrys , to take with them to the afterlife , floral tributes "he was good twitterer" .
If Allah was a lib dem thinker ,it is hard to imagine all of them even Ms Tether sitting blank faced with beards , trying to avoid sharia sentence .'

Gotta good chuckle out of me with that one.

Thanks!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

31 December 2010 at 00:21  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Chancellor More said...
Such crass rudeness; and such demonstrable malice and hatred towards a body you seemingly know little of.

Far be it from me to be a slanderer or a reviler of religion, the body, as you call it, of the RCC, is quite a different matter.

I can see we will have to agree to differ as to whom knows most about the MO of the RCC. After all I would not like any of your mafia associates visiting my place of residence.

Please understand that I have under my belt at least 20 years of studying the RCC in great detail, including the reading of countless amounts of books on the subject, some of which written by ex jesuit priests. I do however have little first hand knowledge of the RCC. For which I thank my luck, my parentage, as well as my judgement.

However I have little first hand knowledge of a great many things far too numerous to fully list.

For example I have never given birth to a child, actually been a Jesuit priest, a banking executive, a politician, desperately poor, or indeed excessively rich.

I contend that I do not need to personally have experience of something to have a very well informed opinion on it, and the well recorded, and highly murderous history of The RCC is no exception.

I do not wish to offend Roman Catholics, for they know not what they do, or indeed what they have very indirectly, and in many cases incredibly distantly associated themselves with.

If you seek truth, you will undoubtedly find it. Which may be a reasonably good idea, even for your good self, for only the truth can set you free.

Voyager

Believe it or not, for it makes no difference to the truth of the matter, all of the worlds current religions are at least strongly based on Neo-paganism. Certainly more then The RCC, would ever let its sheeplike followers even start to speculate on.

( It is not now, and never has been an accident that a majority of the worlds Roman Catholics cannot to this very day read at all, never mind read Latin texts.

Even if they could in many cases they still would not be allowed to, or have the educational standing in order to properly understand any worthwhile amount of it without a highly dodgy interpretation from a jesuit priest, even if they were.)

The truth is a double edged sword as far as organized religion is concerned. Which, IMO cuts more in their favor then against.

For as they undoubtedly are all linked to each other, and from the very earliest of times, a whole mountain sized can of worms has been forever opened IMO.

Some may choose to believe that religion is simply a load of hocus-pocus, from start to finish, simply because they cannot all be true at the same time. This is exactly what most atheists have ignorantly claimed to be their most simple and persuasive argument.

However the exact same knowledge could, and certainly should force people to come to the exact opposite conclusion. Or at least think about the issue in a completely different light.

For if all of the entire worlds current religions, established or otherwise, are fundamentally linked to all other religions, all the way back to classical and then to prehistorical times, then they all could be effectively correct in all of their most essential aspects.

So why does such a religion not exist, which combines all other religions, and is open to all? We should ask ourselves.

Complicated answer, which I will try to help some of you towards:

There still exists today a very old, and universally spread religion which has always repeatedly claimed not to be a religion at all, has always claimed its roots all the way back to the dawn of civilization itself, but is only open to a self selected few, of ANY faith, who come of their own free will and accord.

Unfortunately there are no prizes for guessing the name of this rather overly shy, desperately wants not to be seen to be religion.

31 December 2010 at 00:22  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

I've met your type before pal.

Go anywhere near his home with any idea of fraud or theft on your mind and you'll suffer the consequences.

If the state doesn't protect him I will.

I am sure you have, they were not trying to sell you yet another version of the same religion were they?

I only go where I am invited, so I very much doubt that your assistant will be required. However if I did get invited, I very much suspect it would be myself that would require urgent medical help from an A&E department.

Try to keep a sense of humor, as it is often all we seem to have left.

The truth hurts, but not as much as the Spanish/European Inquisition.

31 December 2010 at 00:31  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Srizals, if you are looking.

Not a machine said 31 December 2010 00:09 has given a near perfect example of Irony (getting what you least expect)that I have told you about defined within our british humour, that is peculiar to us. Brilliant!

Hope you can enjoy the Irony.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

31 December 2010 at 00:33  
Blogger srizals said...

Ok, if it makes you happy.

31 December 2010 at 00:47  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Srizals said

You dont understand..It was not attacking you.

It is our sense of humour explained!!!

