Tuesday, May 17, 2011

At last, the Queen visits the Republic of Ireland

His Grace treads carefully. Whenever he ventures to posts on matters Irish, he is invariably accused of being i) ignorant; ii) a rabid Prod; iii) a rabid Brit; iv) an ignorant rabid Brit Prod. If he alludes to the historical he is hysterical; if he mentions Irish foibles his reasoning is feeble. There is, in short, nothing that an English Protestant Unionist can possibly know about Irish Catholic Nationalism, even if that Prod is actually Anglican, and Nationalism not particularly Catholic.

Her Majesty the Queen (aka ‘Elizabeth Windsor’ to Gerry Adams and his ilk) commences a visit to Ireland today. She is the first British monarch to visit the South since King George V, exactly a century ago, and she is the first ever to visit the Republic. Not, of course, out of indifference or irrational ideological preference – Her Majesty has patiently travelled to many nations and greeted hundreds of odious heads of state – but because of ancient grudge and enmity, civil strife and bloodshed. Over the centuries, the narrative has become one of Irish Roman Catholic subjugation to the Protestant English Crown; oppression and exploitation by an absentee landlord who deigns to return periodically to inspect his/her Irish territory, partitioned since 1921. The Monarch is the symbolic head of the murderous British military, and the Crown has historically patronised the persecuting constabulary and been chief prosecutor of Ireland’s ‘freedom fighters’. This is about victimhood and vassalage.

Those who subscribe to this crass and simplistic narrative began to fall into two main camps: the armed resistance of the ‘Irish Republican Army’ and the more defensive ‘Loyalists’ who fought for a British Ulster. And so professing Catholics and Protestants bombed each other to bits, both oblivious to the command to love one’s neighbour and pray for one’s enemies: the Catholic IRA was at war with the Protestant RUC, and there was no common ground to be found. But eventually, through numerous treaties, agreements, appeasements and reforms, the paramilitaries were defused, the RUC disbanded and military operations largely ceased. Inevitably, perhaps, splinter groups arose – specifically the ‘Real IRA’ – and they are pledged to continue the armed conflict until ‘British occupation’ is over. And ‘Continuity IRA’, who are closely associated with Sinn Féin, ‘haven’t gone away’. After a decade of relative peace, we have once again returned to the summary execution of members of the PSNI because all British police and security are ‘legitimate targets’. It is not so much the individual identity or faith of policemen and women (which now include a significant number of Roman Catholics), but the symbolism of the uniform they wear: British rule in ‘Ulster’.

The ultimate and supreme symbol is, of course, the Queen. And so there are snipers, bombs and rumours of bombs, for the Irish Republican who manages to assassinate the British Monarch will go down in history as the supreme avenger, the one who vindicates generations of martyrs and freedom fighters. She is Chief of Staff of the British armed forces – they occupy Ireland in her name. She remains, as Gerry Adams has so frequently said, ‘a legitimate target’.

Of course, most Irish people – on both sides of the religious and political divide – would be appalled at the thought of an assassination attempt on the Queen. But terrorism has always been a minority ‘fringe’ pursuit. No matter what cultural, linguistic, economic and historical connections exist between Ireland and the United Kingdom, it is that which divides and separates which has made a Royal visit impossible. It has perhaps taken too long for Ireland to elect a president who grasps the link between Catholicism and kingship. Or perhaps it is because she is married to an Englishman that ‘reconciliation’ may now take place. Or maybe because the Republic has abandoned its historic constitutional claim on the North and accepted the principle of democratic consent.

Whatever, we must be grateful that centuries of bloodshed, sectarianism, corruption and decades of cultural waste are largely put behind us. The economic hardship continues, but that can hardly be laid at the door of Her Majesty. We are a family of nations, and the Crown will always be a greater friend to Ireland than any prince or potentate from Brussels.


Anonymous Zach Johnstone said...

One hopes that her visit passes without incident, however with one bomb having already been defused today in County Kildare (and rumours of others) nothing is certain...

