Friday, March 18, 2011

The day David Cameron became a statesman

We don’t do declarations of war any more: they are distinctly passé; part of the mediaeval-to-modern era; bound up with the restrictive rules of war laid down by Augustine and Aquinas. Instead, we just despatch a ‘task force’ or participate in a UN-sanctioned military coalition to conceal the fact that we are, in fact, at war.

Better late than never, the UN have decided to confront Libya’s Strong Man. Today, David Cameron is vindicated. It was he who first called for a no-fly zone to be enforced, supported (eventually) by President Sarkozy, while Obama dithered and Germany rebuffed. The delay is unfortunate: it has cost lives, and the military objectives will be more difficult to attain than they would have been a week ago. One must hope that the Arab League will now join in to save their own from the torture, terror and murderous thuggery of Gaddafi.

This is not a day for triumphal rejoicing or ego-strutting. The UN resolution is in a sense a diplomatic triumph for the Prime Minister, not least because neither China nor Russia exercised their right to veto. But military force always represents a failure of diplomacy and the repudiation of democratic politics: it is still, as Augustine and Aquinas decreed, the option of last resort. The decision to commit the nation to war must weigh profoundly on the mind and rest heavily on the heart of any prime minister. David Cameron inherited Tony Blair’s military action in Iraq and Afghanistan: the names of the fallen he recites each week at the Dispatch Box are not attributable to him. But today, he instigates his own conflict, declaring in a postmodern fashion that this nation is now at war with Libya, which may well lead to the loss of more British lives. When he reads the names of the deceased from the Dispatch Box, they will be attributable directly to him.

And let us today consider another man whose mettle will be tested over the coming weeks and months. Liam Fox becomes another war-time Defence Secretary, at the very time he presides over a draconian defence review which involves the scrapping Ark Royal; the commissioning and mothballing of replacement aircraft carriers without aircraft; and the wholesale dismissal of fighter pilots. We are no longer a world power, and yet we continue to project the image of the age of Empire. If Mr Fox draws those around him who understand the complexities and can grapple with the issues – people like former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind – he should be able to facilitate the military in ways his Labour predecessor manifestly failed. Let no-one accuse this Defence Secretary of sending our troops to war without the necessary equipment.

To those who criticise this intervention and insist that Gaddafi and Libya are nothing to do with us, His Grace can only point you to PC Yvonne Fletcher, to decades of arming the IRA and to Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. Frankly, we would have been justified in encouraging ‘regime change’ decades ago. Only a fool could be blind to the sorts of terrors and atrocities Gaddafi would unleash again on the UK when he has finished butchering his own in Benghazi. This intervention is wholly justified, on humanitarian grounds and in the national interest. As Lord Palmerston said:
"Our duty – our vocation – is not to enslave, but to set free… we stand at the head of moral, social, and political civilisation… when we see people battling against difficulties and struggling against obstacles in the pursuit of their rights, we may be permitted… if occasion require, to lend them a helping hand."
In short, it is our Christian duty to help the oppressed: we have a moral obligation to defend the weak and to love our neighbour, who is every man.

You may well ask ‘where next?’ Bahrain? Saudi Arabia?

As the Lord said: “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”


Anonymous Andy said...

Yeah, lets bomb some more Muslims and see what happens...

18 March 2011 at 10:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You outline some of the defence cuts then start quoting Lord Palmerston and claim it is our duty to intervene in an Arab civil war,with no idea of what might replace Gadaffi

Yes well done Dave the statesman.

18 March 2011 at 10:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

I don’t think this has been thought through properly. ‘Daffy Duck’s’ lads are unable to manage sufficient sorties. A NFZ is going to have minimal affect.

That means 'Daffy Duck' is going to be around for a long time.

This is madness.

18 March 2011 at 10:37  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Why do we never call a spade a spade. Libya has a lot of OIL and whilst I am a realist and understand that we have to back our own interests, at least call it like it is. If it was about evil despots massacring their own people we would intervene in a lot more countries. The reality is we need to secure those oil supplies and it is a big bad world out there where every other Nation is looking out for their own interests.

18 March 2011 at 10:38  
Anonymous David said...

'When he reads the names of the deceased from the Dispatch Box, they will be accountable directly to him.'

Surely you mean 'he will be directly accountable for them'?

18 March 2011 at 11:00  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr David,

His Grace used 'accountable' in the sense of its secondary OED definition of 'explicable' or 'understandable'; ie, on the Prime Minister's account'. Your preference for 'responsible' is perhaps better.

18 March 2011 at 11:17  
Blogger Londiniensis said...

Re Obama's dithering: If Obama had been gung-ho, it is doubtful whether the Arab League would have called for action, and certain that Russia would have used its Security Council veto. Was he dithering or playing a long game? No doubt what his supporters will now say. I'm not sure, but still applaud the outcome.

18 March 2011 at 11:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When he reads the names of the deceased from the Dispatch Box, they will be accountable directly to him."

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "attributable directly to him"?

18 March 2011 at 11:29  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Tiddles said...

Wise old D Singh stated 18 March 2011 10:37

Ernst had his say on this subject in the early hours of this morning, on another post.

'This is madness'. Excellently concise.

MatureChesse 18 March 2011 10:38

Brilliantly phrased, my fine weasel but it does not mean there will not be consequences and very bad ones at that. Brace yourself, all ye that reside in these Isles.

Your Grace states one of Our Lord's finest sayings for daily perseverance 'As the Lord said: “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
but surely it refers to the believing individual and not a godless parliament who are expecting a few, yet non de-commisioned hanggliders, dragged up into the atmosphere from the tarmac of italian airbases, to do the job?

A Very Troubled Ernst

18 March 2011 at 11:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You may well ask ‘where next?’ Bahrain? Saudi Arabia?"

His Grace conveys,likely unintentionally,a sense of excited anticipation. Or a sense that the PM is Richard the Lionheart reincarnate.

As for the delayed punishment of the Libyan leader : how about Cameron ascertains if Israel still has any surviving members of Irgun?

How about Cameron - like all men , imperfect - runs his gaze over the atlas and decides which other countries' leaders do not meet his sense of morality?
As self-appointed (or is "anointed" le mot juste ?) guardian of the world , he'd have to do a U-turn , sharpish , on those defence cuts.

Does His Grace recall cheering on the hammering taken by the Soviets thirty years ago?
In a place called Afghanistan? When the West armed the Taliban?

It is reported that , on hearing of the no-fly zone declaration , imams in Beghazi were shouting "Allahu Akbar".

The imams are Muslims (ah , yes , to quote Basil - "Sybil Fawlty - Mastermind - specialist subject - the bleedin' obvious"). Bit it needs to be spelled out - does His Grace not realise that these same people would like to crush his cherished Christianity?

If His Grace wishes merely for the demise of the colonel , that could be done covertly.

Would His Grace find the loss of innocent life , that of "ordinary" Libyans ,acceptable ?
Who was that character in The Bible who declared ,if it be known that even ten innocent men would suffer,Sodom would not be destroyed ?
Ah , yes , got it - the character's name was GOD.
What number would His Grace put on acceptable "collateral damage"?

Marcus Foxall

18 March 2011 at 11:36  
Anonymous berserker-nkl said...

Mature Cheese is absolutely ripely right about non intervention by the West in other badlands.

Take Zimbabwe: R Mugabe is a worried man and is clamping down on all meetings etc in the worry over contagion and is I believe about to arrest his coalition partner - Morgan Tsvangirai. Here is a country where over a million farm workers were disposed of land and work.

The Courts however remain reasonably independent.

But the West does nothing.

18 March 2011 at 11:52  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

@Anon 11.29,

Yes, 'attributable' is better. His Grace has amended, thank you.