So says kingofhighcs

31 December 2010 at 00:54  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Kingofhighcs: I thankyou, your post on the poor is somthing similar to what I was thinking after I posted on the poor earlier this week an this very blogg.
As christians we perhaps are to try and understand the spiritual poverty.
I know you are right on poverty but I am note quite sure if our church supports the eradication and treatment of spiritual poverty .
But thankyou for at least taking my thoughts to an UK I once remebered , loved and respected .

31 December 2010 at 01:27  
Blogger Crusader said...

Atlas shrugged

31 December 2010 00:31

"Try to keep a sense of humor, as it is often all we seem to have left."

Indeed!
;o)

Ps comment about inquisition unnecessary. Afterall, it was a long time ago.

31 December 2010 at 01:32  
Blogger A Simle Fool said...

KINGOFHIGHCS

I bet Jesus does care about all the children starving in Africa and all the floods and earthquakes going on. He cried too when his friend died.

Sounds like a bit of an excuse to me so that we don't have to help people.

31 December 2010 at 01:48  
Blogger A Simle Fool said...

KINGOFHIGHCS

Funny name.

I forgot to say about the story of that poor man who the baddies beat up and everyone left to die. He was helped and looked after andf Jesus wants us to do that too - doesn't he?

31 December 2010 at 02:07  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Simple fool said

Sorry I had to alter my lead statement as I thought you were Mr Eman under another blog sign..Silly Old Me, as if he would resort to being different people just for a reaction!

'I bet Jesus does care about all the children starving in Africa and all the floods and earthquakes going on. He cried too when his friend died.

Sounds like a bit of an excuse to me so that we don't have to help people.'

Where have I said or implied what you stated?
Life is more than meat or drink!

Luke 12:22-34.

22 And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.
23 The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment.
24 Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?
25 And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?
26 If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?
27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?
29 And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.
30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.
31 But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.
32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Also 1 Corinthians 13
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned , and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long , and is kind ; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself , is not puffed up ,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly , seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked , thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth : but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail ; whether there be tongues, they shall cease ; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away .
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come , then that which is in part shall be done away .
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly ; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known . 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Replace Charity for Love if you prefer?
So which is the greater..Or are both not the same saying.

It is not a funny name at all and was explained under another comment section you were on..Was it not?

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

31 December 2010 at 02:17  
Anonymous srizals said...

I do get it Mr. KINGOFHIGHCS, my favourite English class was Mind Your Language and I could see Britain's in a loveable light as I watched it then. Mr. Brown was as native a teacher can get for me at that time. We don't have the Internet as easy as it is now. Which is one more reason I'm here.

If any of you that still remember, the good old days,
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/comedy/watch/v6283167bjyPWDEb

31 December 2010 at 02:49  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Srizals said

Off to Bed

Will look tomorrow,
Night All

So says KINGOFHIGHCS

31 December 2010 at 02:53  
Anonymous srizals said...

Sweet dreams, Mr. KINGOFHIGHCS.

31 December 2010 at 02:55  
Blogger Ivan said...

srizals Muslims worship a man - Mohammed, thats all your religion is for. Mohamedan is the right term to apply to Muslims. It is always Mohamed said this or Mohamed did that. And Allah is Mohamed's slave, which is why he sanctioned behaviour that would have appalled the contemporary Arabs and Jews, having the hots for his adopted son's wife and so on. Nowhere in the OT do you find an examplar of mankind behaving with such gross indecency. Add to that his bloodlust and you have perhaps the worst bastard ever to have founded a religion

31 December 2010 at 03:22  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

I sense an undertone of contempt, and quite rightly so, for the likes of Mehdi Hasan, their bile and their deceptions.

Perhaps we (Me and thee) are not so far apart, after all?

PS (This will probably spoil it for you) Islam is filth. I tend to say it how it is, and those Baal-worshippers, well, they just don't cut it, do they? If you doubt me, just ask Elijah.

31 December 2010 at 03:40  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Crusader
Ps comment about inquisition unnecessary. Afterall, it was a long time ago.

Well if you believe that a mere 350 years ago is a long time, so long ago in fact that you can safely forget about it. Then why are you still a Christian when that was reportedly started 2010 years ago?

Those who forget their past are condemned to repeat it.