17 May 2011 at 10:43  
Anonymous MrJ said...

"...the Crown will always be a greater friend to Ireland than any prince or potentate from Brussels." This is so true that it becomes obscured by the glare of other publicities and lesser preoccupations.

"She remains, as Gerry Adams has so frequently said, ‘a legitimate target’."

It has bcome pretty clear that Mr Gerry Adams is a disturbed person, but one of those who, if proven to have been engaged in criminal conspiracy within the United Kingdom, could well have been detainable "at Her Majesty's pleasure" in a suitable place of confinement.

17 May 2011 at 10:50  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr J said:-
"It has bcome pretty clear that Mr Gerry Adams is a disturbed person

Not as disturbed as the officials who dreamed up this foolish escapade. Just why is this happening?

17 May 2011 at 11:02  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Dreadnaught @ 11.02, from time to time one receives invitations that one wishes to accept. Its a pity they couldn't have worked in a day at an Irish country race meeting. HM Queen would have been in her element.

Let's hope and pray its all a great success so that the Irish president can be given a state visit to the UK in return. In view of the huge number of people of Irish descent in the UK it could only be warmly received.

As His Grace infers, we have more in common with the Irish than with many other peoples of Europe. HM Queen is less foreign to the Irish than His Charismatic Excellency H van Rumpuy.

17 May 2011 at 11:19  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

I wonder if Madge had any say in the matter - the old girl us over 80 now and indeed a national treasure - why risk her life now.

17 May 2011 at 11:32  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Bluedog said 17 May 2011 11:19

Excellent comment, my favourite coloured hound.

It would have been brilliant if the visit could have been arranged nearer the Irish Derby meeting and Her Maj could have entered Carlton House and watched him run.
Then we could have had a small flutter!

Ernst. Whose a clever boy.

17 May 2011 at 11:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The vast majority of Irish people welcome HM The Queen. A cursory look at the Irish Independent, the Irish Times or RTE will confirm this.

The Irish taxpayer is picking up the tab for the visit, so no need for Your Grace's readers to flick their outrage buttons on.

17 May 2011 at 11:57  
Anonymous David MacDonald said...

Can I just take this opportunity to remind everyone of those incredibly loyal volunteer soldiers, sailors and airmen from all over Ireland, including many Catholics from what is now the Irish Republic, who served with bravery and distinction in the Great War? Both in numbers and in sacrifice, they far outweigh the Irish “freedom fighters” of 1916 – 22.

Then there were their sons, many also from the South, you also volunteered in 1939-45.

Irish History is not as Sinn Fein would have it be.

17 May 2011 at 12:01  
Blogger Manfarang said...

"It has bcome pretty clear that Mr Gerry Adams is a disturbed person, but one of those who, if proven to have been engaged in criminal conspiracy within the United Kingdom, could well have been detainable "at Her Majesty's pleasure" in a suitable place of confinement."
It was called internment Mr J.
The people interned were probably more normal than you

17 May 2011 at 12:04  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Well said David MacDonald.

17 May 2011 at 12:20  
Anonymous MrJ said...

You may not be aware, Manfarang, that in England detainable "at Her Majesty's pleasure" after trial and conviction for offences connected with acts of violence and homicide is an altogether different category and process from internment.

Is more normal also more unique?

17 May 2011 at 12:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: bluedog's comment. Although her madge won't be at any race meeting, she will be visiting the Irish national stud, which is probably the reason why she agreed to the visit. She will also be visiting Croke Park in Dublin. A few years ago, even if such a major figure in the Divided Kingdom establishment had been invited to Ireland, the Gaelic Athletic Association would never have extended such an invitation to their HQ. How times have changed.

17 May 2011 at 12:31  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Mr J
Yes I am aware of Jurisprudence.
The courts in Northern Ireland had of course great problems when it came to questions of proof which makes your remarks rather silly.

17 May 2011 at 12:53  
Anonymous mat said...

I hope that the persons who are behind these idiotic threats learn to grasp the awful economic,social and political consequences for Ireland and themselves of a successful attack !