Mr Marcus Foxall,

It is not 'excited anticipation' at all, but the pre-empting of communicants' inevitable questions relating to this. His Grace happens to believe that just because we cannot intervene everywhere ought not to inhibit us from intervening somewhere.

Did His Grace cheer at the 'hammering taken by the Soviets thirty years ago'? He is puzzled that you profess to know.

You appear to be prejudiced against all Muslims because of the beliefs and actions of some: not all Muslims wish to 'crush' Christianity, as you state. You might widen your circle of acquaintances and broaden your experience.

On the loss of civilian life, His Grace accords with the teachings of Augustine and Aquinas.

18 March 2011 at 11:55  
Anonymous Gordo said...

"In short, it is our Christian duty to help the oppressed: we have a moral obligation to defend the weak and to love our neighbour, who is every man."

So when are you off personally to do this? You personally? Where next you ask. Why not China?

Can't you seen who is driving this? This is Euro-Med fusion with the inevitable millions in the human waves coming North destroying everything that Europe built and once held so dear including your beloved Jesus who thinks every humanoid is his brother.

18 March 2011 at 12:13  
Anonymous Toby said...

Uk will probably only contribute force multipliers via AWACS, however there are some rather nice eurofighters at Malta.

Failing that, given that HMS Cumberland is due to be decommissioned, she could lighten up her ammo bunker via the deck gun and save us the hassle and cost.

most of gaddifi-the-duck’s forces are mercenary, they’ll soon bugger off when the merde starts flying their way.

As for troops on the ground, no, advisors and SF yes.

This is Iraq nofly/uprising all over again, but this time it can be done right and support to the people trying to overthrow his evil regime must be backed up other than words.

If it goes to pot afterwards with dodgy elections, Iran/Shia lead bombings at least we can say we did the right thing at the time, but its down to the Libyans themselves to run their country afterwards, they'll be lots of support as we want to make sure Terahn doesn't influence things like the way its doing in Afgan and Bahrain

In short, this is probably one of the few time the UK can contribute to force projection without being hit on the hardware and human end.

With all the options I listed above the sooner the better, cos if the duck gets his murderers for hire into that city then supporting the resistance on the ground becomes very problematic

18 March 2011 at 12:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have every sympathy for the people of Libya, but this to all intents and purposes this is a civil war and none of our business.

Further, why do the Middle East stand by and do nothing?

They have the necessary equipment and in abundance.

Is it because of the cost?
Is it because they know there are always people in the west with an overwhelming desire to be seen as a 'stateman', or get their name as a 'world leader'?
Is it because they won't get involved with fellow muslim fracas?

Whatever the reason

Cameron does not do this in my name, nor in the name of anyone else I know.

18 March 2011 at 12:44  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

All I can do is to re-state my opinion that the British have a different attitude to waging war than almost any other country. Cameron is following in the footsteps of Thatcher, in that he has acted decisively and quickly, whereas the USA prefers a slow burn, and the use of black propaganda and behind-the-scenes pursuasion.

Obviously Cameron has done a bit of behind-the-scenes pursuasion, but the speed at which he has done this is astonishing.It is worth remembering that he has managed some kind of consensus at the UN in a matter of days; a watertight legal mandate. This contrasts starkly with Tony Blair who spent months conniving with Bush to get a resolution over Iraq.

18 March 2011 at 13:06  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

If 'we' have some sort of moral duty under Christianity to intervene then should we not have done it unilaterally some time ago? We now have the cover of a UN resolution so it has a legal basis but surely if a moral duty to intervene exists and we have the power to do so then we ought to have said to hell with international law and live with the consequences?

18 March 2011 at 13:17  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Wrinkled Weasel: "Cameron does not do this in my name, nor in the name of anyone else I know."

Unfortunately he does. I'm not too happy about the decision though I obviously hope for a good result nevertheless.

18 March 2011 at 13:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

MSM: a sudden new twist to this all.

18 March 2011 at 13:26  
Blogger srizals said...

I have a country in mind, but it's an illegitimate, so I guess we can wait another 60 years, Libya would do just fine now. Hope only the killers and oppressors would be kill though, not their babies and little children, kins and cousins. Is it too much to ask?

18 March 2011 at 14:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cameron should absolutely be commended for his statesmanship. The sad thing is that British credibility in the region has been enourmously damaged by Britain's involvemenat in the insane Iraq War. The Prime Minister will find that an obstacle.

18 March 2011 at 14:07  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Archbishop Cranmer (11:55)—not all Muslims wish to ‘crush’ Christianity

Only a minority of Muslims would wish to see Christianity crushed; most are content for it to be slowly strangled. The notion that Christianity is Islam’s best friend may bring comfort to the ashes but it is divorced from reality. Islam sees Christianity as a perversion and Christians as lost souls who will burn in Hell.

Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Tripoli.

18 March 2011 at 14:16  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

DanJo, I said no such thing.

Cameron has emerged as a global statesman. He makes Obama look weak.

read what I said again or visit my blog.

Sometimes you have to act to stop genocide. Hitler comes to mind.

Cameron has a clear, legal mandate from the UN. It is not about posturing. Only a lunatic like Gordon Brown would wage war to appear important. After consulting a focus group.

18 March 2011 at 14:46  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Johnny Rottenborough_Are you willing to let us know the basis for your statement (14:16) "... Islam sees Christianity as a perversion and Christians as lost souls who will burn in Hell." ?

18 March 2011 at 14:58  
Anonymous Michael Fowke said...

If Dave is a statesman, then I'm lost for words ...

18 March 2011 at 15:04  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ MrJ (14:58)—Certainly.

❛Unbelievers are those that say: ‘Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary.’ For the Messiah himself said: ‘Children of Israel, serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ He that worships other gods besides Allah shall be forbidden Paradise and shall be cast into the fire of Hell. None shall help the evil-doers.❜—Qur’an 5:72

18 March 2011 at 15:09  
Anonymous Voyager said...

We don’t do declarations of war any more: they are distinctly passé

No, they were distinctly passé on 7. December 1941 as they were on 22 June 1941

You are being somewhat histrionic in your post Your Grace. It is frankly absurd that Cameron/Osborne have this situation as future events will make clear. A country that lurches into situations laden with self-harm is a bizarre creature of habit.

The moral posturing and martial swagger of a disintegrating island state might one day encourage those paying the bills for continuous national failure to revolt. It is more and more Orwellian like 1984 with its perennial wars and rationing

18 March 2011 at 15:09  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"DanJo, I said no such thing."

Indeed. It was Anonymous just above you, sorry.

"Sometimes you have to act to stop genocide. Hitler comes to mind."

Yes. Though I question whether we have to act militarily in this case rather than regional powers. With Hitler, action by the UK was as much self-defensive as alliances and humanitarian interventions.

Sometimes one needs to encourage people closest or most involved to step up rather than push past them, especially when it appears to be in our immediate national interest to push past and it will be recognised as such elsewhere.

18 March 2011 at 15:24  
Anonymous Ian of the Midlands said...

So let me get this straight:

We have more money by the billions for the EU to squander.

More money for DFID to trifle away by the billions.

....and now rusty Dave has found more of our money for a new war.

Heir to Blair indeed...what is it about these wannabe Napoleons & their vanity wars?

The British electorate & taxpayer are just dirt on the shoes of the three main partys in Great Britain today - & I for one am very tired of it.

Blue Labour out.

18 March 2011 at 15:24  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

He really is the bloomin heir to bloomin Blair, isn't he?

There is nothing statesmanlike about this knee-jerk neo-con imperialistic interference. As with the other two recent middle-east adventures, this will bring no good.