Many say, myself included that we had what could be described as a papal inspired inquisition no more then 73 years ago to be reasonably precise. An event that accounted for a sizable proportion of my entire extended family. Is that close enough to get your attention?

Therefore forgive me for maybe being over sensitive concerning well recorded historical events, especially those directly related to certain deals done with The RCC.

No church or religion has un-blooded hands, although some are quite clearly less un-blooded then others.

Rather then trowing abuse at myself, why do you seek to deny the FACTS of the matter? They are all in your own authorized history books, and have been the subject of countless authorized documentaries and other less authorized accounts.

Like those for example of 3,yes 3 past German concentration camp victims I have known since I was a little boy.

They have little, nay no doubt whatsoever who was really responsible for what happened to them. And neither would you if you had heard what I have.

31 December 2010 at 03:56  
Anonymous non mouse said...

KingofHighCs ...

As a Chaucer fan, I distinguish between Caritas [God[e]s Love, Spiritual love; the love of Godly things that leads the soul to God (LOVE)] and cupiditas [love of physical, material, worldly matters; love of the world - including money, of course]. The Augustinian idea being, as I understand his Enchiridion, that we can advance to Caritas< through our experience of cupiditas.

The principle has afforded insightful readings especially of "The House of Fame," and of The Canterbury Tales ... not least, that of the Pardoner. Chaucer's superbly drawn paragon of only too modern 'spin' begins his Prologue:
"Lordynges," quod he, "in chirches whan I preche,
I peyne me to han an hauteyn speche,
And rynge it out as round as gooth a belle,
For I kan al by rote that I tell.
My theme is alwey oon, and evere was --
Radix malorum est cupiditas." (PP 329-34*)

'He is the very model of our modern' confidence trickster (politician, journalist, etc), who cannot contain his delight in his prowess when he boasts that, in dispensing Papal Pardons fresh from Rome, his only motive is gain,

"... and nothyng for the correccioun of synne.
I rekke nevere, whan that they been beryed,
Though that hir soules goon a-blakeberyed!" (404-6)
(...and nothing for the correction of sin.
I never care when they are buried,
Though their souls go blackberrying!) Thence, he repeats his theme: 'Love of money is the root of all evil.'

I thought this relevant enough to present discussions of blackberries: their not being the 'lilies of the field.' Neither were they, in any case, the way to the Kingdom of Heaven (Home of Caritas); for such I believe was a major thesis of Christ's teaching.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, indeed! If only we had men with the courage and brilliance of Chaucer and Wyclif now. How they could manifest the truth about the euSSR's religion, and its preachers. Oh, I pray for that Reformation.

Of course, much could be done, if the BBC and print media were still attached to our culture, rather than that of the invaders. ~~~Richard II sponsored poets like Chaucer at court - but, then again, look what happened to him.




*Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Riverside Chaucer. Ed. Larry D. Benson. 3rd Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987; ("The Pardoner's Prologue," 194-6.)

31 December 2010 at 04:27  
Blogger srizals said...

Ivan the terrible, you're so terrible I don't have to lay a finger on you.

31 December 2010 at 04:41  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Nice reply, Your Grace. However, when it comes to any kind of relgious dogma, it's all cobblers as far as I'm concerned so I'll just congratulate you on your most excellent erudition and withdraw from the field.

31 December 2010 at 09:06  
Anonymous Job's Tempter said...

I agree that Jesus' words tell us nothing about contemporary politics. That collection of fotherington-thomas truisms reveals little other than a rather third-rate mind.

But it's about time we nailed your familiar canard, expressed here as: " ‘the right’ has come to mean essentially the thesis of the individual, and ‘the left’ the thesis of the state"

'The right', particularly in its free market guise, requires massive state intervention. The very creation of private property capitalism required widespread Government-enforced enclosure of common land. 'The right' also requires the state to devise and enforce extensive anti-labour legislation, and to use the police and army against the inevitable outcry at the market's effects on society and family. The market also demands a mass welfare culture, as it is predicated on a large pool of the unemployed to maintain capital's favourable position over labour. Lady Thatcher, for all her lip service to rolling back the state, understood all the above perfectly.

By contrast, 'the Left', at its best, works towards conditions of full employment, with welfare as a minimal and temporary safety net. It also sees the state as the arbiter between the individual and the market, alleviating the effects of the latter so the individual is free to persue social and family life as they please. I admit 'the Left' has occasionally lost sight of these ideals but I know which of the two visions places greater premium on the individual.