17 May 2011 at 12:54  
Anonymous SussexMan said...

People forget that the Irish Republic also used interment against the IRA.

Many people in the Republic suffered also at the hands of Republican's-the pogrom's in Cork against the Jew's between 1918-1921, the ethnic cleansing of Protestant communities in the South West of Ireland, the boycotts, the petty feuds,the murder of Free State Troops..The Republic is littered with the bodies of people who were in the view of Republican's were "not deemed to be Irish".

The vast majority people of of both communities in the Ireland want peace with the United Kingdom. Many of us in the United Kingdom have Irish blood in our veins-and have longed to see peace between all the people of these majestic islands live together. We are a family of nations who will always share our histories-for better and for worse.

It is time to remember that shared history and move together.

God Save The Queen and Long Live Ireland!

17 May 2011 at 14:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

Ireland? Alas no more! The land of saints and scholars is an EU protectorate.

17 May 2011 at 14:06  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

D. Singh is right - but more a vassal than a protectorate (since the recent "bailout" & sell-up (the Black & Tans' Revenge, I call it)). Just when is the Irish independence movement going to wise up, get up to date, and start setting its bombs off in Brussels and Strasbourg? Of course I wouldn't want to see anyone hurt, or any violence - but aren't the EU buildings all plate glass? A very small explosion would crack them up a treat.

17 May 2011 at 14:57  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Manfarang, I leave to you your finding my comment at 10:50 "silly", but I shall be interested to know your reason for supposing the well-known difficulties of proof in the courts in Northern Ireland relevant to my remarks. Perhaps there is some point of the Jurisprudence of which you are aware that I have missed.

Of course, someone such as Mr Adams may have been careful enough to prevent himself becoming liable to trial or conviction, but I was not commenting about that.

17 May 2011 at 15:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Irish have no historic roots of being a republic, they have a rich and ancient heritage of Kings though.

The Republicans have just subjugated the Irish to a European Empire, Ireland shall not have independence until they elect a King in the traditional way.

Old Lizzie mint drop has made a nice gesture but her own reign is going down as one of treachery in our native folklore, if something is not done soon about our own destruction by the EU.

Moral of the tale, stop apologising for yesteryear, deal with the here and now.

17 May 2011 at 15:59  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

For goodness sake, calm down, calm down!

Taking the long term view the Irish were more sinned against than sinners in the sorry tale that is their history.

Nowadays, the majority peacefully go about their business and are not that fussed about a 'united Ireland' or, indeed, about the ursurption of their so called freedom by the EU - if that is what it is.

A united island of Ireland will come about about one day through the ballot box and that's the reason Gerry Adams is playing the democratic game - demographics.

Personally, I believe Ireland should be reunited when the majority in the North and the South both want this.

For now, lets just enjoy the Queen's visit and stop all this unnecessary fretting about what might happen.

17 May 2011 at 17:30  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

As a British republican I am angered that an unelected hereditary monarch should visit any country claiming to represent me. Of course I wish her no harm and have some respect for her as a person; it is her office that I abhor.

That said it seems a daft visit. Ireland cannot afford it and nor can we. Add to that the increased terrorist risk that has appeared over the last year and one wonders why this visit was not put on ice.

The visit of any Head of State to any country serves little purpose. It doesn’t make any difference to how the population at large view another country and so the pomp and ceremony is simply to make everyone involved feel self important. So I would do away with all State visits and rely on private ones if there really is something of substance to discuss.

17 May 2011 at 17:47  
Anonymous not a machine said...

It is an unusual moment ,unusual that is if you were watching tele/news 20or more yrs ago.
Relations had to change to let the peace in .I personally think it is an icredibly couragous move ,not only by the Queen but by Irelands president Mary Mackeliece.They had to start somewhere and even though the wierd barriering away of people was thought necessary , a moment of reflection together was attained.

I am sure ,even though we may have a few snags , we will have to get to know one another.