18 March 2011 at 15:25  
Blogger Gnostic said...

The UN, possibly the most corrupt organisation on the planet.

Cameron, a lying, I know what's best for you so you can't have a referendum no matter how many want one, sh*tbag.

Your Grace, why do you insist on trying to polish a turd?

And as for intervention. We don't have much military muscle available so who are we going to send in? The WI?

18 March 2011 at 15:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Let’s just take a cool look at this.

Cameron (before obtaining the UN Resolution) says he is going to give the Duck the Glasgow Kiss.

Once he realises the consequences – he is compelled to work for the Duck’s removal.

What is the national interest? ConHome says it’s to prevent a refugee problem in Southern Europe.


That potential problem exists because of membership of the EU.

How many more times do the posters here have to say that being part of an imperial project (the EU) will lead to conflict?

Empires, history shows, engage in endless wars.

18 March 2011 at 15:41  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Someone slipped a mickey finn into that French cordial.

18 March 2011 at 16:03  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

You might also find these pages helpful Mr J:

FaithFreedom - About Us

FaithFreedom - Quran Review

18 March 2011 at 16:09  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Johnny Rottenborough_What puzzles MrJ is this: The quotation you give from Qur’an 5:72 looks highly hostile (not to say ignorant and malignant), but is there reliable evidence that it is more of an active threat today than, say, the words of the "Athanasian" Creed as rendered in the (Anglican) Book of Common Prayer: "And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved."

The purpose of that creed was to assert at length and for the avoidance of any doubt that "the Catholick Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity." Is it not one of the main principles of Islamic teaching a denial of that "Catholick" teaching?

It is understood that the Latin original (it began in Latin, not Greek) antedates the Qur’an.

Is it therefore not open to an opponent to claim
that Christianity sees Islam as a perversion and Muslims as lost souls who will burn in Hell? And some might add "Only a minority of Christians would wish to see Islam crushed; most are content for it to be slowly strangled."

(Of course, there are denominations of Christians who are not committed to the Trinitarian doctrine.)

18 March 2011 at 16:30  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Thank you for those two links, LobotomySpoon82

18 March 2011 at 16:31  
Anonymous ConDem Voter said...

I can now fully well see why the public did not give Cameron a mandate in the elections last year. I dread to think what would have happened then, but as much as I hate to say it, hopefully the liberals will keep Camerons desire for world war three in check.

18 March 2011 at 16:47  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. MJ,

Check this out,

Mark 10:17,18
New Living Translation (©2007)

As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good.

{Jesus said only God is truly good, not him and asked why did the man called him good. Is it still open to interpretation, Johnny?}

Mark 10:19
But to answer your question, you know the commandments: 'You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.'"

{Muslims still adhere to these commandments.}

{I know it is not easy to accept,not everyone can enter the kingdom of God,as Jesus had said,}

Mark 10:25
In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!"

{But let's not be scared of the powerful and the rich since Jesus said,}

Mark 10:31
But many who are the greatest now will be least important then, and those who seem least important now will be the greatest then."

No man is too great and too powerful to take us from the truth, it is really up to us.

And he warned us about two people that called their priests as such,

New Living Translation (©2007)
Matthew 23:8-9
"Don't let anyone call you 'Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters.

And don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father,' for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father.

Muslims do not call their men of religion as Rabbi and Father. Don't ask me who does. Ask D Singh.

Acts 3:13
For it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--the God of all our ancestors--who has brought glory to his servant Jesus by doing this. This is the same Jesus whom you handed over and rejected before Pilate, despite Pilate's decision to release him.

Even Peter is convinced that Jesus was a servant of God, not a part of God nor his son.

Even Saint Paul,

1 Corinthians 11:3 (New International Version, ©2011)
3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God.

How obvious could it get than this?

Peter said,

Acts 2:22 (New International Version, ©2011)

22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

Would you deny Peter?

18 March 2011 at 16:56  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Sometimes you have to act to stop genocide. Hitler comes to mind."

Yes Hitler always comes to mind especially in the supermarket or when buying lemonade.....but your statement is frankly absurd.

What "genocide" took place prior to Chamberlain declaring war on 3rd September, 1939 ?

18 March 2011 at 17:00  
Blogger srizals said...

Voyager, I mean Peter, not Hitler!

18 March 2011 at 17:10  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Palmerston has always been a hero of mine, Your Grace. It's a shame about the gun-boats though; perhaps we might borrow some?

18 March 2011 at 17:22  
Anonymous not a machine said...

As you said your grace not a time for cock strutting egos , the mad dog has turned into an eel . However even eels can be caught with the right grip .
none the less it is not over yet and I thank the considerable diplomatic effort and those who saw that somthing being done was a reasoned choice and not irrational for the future of libya, we should not assume his mind is on facing justice.

18 March 2011 at 17:25  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ MrJ (16:30)—The difference between the Qur’an and the Book of Common Prayer is that one is the literal word of Allah, true for all eternity, and the other is a man-made collection of prayers inspired by man’s attempt to express the word of God. In consequence, the Bible can be retranslated and reinterpreted but the Qur’an is immutable and as much of an ‘active threat’ as ever; the Qur’anic verses urging violence against non-Muslims are all the inspiration and vindication suicide bombers need.

18 March 2011 at 17:51  
Anonymous srizals said...

While waiting for you Johnny, I stumble on these verses while reading the Bible,

John 17 (New International Version, ©2011)

3Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.

Another proof that he was sent by the only true God to do His bidding.

And if anyone tries to say that there is another god or multiple existence of gods, say this as instructed in the Bible,

Matthew 4:10 (New International Version, ©2011)

10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.

Jesus didn’t say worship me, one of the three gods or me the Lord, but instead he said, worship the Lord your God, and serve him only, not worship me your god and serve me only who is a part of Him.

And if you do believe that there is only one God, I want to share with you something about this verse,

James 2:19 (New International Version, ©2011)

19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

18 March 2011 at 17:56  
Anonymous srizals said...

Thank you Johnny, you have said what some had known all along, between unchanged word of God and man’s attempt to express the word of God.

I thought we have settled the violence issue, Johnny. Should we rely on deja vu?

18 March 2011 at 18:06  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (16:56)—You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. … Muslims still adhere to these commandments.

In repudiation, I can do no better than quote from one of the authoritative statements of Sunni Islamic law, Reliance of the Traveller, section r8.2. The section is entitled ‘Permissible Lying’ and it reads: ‘If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible … and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.’

18 March 2011 at 18:20  
Anonymous Tony B said...

well, what a mess. now we have a ceasefire, and a country suspended in chaos. very lame. either invade it, or leave it alone.

18 March 2011 at 18:22  
Blogger John Kenzy said...

I can see why we set Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi free now. If we had kept him locked up here it would have had bad implications on the uprising. My God we are conniving bunch. But at the end of the day, oil is bloody expensive and we need it. I say bomb the shit out of em in the name of Jesus, but for Christ sakes don't put the price of petrol up!

18 March 2011 at 19:00  
Anonymous luikkerland said...

A few things. The declaration of war on Libya (the no-fly-zone) is nothing to do with PC Yvonne Fletcher or Lockerbie, its nothing much to do with providing humanitarian assistance.

If the US, UK and France go to war with Libya, then they must go to war with Bahrain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia who are engaged in similar brutal repression of the Yemeni and Bahrainis. The reason they will not is because Libya has been selected for regime change all in the service of mammon.

Cameron could pull out of Afghanistan any time he likes so that he doesn't have to recite names of the poor sods who were ordered to their deaths by criminals. He doesn't because he is a puppet. He declares war on Libya in the same way that he denies the British a vote on EU membership. He is no statesman. Cameron won't be vindicated, he will be eviscerated when this deed goes terribly wrong, and when we have finally run out of patience for all the plagues he and his ilk bring upon our heads, and bringing that about will be a Christian duty.