31 December 2010 at 10:34  
Anonymous Steve said...

Unfortunately, there is no benefit from having a reputation for compassion, social justice and social responsibility if you so mismanage affairs that you throw people out of work and squander the money that would have brought relief.

31 December 2010 at 10:58  
Anonymous John said...

A little touchy Mr Cranmer! Though I know how upsetting it can be when people make claims regarding our favourite characters from popular works of fiction. I reckon Harry Potter would vote BNP.

31 December 2010 at 12:13  
Blogger killemallletgodsortemout said...

If Jesus is a socialist, does that make the rest of the Holy Trinity a bunch of Labour-voting lefties as well?

If so, I'm doomed, I tell you, dooooomed.....

31 December 2010 at 14:07  
Anonymous Voyager said...

"I reckon Harry Potter would vote BNP"

Careful. He is copyrighted by Joanne Rowling and she can afford to sue

31 December 2010 at 15:04  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Non Mouse said
'The more things change, the more they stay the same, indeed! If only we had men with the courage and brilliance of Chaucer and Wyclif now. How they could manifest the truth about the euSSR's religion, and its preachers. Oh, I pray for that Reformation.
'
ME TOO Non Mouse, Me Too.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

31 December 2010 at 16:00  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

Careful. He is copyrighted by Joanne Rowling and she can afford to sue

She does seem rather predisposed to that sort of activity doesn't she. Another champagne socialist as well I think. Just to be on the safe side we'd all better refer to him as Harr* ***ter.

31 December 2010 at 16:25  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Voyager @22.55 & English Viking @ 03.40

Exactly so!

Just more Islamic sleight-of-hand ... ledgerdemain designed to bamboozle and obfuscate.

They cannot, will not, debate their own sorry mess, so they blether elsewhere.

31 December 2010 at 17:30  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Ivan @ 03.22

You have it too Sir, you have it!

I takes a fevered mind to 'know' Mohammed, and yet still revere him!

31 December 2010 at 17:40  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Atlas shrugged
31 December 2010 03:56

I thought there was some unhealthy poison in your heart.

Without trading past sins against our fathers, my own family history is one that reflects man's inhumanity to man. My father was a Jew, his family moving here in the late 1900's following persecution in Spain. My mother a Catholic whose family were desimated by the potatoe famine in the 1850's. I was born and raised in Belfast. Dad, not only Jewish, was a serving soldier in the British Army.

All true. Neither one harboured any bitterness. Growing up and being taught by nun's confused and troubled me greatly. My father was a deep and profound man who avoided attempting to explain the evil in this world. He simply said that the unfolding of God's plan for man is obscure but the destination secure if we have faith, hope and charity.

Yes christianity, including Luther and others, has committed sin against your and my ancestors - catholic and protestant. The Pope has acknowledged this at the Wailing Wall. Was the neo-paganism of the National Socialist party a child of christianity? Suffice it to say that Catholics experienced the venom of Hitler too, as did gypsies, disabled people and many others. Was religious zeal behind the ravings of a mad man possessed by evil? Doubtful. Did Rome stand idle during the holcaust and shelter Nazis? History is undecided.

The history of the world is replete with examples of genocide and ethnic. Much driven by political, economic and social causes wearing a mask of religion.

A meditation on the Passion of Christ in the gospels offers many insights. Is every Pharasee and Sadducee the same? Is every Jew responsible for the wickedness of their political and religious leaders who deviated from their judicial law, convicting an innocent man and manipulating the mob? Is every Italian responsible for the cowardice of Pontious Pilate?

Have a joyful and peaceful New Year and New Decade.

31 December 2010 at 18:19  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Kingofhigncs
31 December 2010 02:17

I will answer on behalf of 'Simple Fool' if I may. Curious, but he asks many of the questions my children put to me whilst growing up.

Excellent quotes in your reply. Maybe a bit complex for a simple minded soul though!

I've always thought the destinction between faith and works made by some was false. Just like that between foreknowledge and predestination. It's all a question of emphasis and context. So much wasted energy and heated debate between protagonists!