18 March 2011 at 19:15  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Johnny Rottenborough (17:51 and 18:20)_Yes, that certainly makes more than a little difference.

18 March 2011 at 19:28  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

Mr J, this also just in from the Barnabas Fund news site:

Muslim campaign to 'clear Christianity' from Ethiopia

18 March 2011 at 19:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Imagine you are among a group of people.
The people are suitably dressed and friendly enough,but they are not as open or honest as you are.
When someone from the group asks you a question and you instinctively know your 'honest' answer would have the group in fits of laughter and be used against you to humiliate & belittle
you,would you give your 'honest' answer,or would your answer be more in line with what the group would find acceptable?
This is the difference between David Cameron and Labour.
Labour,and sadly many of their supporters,find it amusing to belittle others.They go out of their way to ridicule morals,
honesty or truth.
David Cameron is honest,moral and truthful...Labour detest these qualities and have almost stamped them out in an entire generation of our youth.
Do we all have to be ashamed into saying what we do not believe just to avoid being made to look weak?
Surely it is a weakness to ridicule honesty,morality or the truth.

18 March 2011 at 20:24  
Blogger John Kenzy said...

"David Cameron is honest,moral and truthful."

Heh heh.

18 March 2011 at 20:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good evening Your Grace.

To clarify:

1)I meant did His Grace join the cheering by THE WEST when the Soviets were defeated.
Apologies , I see that I was not clear.
The point - I am sure His Grace recognised this - is that an "ally" can become an enemy.
We should be acreful that does not happen in Libya.

2)No,I am well-travelled and know people of different races and faiths.I am a "do unto others" type of chap.
The "people" to whom I refer are the imams - not all Muslims.
I am cautious not to group all members of a group as marching in step (whilst noting that any group , institution or country trends to be labelled based on the actions of its leaders , not its mutltitude of constituents)

I am "prejudiced" against only those who threaten my culture.
Their religion and race is irrelevant .

3)"His Grace accords with the teachings of Augustine and Aquinas."
Fair enough - but I would have thought Jesus Christ was a far higher authority and exemplar.

I look forward to continue being stimulated by His Grace's writings,and indeed to sometimes disagreeing.

Thank you

Marcus Foxall

18 March 2011 at 21:29  
Anonymous Anne Palmer said...

With the greatest respect Your Grace, not for one moment can I agree with the heading of this Article, "The day David Cameron became a statesman". David Cameron has not been Prime Minister for one whole year yet and never in the whole of my long life have I watched so many bad decisions made as those that have been made by this Government under this Prime Minister, I dread to think what are they going to do for a whole five years? (In one area alone that stands out perhaps more than any other, particularly at this moment in time is the DEFENCE preparations of this Country.)

The people of this Country were promised that never again would they be as unprepared to defend their Country as they were in 1939. So much for promises! Having to "share" an Aircraft Carrier with Foreigners? No 'planes to put on them anyway? We must be the laughing stock of the World. Some Statesman!
The most important job any Government of this Country has to do, is National Security. To keep the DEFENCE mechanism of this Country at upper-most capacity at all times and yes, keep the promise that never again would it be found "wanting". If we have had all these reductions in our forces Man (and woman) power, the "Sharing” of an Aircraft Carrier, the decommissioning of the Ark Royal three years before its allotted time, etc to all the other dreadful decisions then this Government has made and this Government has quite deliberately reduced our Defence Capacity in order to join up with an EU Defence Policy then this Statesman should apologise to all in this Country now, I just hope he has not done that. However, I ask the question because since 2004 the Governments of this Country has paid between £4-5 million to the EU Defence Agency each year, and this at a time when our fighting forces were losing their lives because of lack of protective equipment. Remember one soldier took off his protective vest to give to another and what happened after that? One British Soldiers life if too high a price to pay for any Government to send them into battle under equipped.

While these same forces are fighting for our Country, the Prime Minister is passing through EU legislation and yes the Localism Bill started its journey in the EU with its proposed elected Mayors, and the ability for Local or Regional Regions to pay EU fines or contribute towards EU Fines which no doubt will come thick and fast, for who is to prevent that from happening? The proposed HS2 line which will cost billions to “save half an hour on a Journey from London to Birmingham which will probably start off late anyway (see the EU’s TEN-T) and all this at a time when people are losing jobs and some their lovely homes? And yes, even the Census Form started its journey in the EU although the Government didn’t tell any of us that, did they? This information is in the "Official Journal of the European Union" 13.8.2008 page L 218/14. No wonder there are far more intrusive questions to answer and now we know why. Yes Your Grace. Some Statesman!

18 March 2011 at 22:52  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good."'

This is Jesus asserting his divinity. He tended toward sarcastic and ironic forms of humour, and this fits in with him perfectly. Break it down syllogistically.

1a)You call me good

1b)Only God is good

2)Therefore you call me God

He was simply trying to tease this revelation from them.

'But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God.'

...the father. Father and Son are one and the same, but God the Father is still referred to as head of the Son. Maybe you need to brush up on your trinitarian doctrine.

'Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do.

Another proof that he was sent by the only true God to do His bidding.'

Yes but he is once again referring to God the Father. Why do Muslims have this ridiculous notion that God cannot be three in one and must be either one or three? He's God for goodness sake; he can manifest himself in any form he wishes!

'“Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.

Jesus didn’t say worship me, one of the three gods or me the Lord, but instead he said, worship the Lord your God, and serve him only, not worship me your god and serve me only who is a part of Him.'

You've stabbed yourself in the foot here by quoting 'For it is written...'. He's quoting scripture, so why ought he change it? Besides it is not unknown for God to refer to himself in the third person.

'You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.'

Again; three in one. One God, three forms. He must take a tangible form in order to act as a man in this Universe, because he is not of this Universe and is not made of matter. His third form is spiritual and is another result of his first form's transcendence.

Just remember that people far more intelligent than you and I have come to the conclusion that Jesus was God, and they believed it from the onset, with the benefit of context and the original texts. You cannot use Biblical scripture against Christian doctrine, because that is where the doctrine is defined. Len would probably be better than I at finding the right verses, but there are several references to Jesus's divinity, many from his own mouth. In Revelation he calls himself the Alpha and the Omega, this is irrefutable evidence that he is God.

18 March 2011 at 23:02  
Anonymous srizals said...

Johnny at 18 March 2011 18:20,

Why didn't you read the hadith on top of it in the same section?

Lying is forbidden and considered a sinful act in any circumstances except under the three specific conditions when it is permissible, in time of war, as the art of war also said, deception is an art of war.

Second, in an attempt of settling disagreements between two parties, for example informing A that B actually felt sorry for had raising his voice to A so that it could open A's heart and see B in a different perspective and thus reconcile their hostility.

Third, amending discontent between a husband and a wife, to avoid causing more discomfort, for example, smoothing over differences to avoid maternal quarrel, Johnny, for example, when your wife's asked you how was her cooking, after such tedious work, you can't be honest and say it tasted below average in the name of honesty, that would be rather inconsiderate, don't you think so? We would instead praise our wives cooking and said if it had been spicier or saltier, it would have been greater.

If a man with a machete was looking for you and you're hiding behind my back, unnoticed by him, and he was asking me, do I know where you are, should I be telling the truth, Johnny?

Answer it sincerely and you'll know. That was meant on the quotation you've quoted, Johnny.

I have to sent my parents to the airport, we'll chat again Johnny.

18 March 2011 at 23:38  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

In response to John Kensy. It may well come to pass that we bomb the shit out of them but it will be in the name of Oil and definitely not in the name of Jesus.

18 March 2011 at 23:48  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (23:38)—Islam teaches that lying is permissible; Christianity teaches that lying is wrong. By Christianity’s standards, Tony Blair was wrong to lie to take us to war against Iraq, but a Muslim Tony Blair would be justified in lying to start a war if the war benefited Islam.

19 March 2011 at 00:01  
Anonymous MrJ said...

While Anne Palmer's criticism of Mr Cameron as Prime Minister may be justified (including the "localism" legislation and all the rest), should it not also be remembered that John Nott had been cutting back the Royal Navy just when it was needed to repel the invasion of the Falkland Islands, that Mr Heath's time as PM was less than brilliant, that Sir Anthony Eden had launched the invasion of Egypt in 1956. All that and more suggests that the shortcomings of the present (and previous Blair-Brown) government, are connected with the inadequacies of the members of both houses of parliament from whom members of the government of the day are appointed (not only the party leaders and rivals), both in recent years and in the days of their predecessors; and that the present deficiencies are a consequence of the earlier.

If there are some, like Baroness Kennedy and Baron Lester, who are now proposing AV Etc in the expectation that it will be a way to improve upon the situation, they are almost certainly mistaken, and there is no sign that they have the kind of skill, knowledge or judgment that is needed in the conduct of the political affairs of this country which give them any special competence to advise upon the question. In that respect, they are probably less well equipped than even Mr Cameron or his appointed deputy.

And if it is undeniable that much of this can be attributed to lack of statesmanship from the time when Mr Heath was first sent to negotiate for the United Kingdom to sign up to what has since become the European Union, then does that not show that the source of it all is more deepseated than the failings of the present government?

19 March 2011 at 00:10  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Lakester91 (23:02)—Islam is keen to promote the idea that Christians worship multiple deities as a means of presenting itself as the true faith. Islam’s particular horror of multiple gods (shirk) may stem from its origins. Allah is thought to have been the god of Mohammed’s tribe in Mecca, the Quraysh. Other tribes had their own gods, and idols representing all the gods were housed in the Kaaba (now at the centre of the Masjid al-Haram). When founding his religion, Mohammed promoted the god of his own tribe as the sole deity to be worshipped, and Muslims like to see the Trinity as proof of shirk and proof of Islam’s righteousness.

19 March 2011 at 00:32  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Anne Palmer the Nations sweat heart where did you come from?

19 March 2011 at 01:01  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Allah is thought to have been the god of Mohammed’s tribe in Mecca

What about Al-Lat female counterpart to Al-Lah ? Simply a moon god the reason for the crescent. It is a blend of moon god , Zoastrianism and Judaism picked up from caravans of traders passing across the desert.

19 March 2011 at 04:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If TPTB are so concerned for the safety of citizens under dictatorships Mugabe should have been removed decades ago.
Surely we owe the people of Zimbabwe our help more than Lybia, or does the fact Mugabe has no oil play a part in this somewhere.

19 March 2011 at 06:48  
Anonymous len said...

Islam has some very confused ideas about Christianity and the true identity of Jesus Christ.This is perhaps because Mohammed came into contact with corrupted forms of Christianity.
The Trinity is a stumbling block(and a blasphemy) to Muslims.

The false doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, which started in 606 AD, drove Muhammad away from Christianity. It is well known by anyone who has read the Bible that praying to Mary, adoration of Mary, the assumption of Mary into heaven, the perpetual virginity of Mary are not found in the Bible. Perhaps calling Mary "mother of God" was the single most repulsive and confusing thing Muhammad saw in what HE THOUGHT was true Christianity. Muhammad evidently thought that the trinity consisted of the Father, the Son and Mary. Koran 5:116, represents Christians as worshipping Mary as the third member of the Trinity, when in fact the only ones worshiping Mary, based upon the record of history, were the pagan Arabs who worship her idol in the Kaba. But the confusion started with the Roman Catholic church who, although they didn’t worship Mary at that time (as they do today), they went around calling her "mother of God". Historically, no one before 300 AD ever referred to Mary as the "Mother of God".

19 March 2011 at 07:50  
Anonymous len said...

I have posted once today which seems to have disappeared so here goes again!I do apologise if my other post returns from whence it has gone!

(Pt 1) Muslims have a very confused and false idea of True Christianity, this come from the fact that Mohammed had contact with corrupted versions of Christianity.
This include a false conception of the Trinity( the concept which is a blasphemy to Muslims)

Where did this confusion arise?

19 March 2011 at 09:30  
Anonymous len said...

Original post just returned!

19 March 2011 at 09:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Statesman? Here we go again. Another crusade. Now it’s Cameron’s turn to play at warmonger and put the lives of our servicemen at risk for OIL.

Why doesn’t Cameron show some “Christian duty” and force ‘regime change’ in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and remove the tyrant that has been responsible for the murder of hundreds of white farmers and the persecution of opposition parties. But then, of course, there is no oil there.

Why do we need to get involved at all? What are the other Arab states doing with the billions of pounds of fighters we have sold them over the years? Don’t they want to put any hours on their aircraft or spend a few cents on aviation fuel?

19 March 2011 at 10:57  
Anonymous srizals said...

The fancy over priced fighters were programmed for defense only Mr. Anon 10:57 and hence they cannot be used outside the country's perimeter that had bought them in the first place. A security measure taken by the seller of the 'show off' weaponry to protect the sellers' own interest in the region. My advice to them, buy Soviet MiGs. They are good for both, defence and offence. If the Russians are not consumed by capitalism fully by now. Even better, start using all the wealth that was given to them to build their own jets and tanks, instead of fancy buildings and assets they can't even defend, but the rich won't listen to the poor, of course.

And you guessed it right, it is only an 'oily' intervention.

Thanks Len, that was informative.


How do you explain this one?

Mark 12 (New International Version, ©2011)

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

My emphasis,"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." Do you really believe he was talking about himself, Lakester91?

19 March 2011 at 13:46  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (23:38)—If a man with a machete was looking for you and you’re hiding behind my back, unnoticed by him, and he was asking me, do I know where you are, should I be telling the truth, Johnny?

If you were hiding a Jew, I believe you would be expected to tell the truth:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177, Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour [of the Last Judgment] will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”

@ Voyager (04:51)—Al-Lat had two other goddesses for company, Manat and al-Uzza. Whether the Quraysh worshipped them as well as Allah, I couldn’t say.

@ len (07:50)—Islam has some very confused ideas about Christianity

Islam teaches that Christ was born under a palm tree, that He brought clay models of birds to life and that He escaped crucifixion. The Qur’an mixes up Miriam, the sister of Moses, with Mary, the mother of Jesus; both names are rendered as Maryam. Much of the confusion stems from Mohammed picking up scraps of the Gnostic gospels and then regurgitating them with embellishments.

19 March 2011 at 14:04  
Anonymous len said...

I don`t think we can blame Mohammed for the confused ideas he had about Christianity.
Rather the 'Christians'who misled him whether by accident or design are to blame!.
Mohammed obviously encountered Catholicism and it appears he also encountered Gnosticism. Mohammed also spoke to Jewish scholars at Medina who ridiculed him.As Muhammad could not read their scriptures they were able to constantly provoke him with their knowledge and often frustrated him with subtle twists of phrases which he could not immediately detect but which entertained the Jewish bystanders.

The early church taught that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came down to earth, ministered to people, was betrayed, arrested, crucified, buried, and rose three days later.

Gnostics preached that because Jesus could have never been a physical being, and therefore was never crucified, never buried, and never rose from the dead. Just this simple fact alone makes the Gnostics anti-Christ.