One other text might add something:

James 2: 14-26

God Bless and a Peaceful and Joyous New Year to you and yours

31 December 2010 at 18:36  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Eman, Ah the old faith and works dilemma.
If you are working ,trying to please God by your 'good works'you just cancelled out Jesus as your Saviour and in effect have just become your own saviour.Which is a trademark of all of the Religions of the World .....except Biblical Christianity.
Can you do better than Jesus? quite a few presumably think they can!.

Jesus a socialist?
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36
The Kingdom of God is a Kingdom where Righteousness reigns,it is a Kingdom you cannot join you must be reborn into it.

Socialism is just another of the failed inventions of man, any one with an ounce of perception will see that!.

31 December 2010 at 19:04  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Ien

You think faith and works a dilema?

You think what I said implied socialism?

You're betraying a prejudice of yours, not a belief of mine!

Read it again: James 2: 14-26

Faith is active; it produces a particular manner of life in harmony with the will of God.

31 December 2010 at 22:14  
Anonymous len said...

Mt Eman.
Chicken and egg syndrome.Re Faith and works.

Socialism Re H G`s post.
Happy New year to all.

31 December 2010 at 22:22  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! I don't think Mohammed was a Liberal Democrat. He was a very naughty boy!

31 December 2010 at 23:20  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

len

Is there such a thing as a chicken and egg with God?

Manna and quail given to the Isrealites in the desert was physically and spiritually sustaining; the water from the rock at Rephidin quenched physical and spiritual thirst.

The Body, Blood and Water of Christ a physical death for one; a spiritual rebirth for many.


Happy New Year

1 January 2011 at 03:21  
Blogger English Viking said...

@Mrs Proudie of Barchester,

No, I think he probably was a Lib-dem - he was a pædophile, after all.

1 January 2011 at 03:34  
Blogger A Simple Fool said...

Mr Eman
KINGOFHIGHCS

Do you think I can work all that stuff out?

Too many long words for me and very long sentences too.

I just think if you love Jesus you will love other people too and be kind to everyone because we are all our brothers and sisters now.

I don't know if I want to be friends with you.

1 January 2011 at 03:46  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. E man said, "History is undecided".

Something that is so clear and obvious is undecided? Not just that I'm afraid. Since so many are at stakes, things are better off left undecided. We don't want to be proven, by ourselves, that we were actually in the wrong. What would ever happen to our precious pride. Look at the Viking that thinks he's an English! I hope when he's dead, he won't have virgins sacrificed after sleeping with all the men in the tribe to be his brides in the afterlife. Stabbed between the rib bones. It would surely pissed him off for having such brides. English Viking stop making accusations you can't even defend against me.

Some of your proud pure heritage.

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

1 January 2011 at 04:45  
Blogger srizals said...

But for the sake of others, not for Ivan and smartie obtruder,

"Traditionally the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

"2004: A Singaporean girl gave birth to a boy in 2004 after being impregnated by a fellow student at her school. Her mother initially thought she had a urinary tract infection, but, upon taking her to the doctor, learned she was already six months pregnant. The baby was placed for adoption".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

"Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine. Agnes's age, then, was not unusual, especially as it was customary for young engaged couples in Constantinople to be brought up together in the house of the socially superior partner".

http://www.roman-emperors.org/aggiefran.htm

Since most of the readers are British,

"Catherine was the third from youngest. One of her older sisters, Isabella, married King Richard II of England, at the age of 6."

http://www.webhistoryofengland.com/?p=1529
These marriages happened long after, not before the marriage of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.
Hush, hush, don't let others know how misinformed we are actually. It would be very, very embarrassing! If we could feel any shame that is.

1 January 2011 at 05:40  
Anonymous non mouse said...

You are most likely wrong again, Srizals. In the 14th century, even froggie aristocrats had the sense to protect their daughters by agreements about under-age consummation.

Most academic sources clarify that the marriage of Richard and Isabella was unconsummated - and that she later exercised her prerogative to refuse a marriage arranged for her by Henry IV.

1 January 2011 at 07:30  
Anonymous len said...

Srizels,
Your defending the indefensible speaks volumes about you and your'faith.'

I think the ultimate judgement of God (and a fitting one' is for you to end up in the company of Mohammed and his 'Allah'.

1 January 2011 at 09:01  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Eman,
You talk the talk(03:21 ) and if you walk the walk we may even be going in the same direction.!

..........
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."(Matthew7 :13)
.......
And the Gate is Christ.