Both these forms of 'Christianity' Catholicism and Gnosticism were rejected(quite rightly) by Mohammed .It is unfortunate that he never discover the 'true version', the Christianity founded by Jesus Christ ,Himself the Author and finisher of the faith of True believers.

19 March 2011 at 14:43  
Blogger Lakester91 said...


Yes he was referring to himself, or at least himself as his father. He refers to himself in the third person all the time.


'I don`t think we can blame Mohammed for the confused ideas he had about Christianity.
Rather the 'Christians'who misled him whether by accident or design are to blame!.
Mohammed obviously encountered Catholicism...'

Oh dear not again. Conspiracy theories abound. One wonders why you're so keen to defame Catholics all the time. Mindless un-scholarly insults and distortions of history aren't going to convert any Christian with an IQ of two or more figures. I ask, therefore, what is your point? Who are you trying to persuade? You aren't trying to 'save' Catholics, just insult them.

19 March 2011 at 14:52  
Anonymous srizals said...

Johnny,the hadith in question,

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

My emphasis, "until you fight with the Jews", we're at war and it was not a slaughter of the helpless.
Johnny, soldiers would hide behind hidden positions in order to ambush and kill enemy combatants, like current Afghanistan, 1.5 miles away if you're using modern sniper rifle, more if you use a 155mm gun. Do you think that soldiers still fight out battles in the open nowadays, Johnny?

When the Mujahideen were fighting the terrible Russian armies, birds showed their positions to the Mujahideen, Johnny.

Remember the Dolphin class submarines with nuclear capabilities, Johnny.

We don't have any. Not to mention unknown nuclear warheads and the best modern weaponry world has ever known, thanks to some Christians' guilt and greed, well they were not sorry all the time, they were paid handsomely of course. Ask the Germans. They know how much they had compensated Israel because of Hitler's menace. (to what extend, no one would ever know, of course)

19 March 2011 at 15:21  
Anonymous srizals said...

Read the Koran, and you'll be more knowledgeable to opine about Islam.

The Star
With the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful.
Have you ever considered about the (idols of) Lāt and ‘Uzzā,
and about the other, the third (idol), namely, Manāt,?
Is it that you have males and He (Allah) has females?
If so, it is a bizarre division.
These are nothing but names you and your fathers have invented; Allah has sent down no authority attached to them. They are following nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire, while guidance from their Lord has surely reached them.

As for the moon and the star gods,

The Heights
With the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful.
Surely, your Lord is Allah who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then He positioned himself on the Throne. He covers the day with the night that pursues it swiftly. (He created) the sun and the moon and the stars, subjugated to His command. Lo! To Him alone belong the creation and the command. Glorious is Allah, the Lord of all the worlds.

Fussilat ("They are Expounded")
With the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful.
Among His signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Do not prostrate yourselves to the sun, or to the moon. And prostrate yourselves to Allah who has created them, if it is Him whom you worship.

Where did you get the idea of a moongod anyway? The Koran?

Lakester91, have you ever met a person that talked about himself in the third person lately?

19 March 2011 at 16:02  
Anonymous srizals said...

If anyone still thinks Muslims worship idols, moons and etc. Let me share these verses so that you'll understand why we never and would not ever.

The Heights
With the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful.
We made the children of Isrā’īl cross the sea, then they came across a people sitting in devotion before their idols. They (the Israelites) said, “O Mūsā, make a god for us like they have gods.” He said, “You are really an ignorant people.
What these people are engaged in is sure to be destroyed; and false is what they are doing.”
He said, “Shall I seek any one other than Allah as God for you, while He has given you excellence over the (people of all the) worlds.”

With the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the Very-Merciful.
and He subjugated for you the sun and the moon, moving constantly, and subjugated for you the day and the night,
and He gave you whatever you asked for. If you (try to) count the bounties of Allah, you cannot count them all. Indeed, man is highly unjust, very ungrateful.
(Recall) when Ibrāhīm said, “My Lord, make this city peaceful, and keep me and my children away from worshiping idols.

My emphasis,
Among His signs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Do not prostrate yourselves to the sun, or to the moon. And prostrate yourselves to Allah who has created them, if it is Him whom you worship.

19 March 2011 at 16:02  
Anonymous srizals said...

Do you have this one in what you claimed a blend of moon god , Zoastrianism and Judaism picked up from caravans of traders passing across the desert?

Did you not see a group from the children of Isrā’īl (Israel), after (the time of) Mūsā when they said to their prophet: “Appoint for us a king, so that we may fight in the way of Allah.”
He said: “Is it (not) likely, if fighting is enjoined upon you, that you would not fight.” They said: “What is wrong with us that we would not fight while we have been driven away from our homes and our sons?” But, when fighting was enjoined upon them, they turned away, except a few of them, and Allah is Aware of the unjust.
Their prophet said to them: “Allah has appointed Tālūt as a king for you.” They said: “How could he have kingship over us when we are more entitled to the kingship than him? He has not been given affluence in wealth.” He said: “Allah has chosen him over you and has increased his stature in knowledge and physique, and Allah gives His kingship to whom He wills. Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing.’
Their prophet said to them: “The sign of his kingship is that the Ark shall come to you, carried by the angels, having therein tranquillity from your Lord, and the remains of what the House of Mūsā and the House of Hārūn (Aaron) had left. Surely, in it there is a sign for you, if you are believers.”
So, when Tālūt set out along with the troops, he said: “Allah is going to test you by a river, so, whoever drinks from it is not my man, and whoever does not taste it is surely a man of mine, except the one who scoops a little with his hand.” Then they drank from it, except a few of them. So, when it (the river) was crossed by him and by those who believed with him, they said: “There is no strength with us today against Jālūt and his troops.” Said those who believed in their having to meet Allah: “How many small groups have overcome large groups by the will of Allah. Allah is with those who remain patient.”
And when they faced Jālūt and his troops, they said: “Our Lord, pour out endurance on us, make firm our feet and help us against the disbelieving people.”
So, they defeated them by the will of Allah, and Dāwūd (David) killed Jālūt, and Allah gave him the kingdom and the wisdom and taught him what He willed. Had Allah not been pushing back some people by means of others, the earth would have been spoiled. But Allah is All-Gracious to all the worlds.

Shall we compare verses now, Voyager? Please provide your proof.

19 March 2011 at 16:29  
Anonymous srizals said...

Len, I know what Allah means, Al-The, Lah-god, The God or The Lord in English, what does Jahweh mean, Len?

19 March 2011 at 16:40  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'Lakester91, have you ever met a person that talked about himself in the third person lately?'

The author of this blog for one. Besides, Jesus didn't just refer to himself in the third person, but also as 'I am'. Yet another irrefutable argument for his self-proclaimed divinity.

See this for the full details.

19 March 2011 at 16:53  
Anonymous len said...

When Moses heard the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob addressing him from a burning bush and sending him to free the Israelites from Egypt, he asked to know God’s name. The name God revealed to him is written with four Hebrew consonants יהוה (yod he vav he). They correspond, more or less, to the English letters JHVH. The Hebrew consonants, when joined to vowels, are usually pronounced “Yahweh” and that name is interpreted to mean “the one who is” or "the one who causes to be” (Exodus 3:2, 6, 13-14).

There is another way to interpret these letters, however, and it focuses on the way the word made up of yod he vav he would sound if uttered without vowels [inhale/exhale]. God’s name, in other words, is simply the sound of breathing. God is the “Breath of Life.” God is the “Breathing Spirit of the World.”

19 March 2011 at 18:11  
Anonymous len said...

I doesn`t take a scholar to see the errors of Catholicism.
All you need is a Bible and a bit of common sense.
(And of course a desire to know the Truth.)

19 March 2011 at 18:15  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I [sic] doesn`t take a scholar to see the errors of Catholicism.

and you are certainly no historical scholar. You cannot tell people what they believe, when they believe something quite different, only to then tell them that they are therefore wrong based on your perception. I think you'll find that Catholicism is nothing like the distortions you'll find on your 'evangelical' websites. Besides, you have completely avoided my point. You use insult and distortion rather than truth; why do this unless your motive is self-righteousness or hatred? You surely must understand that Catholics know that you are misrepresenting their faith, so how are you converting them to your own belief?

Perhaps you don't get that I am a truth-seeker. I am fully willing and open to be blinded by the truth; yet no light comes from you when you defame and distort Catholicism. Frankly the fact that you have to misrepresent, alter and lie should ring alarm bells. Were Catholicism the road to hell then the truth would be enough to convert me.

19 March 2011 at 21:41  
Anonymous srizals said...

Lakester91, I mean in the real world, not the Matrix. For example, the people that you are studying with.

Lakester91, I won't be relying too heavily on scholars, kings, the ruling elites and the rich if I were you. They are all just like us, prone to error and are not absolute, in most cases, they are obsolete. We have to think for ourselves after receiving their guide in order to not becoming like Zombies. We are after all blessed with our own wits, hearts and minds. What a waste if we do not use them properly.

19 March 2011 at 22:26  
Anonymous len said...

You seem to be getting a little hysterical.
You have resorted to an ad hominem attack which merely points to the weakness of your argument.

Spurgeon stated that Catholicism was a load of rubbish dumped on the Truth.

All you have to do is discover what the rubbish is!

If you want me to do that for you I can point you in the right direction. Here`s a start;
The veneration of angels and dead saints
The Mass, The veneration of Mary and praying to her
The doctine of Purgatory
The transference of the solemnity of the Sabbath to the first day of the week
Latin being the official language of prayer and worship
The establishment of the position of Pope
Worship or veneration of relics, images, statues, or idols
Canonization of dead saints Celibacy of the clergy
The use of the rosary
The sale of Indulgences
Confessing of sin to priests and the belief that priests can forgive sin
Adoration of the wafer
The 7 Sacraments
The declaration that tradition is of equal authority as the Bible Papal Infallibility Infant baptism

(This list is by no means comprehensive)

20 March 2011 at 07:53  
Anonymous srizals said...

And place your trust in the Ever-Living who cannot die, and proclaim His purity along with His praise. Enough is He to be aware of the sins of His servants,
the One who created in six days the heavens and the earth and whatever lies between them, then He positioned Himself on the Throne. (He is) the RaHmān (the All-Merciful, Allah). So ask about Him someone who knows.

"Father Dr. Labib Kobti, an Arab Christian priest, in one his articles titled The Christian Arab Heritage (available through this link ) says: "Recently Father Pecerillo, a famous Franciscan Archaeologist, found more than twenty churches in Madaba at the south of Jordan. From the Fourth Century, we found houses in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine with this inscription in Arabic :"Bism El-Lah al Rahman al Rahim" that showed that Christians were the first to use this name so as to indicate their belief in the Holy Trinity, more than two hundred years before Islam."

What this Christian priest is revealing is extremely important for the following reasons:

(1) This Arabic phrase "Bism El-Lah al-Rahman al-Rahim" ( بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ) that the priest says has been discovered in houses of Christians dating back to the 4th Century is the same phrase that most Suras (Chapters) of the Quran start with. This phrase can be translated as "In the name of Allah the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful".

(2) The fact that this phrase was found in houses of Christians dating back to the 4th Century, meaning three centuries before the Quran was revealed to Prophet Mohammad. This indicates that the beliefs of early Christians were very similar to the beliefs of Muslims. In other early Christians did not believe in the Trinity: "In the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit", instead they the Muslims phrase "In the name of Allah the Most Compassionate, Most Merciful". This is proof that Jesus was a Muslim and he preached Islam, and early followers of Jesus were Muslims."

20 March 2011 at 10:54  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

I have to say I agree with Len there, even though I'm an atheist. It's an inverted pyramic of stuff, balancing on rather narrow foundations, as far as I can see. Of course, I was brought up as CofE by agnostic parents so I am a religious product of my upbringing even though I am an atheist now.

The power of it is still there deep down. Some of my friends who are survivors of the Catholic Church still recognise they are products of it, and feel irrational guilt at stuff they no longer believe in. Powerful stuff for the mind, religion, when it gets put into you as children.

20 March 2011 at 11:00  
Anonymous srizals said...

Len, something about Muhammad that you didn't know,

They tried to stop him with wealth and power, which to this very day, proven to be the most desired by all.

"O Nephew, you certainly enjoy among us great eminence and noble lineage, and you have brought about a great issue and divided your people. Listen to me for I am about to make several offers to you, certain as I am that one of them will prove satisfactory to you. If by bringing about conflict you did, you have sought to achieve some wealth, know that we are prepared to give you of our wealth until you become the richest man among us. If, on the other hand, you desired honor and power, we would make you our chief and endow you with such power that nothing could be done without your consent. Even if you wanted to be a king, we should not hesitate to crown you king over us. Finally, if you are unable to cure yourself of the visions that you have been seeing, we shall be happy to seek for you at out expense all the medical service possible until your health is perfectly restored."

When he finished, Muhammad recited to him, the Surah Sajda (Qur'an, 32). 'Utbah listened attentively to the divine recitation. Facing him was a man devoid of all ambition for wealth, prestige, honor, power, or sovereignty. Neither was he sick. Facing him was indeed a man telling the truth, calling to the good, answering him with arguments yet more soundly and sublimely expressed that any he had ever heard. When Muhammad finished, 'Utbah returned to Quraysh spellbound by the beauty and sublimity of what he had seen and heard and by the greatness of this man and his eloquence. The Quraysh were obviously not happy with this turn, nor did they agree with 'Utbah's opinion that they should leave Muhammad for all the Arabs together to deal with; they would thereby reap a harvest of pride in the event that Muhammad wins, or enjoy and effortless victory in the event he loses. In fact, Quraysh resumed their attacks upon Muhammad and his followers, intensified their aggression, and inflicted upon his companions all sorts of injuries from which Muhammad was saved only through the protection of Aby Talib, Banu Hashim, and Banu al-Muttalib." (Muhammad Husayn Haykal - The Life Of Muhammad - The Other Press, 1994 - Page 105-106).

20 March 2011 at 11:22  
Anonymous srizals said...

Additionally, the Prophet told his uncle:

"Uncle. By Allah. If they place the sun in my right hand and the moon on my left asking me to give up, I shall not do it until either Allah gives it victory or I die in its cause." [Sirat Ibn Ishaq, P. 155 through a Hasan chain. See also Haythami in the Majma' (6/15) - cited in: De Mahdi Rizqullah Ahmad - A Biography Of The Prophet Of Islam: In The Light Of The Original Sources, An Analytical Study, Volume 1 - Darussalam, 2005 - Page 172. Isnad Classed As Hassan (Good Chain) By Sheikh Albani - Silsila As-Sahiha, 1/194 - Source].

20 March 2011 at 11:22  
Anonymous wannabeanglican said...

Until Cameron stands up to the EU, he is no statesman.

20 March 2011 at 12:11  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Hysterical? Ad hominum? Perhaps you need to look up the meaning of those terms.

Just because you are blind to the Biblical basis of some doctrine doesn't mean they aren't there. Yes there are traditions that have only loose Biblical basis, but then since when was the Bible the only source of truth? I think the Holy Spirit is far more reliable. After all, where did the Bible come from? Magicked out of thin air? You would claim that tradition is fallible because of its human background, but what makes tradition bereft of spiritual guidance while your reading of scripture is perfect?