1 January 2011 at 09:10  
Anonymous len said...

For those who do not know Christ(or Biblical terms)


"Very truly, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit.
The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.
The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice.
They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers."
Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
So again Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep.
All who came before me are thieves and bandits; but the sheep did not listen to them.
I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. (NRSV)

1 January 2011 at 09:15  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

len

I agree completely!

Mind you, we do need to be careful that we don't knock one another out of the way as we enter through the narrow gate or in our haste knock one another off the narrow path.

We also need to be sure about the 'gatekeeper' and the 'voice'.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

1 January 2011 at 11:45  
Blogger srizals said...

Len and Non Mouse,
1st, the fact that I have presented here is undeniable to both of you; girls are women when their bodies say so.

"Blame" it on “Mother Nature” if you think that they are being adult before their time. It is the changing of time that made the age of bride became later and later and changing according to its need and challenges. A marriage is a marriage whether it is consummated or not. We were not there and bedroom is a private matter. You seemed to be defending the British royalties. How about the Byzantium royalties?

2nd, a marriage is nothing unholy, as long as it is approved by the society, the law and by both parties, and foremost the rule of God's law or the natural laws that governed it. Only opposite sexes are to marry each other. Same sex marriage would invite certain deadly viruses that we wouldn't want to suffer before we die. It's dreadfully painful ok!

3rd, the very fact that young brides were a norm back then, and even now arise from time to time was undeniable to you. Young people still got married and build their family happily. Who are you to judge them? They are not taken advantage of, sold for profits and manipulated. Where's the evil in that? Thailand doesn’t seem to mind. They got Wanwisa Janmuk, a 9 year old mother that gave birth naturally and her husband was not prosecuted as no law was being broken.

4th, check out the current situation Len and Non Mouse. The biological clock is ticking back to the good old days.

"The latest generation of girls are reaching puberty before the age of 10, a new study suggests, raising fears they may also begin sexual activity earlier".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7824699/Girls-now-reaching-puberty-before-10-a-year-sooner-than-20-years-ago.html

"The youngest reported mother in the world - and the most bizarre of all young pregnancy cases - is five-year-old Lina Medina of Peru, who gave birth to a 6lb son named Gerardo in a Caesarean operation in 1939".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247889/Chinese-girl-9-gives-birth-health-baby-boy.html

"At age 7, approximately 10 percent of white girls and 23 percent of black girls had started developing breasts - compared to 5 percent of white girls and 15 percent of black girls in 1997, the authors write".

"Among 8-year-olds in the study, 18 percent of white girls and 43 percent of black girls had entered puberty - an increase from around 11 percent of white girls from 1997, but the same as black girls in that year"
Puberty coming earlier for U.S. girls: study
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6782EV20100809

5th, the moral standing was not touched by either of you. If you said that the marriage of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. was wrong, hundred years before, what does that make the royalties and the nobles of Great Britain and Byzantine and the people involved?

6th, what do the Bible says about young marriages or things similar to it?

7th, there’s nothing evil in a noble marriages involving noblemen and prestigious leaders at that time. No prestigious historians dared to ridicule them. What’s hideous is forced marriage of child bride and sexual predators that preyed on not one bride, but countless victims. They are not the same with noble husbands that are nobles of the country themselves. Unless you can prove otherwise that is, I mean the miseries, the agony, the secrecy and resentment at that particular time that would denote an action as a hideous sin. If you can't what does that tell you Len and Non Mouse?

1 January 2011 at 14:11  
Blogger srizals said...

Len and Non Mouse,
1st, the fact that I have presented here is undeniable to both of you; girls are women when their bodies say so.

"Blame" it on “Mother Nature” if you think that they are being adult before their time. It is the changing of time that made the age of bride became later and later and changing according to its need and challenges. A marriage is a marriage whether it is consummated or not. We were not there and bedroom is a private matter. You seemed to be defending the British royalties. How about the Byzantium royalties?

2nd, a marriage is nothing unholy, as long as it is approved by the society, the law and by both parties, and foremost the rule of God's law or the natural laws that governed it. Only opposite sexes are to marry each other. Same sex marriage would invite certain deadly viruses that we wouldn't want to suffer before we die.