This is before I mention again that your knowledge of the Catholic practise is risibly poor.

The veneration of Mary and praying to her

No one prays to her, but through her. Distortion is the work of the deceiver.

The sale of Indulgences

Yes that obviously still occurs; also when it did occur it wasn't considered a corruption even at the time. A bit desperate if you have to add this relic to the list aren't we?

Adoration of the wafer

Well as (after transubstantiation)it's considered the body of Christ I'd expect more than a little reverence for it. A non-argument if you ask me, you're judging the doctrine on your own personal view that transubstantiation isn't real.

The transference of the solemnity of the Sabbath to the first day of the week

Changing the day of the Sabbath to the day that Jesus rose from the dead; the most important day in human history!? Oh no now we're all going to hell. Get a grip Len, do you think that God set down the Sabbath because Saturday had this all important special meaning to Him, that we could never comprehend? Or do you think He might have just wanted us to dedicate one day per week to Him? Such weak arguments, it's embarrassing.

Latin being the official language of prayer and worship

When was the last time you went to Mass? Putting aside how laughable the notion is that you think we still have Mass in Latin, what's the problem? As long as the readings, Gospel and homily are understandable there's nothing wrong with it. I think it's quite a beautiful language actually; if anything it's a bit purer, as it's the first translation of the original manuscripts.

Confessing of sin to priests and the belief that priests can forgive sin

Because Jesus didn't give that power to his disciples did he? Only God can forgive sins, and only those of a contrite heart. A priest can hear the sins of the unrepentant, and he can say they are forgiven, but they won't be. The priest is merely a vessel to help concentrate on ones failings, in order to repent them.

I could go on throughout the rest and either give their Biblical basis or simply state that they do no harm, and are helpful in living one's life well, but I have a life to live. I have more important things to do than expose your childish ignorance.

20 March 2011 at 12:31  
Anonymous srizals said...


About the warriors of Banu Qurayzah, maybe Karen Armstrong could explain it better for you,

"There then ensued desperate days for the ummah. Muhammad had to contend with the hostility of some of the pagans in Medina, who resented the power of the Muslim newcomers and were determined to expel them from the settlement. He also had to deal with Mecca, where Abu Sufyan now directed the campaign against him, and had launched two major offensives against the Muslims in Medina. His object was not simply to defeat the ummah in battle, but to annihilate all the Muslims. The harsh ethic of the desert meant that there were no half-measures in warfare: if possible, a victorious chief was expected to exterminate the enemy, so the ummah faced the threat of total extinction. In 625 Mecca inflicted a severe defeat on the ummah at the Battle of Uhud, but two years later the Muslims trounced the Meccans at the Battle of the Trench, so called because Muhammad protected the settlement by digging a ditch around Medina, which threw the Quraysh, who still regarded war rather as a chivalric game and had never heard of such an unsporting trick, into confusion, and rendered their cavalry useless. Muhammad's second victory over the numerically superior Quraysh (there had been ten thousand Meccans to three thousand Muslims) was a turning point. It convinced the nomadic tribes that Muhammad was the coming man, and made the Quraysh look decidedly passe. The gods in whose name they fought were clearly not working on their behalf. Many of the tribes wanted to become the allies of the ummah, and Muhammad began to build a powerful tribal confederacy, whose members swore not to attack one another and to fight each other's enemies. Some of the Meccans also began to defect and made the hijrah to Medina; at last, after five years of deadly peril, Muhammad could be confident that the ummah would survive.

20 March 2011 at 13:11  
Anonymous srizals said...

The bombing has started.

20 March 2011 at 15:34  
Anonymous Oswin said...

So it has Srizals, and I'm not at all sure what I think about it. I suspect that I might have preferred the whole of the Middle East to stew in its own juice, whatever the outcome.

The West is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't, so I'd rather go for the cheaper option of doing nothing, see what happens, and decide later.

20 March 2011 at 18:08  
Anonymous non mouse said...

I agree, Oswin. Furthermore, I say that any mission requiring association with frogules is damnable and doomed. Shameful.

20 March 2011 at 20:03  
Anonymous srizals said...

Well, let's pray that only the hardcore killers were kill this time and let's hope that something good will come out of this, as it did for the Spaniards, with a twist.

"When the Moors invaded Spain they brought grapes and dried fruits with them. Their love of mixing dried fruits with meats definitely left its mark on Spanish cooking and this is my nod to that time in Spain's history."

And let's pray that they applied "the warn before we bomb" rule as they did with the dreadful Serbians, to minimise unnecessary deaths and hatred. I'm crossing my fingers.

If not, we are liable of the innocents' blood. Their blood is sacred.

20 March 2011 at 22:57  
Anonymous len said...

Lakester 91,
You plainly don`t believe in the authority of Scripture.So your reference to the Holy Spirit is meaningless.(As the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Living Word of God, Jesus Christ.

God warns us from the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church would in fact actually think to change His laws and times. Question-- Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?"
"Answer--We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea, (A.D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday," (The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p.50, Third Edition, 1913, a work which received the "apostolic blessing" of Plus X, Jan. 25, 1910)

The Catholic Church originally changed the Sabbath to Sunday in favour of Sun Worship as the Catholic Church was entrenched in Sun Worship especially in the early days. Another such example, as paganism was brought into the Catholic Church the pagan statues had to be given Christian names, eg: the Statue of St Peter in St Peters Cathedral was originally the statue of the pagan god Jupiter.

Catholics changed the Ten Commandments 2nd Commandment
Exodus 20:4-6 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my Commandments.)

Catholic 2nd Commandment(Deleted. There is idolatry in the Papal system so the second Commandment has been deleted or sometimes it has been absorbed into the first. All remaining Commandments are therefore shifted along one count)

By what authority did they do this?

'The Pope is of great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws. The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth...” — Lucius Ferraris, in “Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica”, Volume V, article on “Papa, Article II”, titled “Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility”, #30, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

(So the Pope has the 'authority' to contradict God?)

21 March 2011 at 18:37  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Srizals: you probably won't be surprised that I thought it a terrible mistake to bomb those ''dreadful Serbians'' - if we had to bomb anyone, I suspect we bombed the wrong side. Post 9/11 it would have been an altogether different decision.

21 March 2011 at 18:51  
Anonymous len said...

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person"), is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. ..

You have called me a s*** stirrer,ignorant, childish, (please refer to above). You haven`t got round to the 'tin foil'hat insult yet ,but I expect you will.I mention this as you deny attacking me personally,and I indicate this is because of the weakness of your arguments...............
I return your insults with....... a blessing.

I am not surprised ,not even offended as I expect this ......................However I am not exactly on my own in my opposition to the Catholic faith as " Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer; in the seventeenth century, Bunyan, the translators of the King James Bible and the men who published the Westminster and Baptist confessions of Faith; Sir Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards; and more recently Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle and Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones; these men among countless others, all saw the office of the Papacy as the antichrist.” — All Roads Lead to Rome, by Michael de Semlyen. Dorchestor House Publications, p. 205. 1991.

21 March 2011 at 19:10  
Anonymous len said...

Lakester91, please add 'liar'to the list of insults you have directed towards me.

22 March 2011 at 13:29  
Blogger killemallletgodsortemout said...

Gaddafi today?

Mugabe tomorrow?

van Rumpoy and Ashton the day after?

All tyrants after all, but only one of them has oil.

Libya is a muslim country. Muslims do things differently from 'Christian' people. It's in their make-up, their culture, you see. The next terrorist atrocity to occur in England will be the responsibility of Cameron in his quest for oil.

22 March 2011 at 13:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older