3rd, the very fact that young bride was a norm back then, and exist even now was undeniable to you. Young people still got married and build their family happily. Who are you to judge them? They are not taken advantage of, sold for profits and manipulated. Where's the evil in that? Thailand doesn’t seem to mind. They got Wanwisa Janmuk and her husband was not prosecuted as no law is being broken.

1 January 2011 at 14:16  
Blogger srizals said...

4th, check out current situation Len and Non Mouse. The biological clock is ticking back to the good old days.

"The latest generation of girls are reaching puberty before the age of 10, a new study suggests, raising fears they may also begin sexual activity earlier".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7824699/Girls-now-reaching-puberty-before-10-a-year-sooner-than-20-years-ago.html

"The youngest reported mother in the world - and the most bizarre of all young pregnancy cases - is five-year-old Lina Medina of Peru, who gave birth to a 6lb son named Gerardo in a Caesarean operation in 1939".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247889/Chinese-girl-9-gives-birth-health-baby-boy.html

"At age 7, approximately 10 percent of white girls and 23 percent of black girls had started developing breasts - compared to 5 percent of white girls and 15 percent of black girls in 1997, the authors write".
"Among 8-year-olds in the study, 18 percent of white girls and 43 percent of black girls had entered puberty - an increase from around 11 percent of white girls from 1997, but the same as black girls in that year"
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6782EV20100809

5th, the moral standing was not touched by either of you. If you said that the marriage of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. was wrong, what that makes the royalties and the nobles of Great Britain and Byzantine and the people involved?

6th, what does the Bible say about young marriages or things similar to it?

7th, there’s nothing evil in a noble marriages involving noblemen and prestigious leaders at that time. No prestigious historians ever condemned them. What’s hideous is forced marriage of child bride and sexual predators that preyed on not one bride, but countless victims. They are not the same with noble husbands.

1 January 2011 at 14:16  
Blogger srizals said...

"But if said Duchess should turn out to be seven years of age, there would be a barely stifled shriek of horror from every television station in the land that would otherwise have joined in the celebration, and there would be an immediate rush to denial on the front pages of the Star and Globe Weekly, which would also be salivating as they have not done since the discovery of the body of little Jo-Benet Ramsay. The spectre of pedophilia -- that last taboo, which has threatened to close down sections of the Internet to scholars in our day -- would immediately rear its dreadful head. The future king would be whisked away for extended treatment in an exclusive sanatorium at an un-named location. The Queen Mum would have a heart attack on the spot. Fergie would snigger.

And yet it is the case that in 1396, Richard II of England was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who had been 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris. Not only was there no uproar; there was considerable happiness expressed over the assumed probability that this marriage would end the Hundred Years War then in one of its periodic states of truce between the two kingdoms"
John McLaughlin, PhD
English Department, East Stroudsburg University, Now Emeritus
http://www.thedigitalfolklife.org/childmarriage.htm

1 January 2011 at 14:18  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. E Man said,
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Whose been ravening all the lost sheep of Israel in World War 2? What wolf had been grilling the helpless civilians of heavily populated cities when they were fire-bombed at Tokyo and Dresden? What wolf ever nuked civilians instead of heavily armed armies? What wolf would saw men and women in half with ropes because they disagree about faith? What wolf would burn the severed genitals of a dying man in front of his own eyes?

History spoke for itself. We can just misinterpret them and made lame excuses. Some of us are the wolves deep in sheep clothing. So deep that our own noses had lost our original scent and the faint smell of the dried blood of countless past victims.

1 January 2011 at 14:30  
Blogger srizals said...

"Thus, when Bishop Hugh of Lincoln intervened in the multiple marriages of Grace of Saleby, it was, among other reasons, because she had been married at age 4; it was this, combined with the other fraudulent behavior of her mother and her female accomplices, which brought down the censure of the saintly bishop. If they had only waited until she was seven, things might have been alright, given the swift deaths of the hasty spouses".
http://www.thedigitalfolklife.org/childmarriage.htm

1 January 2011 at 14:58  
Blogger srizals said...

It's a small world after all, It's a small, small world, after all..
Silence is golden, but sometimes, Silence is consent. I wonder.

Remember Bradley Manning.

1 January 2011 at 15:29  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Mr Eman said

Kingofhigncs
31 December 2010 02:17

I will answer on behalf of 'Simple Fool'(AS DISCUSSED ELSEWHERE, I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT..HA HA) if I may.(PLEASE DO) Curious, but he (HE..HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS)asks many of the questions my children put to me whilst growing up.(HMMN SIMLE FOOL.,.YES)

Excellent quotes in your reply. Maybe a bit complex for a simple minded soul though!(I HAS NOT SUNK IN WITH YOU EITHER)

I've always thought the destinction between faith and works made by some was false.(HOW SO?) Just like that between foreknowledge and predestination.(IT IS SIMPLE ENGLISH..READ AND LEARN) It's all a question of emphasis and context. So much wasted energy and heated debate between protagonists!(HOW IS THIS)

SIMPLE FOOL SAID'I don't know if I want to be friends with you.' 'I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO BE FRIENDS WITH YOU TOO MR EMAN? HA HA)

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

1 January 2011 at 16:57  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

KINGOFHIGHCR

Such shouting - so unnecessray looks so inelegant. Such rudeness too!

You never read my response to len about faith and good works - or chose to overlook it.

Here it is:

Is there such a thing as a chicken and egg with God?

Manna and quail given to the Isrealites in the desert was physically and spiritually sustaining; the water from the rock at Rephidin quenched physical and spiritual thirst.

The Body, Blood and Water of Christ a physical death for one; a spiritual rebirth for many."

Am I misunderstanding?

James 2: 14-26

1 January 2011 at 17:48  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

KINGOFHIGHCR

SIMLE - I think s/he may be sending you a message!

Do the anagram :0)

1 January 2011 at 17:53  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

KINGOFHIGHCR

I believe Jesus may be telling us something direct and straight forward here, as well as spiritual. Don't you? Or are you INTERPRETING again?

Matthew 5: 3-12
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall possess the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice,
for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mathew - 21: 34-40
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat,
I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink,
I was a stranger and you invited me in,
I needed clothes and you clothed me,
I was sick and you looked after me,
I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"

1 January 2011 at 18:25  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

Mr Eman said

KINGOFHIGHCR

SIMLE - I think s/he may be sending you a message!

Do the anagram :0)

I think you will find I know ALL your manifestations on here as soon as your write ;0)
I ALLOW you to waffle on but I still answer your questions TRUTHFULLY, irrespective!

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

1 January 2011 at 21:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oswin noted the tendency some time ago. Now it's clear that Srizals suffers from many forms of overload and confusion.

Isn't it irresponsible of us to exacerbate his condition?

1 January 2011 at 22:58  
Blogger srizals said...

Well anonymously annoying at 22:58, I'm waiting. Why don't you try? The world is confused anyway. Civilised killers killed brutally under our very eyes and laughing while at it, with petty excuses, it's war see. "They" are bombing and terrorising us on daily basis, so we returned the favour. Look at the daily destructions and ruins the West suffered since World War 1.

You won't know what terror is unless it comes knocking on your door. Beware of the real "civilised" terrorists! They are making fame and money. Most died in agony.

Most of us are blind since we could only see suffering in a very selective manner. And that saddened me deeply, even though we're having more and more noble prize winners nowadays, since when I wonder? The sufferings and the brutal inhuman killings and treatments also increase with the marvelled ingenuity. I can't help but wonder again.

Some say they are left only with humour. Not everyone is the same, of course.

2 January 2011 at 00:56  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

KingogHighcr

To date you've not answered a single question!! All I get is abuse because of my faith and membership of the Roman Universal Church.

Answer the questions posed here about faith and works. You initiated this 'debate'.

Answer the questions posed elsewhere on Apostolic succession and the rapture.

2 January 2011 at 02:49  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Eman , I think we have done this one ,we could continue for Eternity as you don`t seem to accept any answer we give you!.
May I humbly suggest that you read Galatians.
May God Bless you in your search for the Truth.

2 January 2011 at 09:13  
Anonymous len said...

MrEman I have given Srizels a link on the rapture,perhaps you could follow that?We did Apostolic succession elsewhere I believe?

www.oxfordbiblechurch.

Follow...Teachings.....End Time Prophesy.....Rapture of the Church.

2 January 2011 at 09:23  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 January 2011 at 22:10  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

len said

"Mr Eman , I think we have done this one ,we could continue for Eternity as you don`t seem to accept any answer we give you!.
May I humbly suggest that you read Galatians."

Please God we don't continue for Eternity!

3 January 2011 at 22:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older