My thoughts perhaps are not so much with the fallen ,but with the future .The lingering pockets of hate will need thought ,there indoctrination is as much of a death as of those in the graves.
But so much death and loss of freedom ,I am not sure if either church can claim the high ground and the socialists who accpeted Gaddafi arms certainly cannot.

A very odd feeling ,as so much terror has taken place , and yet it should happen ,some will never feel how ghastly it really was , but that is what we must try and do if we love Christ.

17 May 2011 at 18:03  
Blogger English Viking said...

To see the Queen humiliate herself (and by extension, GB) by placing a wreath at the Garden of Remembrance,in honour of the terrorists that opposed her rule, wreaked havoc and murdered her own cousin is an utter disgrace.

Her time is drawing to close. It can't come too soon for me.

17 May 2011 at 18:35  
Anonymous LCF said...

The word you were groping for, English Viking, was "dignity".

Don't mention it - pleased to have helped.

17 May 2011 at 20:33  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said ...

It's that sort of rubbish that keeps old wounds open.

The memorial is to those who died during the fight for freedom up to 1922, when her father George V was monarch, not the more recent 'troubles'. And it was a fight for freedom from colonial oppression.

Tomorrow she'll lay a wreath at the Islandbridge Memorial to those 50,000 Irishmen who died in the service of the Britain 1914-18.

Back-off on this one and shove your axe where the sun don't shine.

17 May 2011 at 20:44  
Blogger Owl said...

"She (the Queen)remains, as Gerry Adams has so frequently said, ‘a legitimate target’"

YG, I realise that Gerry Adams is your personal "Bogey Man" but you have stated the above now again having stated it (with slightly different wording) in the post before last.

I have searched the net trying to find when and where he said this and, of course, in what context as I have no recollection of it.

I have not yet found it anywhere.

Would you be so kind as to enlighten me.

Thank you.

17 May 2011 at 23:54  
Anonymous not a machine said...

English Viking : I disagree the whole saga is born of different era , we may remember the dead and ponder the troubling thoughts. I am not one of those who wails that all conflict is pointless ,but there are times when it becomes pointless. Bad and good hearts have ended up in the grave yard , and would continue to do so until peace could come.
It is not humiliating ,but it is new ,I will grant you that and in that sense it is perhaps not so much for us (who have the memorys) but for those who will live hopefully somewhat better without the troubles.

This is not shaky or lite or disrespectful ,it is better healed I am sure you will agree.

17 May 2011 at 23:54  
Blogger English Viking said...


If you knew anything about history, you'd know that that memorial includes numerous terrorists from the original Irish Republican Army. You know, the IRA?

This 'group' has it's modern-day equivalent, the leader of whom describes the British Government and the Royal Family as 'legitimate targets'.

BTW Don't go all dewey-eyed for the Irish fighting spirit, we saw how well that went in WWII, when the Irish were refueling U-boats for Adolph, amongst many other thing. William Joyce?

It's just your sort of rubbish that allows nations to repeat the mistakes they so stupidly made in the past.

PS Don't tell me to back off, nor to shove things (I know you're a cat-lick, but a bit of decorum, please).

18 May 2011 at 00:00  
Blogger English Viking said...


You're absolutely correct, HM was completely lacking in dignity too. Thanks for your help.

18 May 2011 at 00:02  
Blogger English Viking said...




18 May 2011 at 00:11  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
If you knew anything about history, you'd know that that memorial includes numerous terrorists from the original Irish Republican Army. You know, the IRA?"

And if you know your history, nitwit, you'll know Republicanism split post 1922 and there was a civil war in Eire. The original Irish rebels were freedom fighters against British oppression and, naturally, the IRA were members. A very different breed to 1970's re-emergence and the likes of Adams et al.

The treaty ended the Irish self proclaimed State's immediate war with Britain, though until recently they still laid claim to the 6 counties. This will come eventually through the ballot box, be sure of that.

Was the Empire always right in your eyes?

It was good to see Queen Elizabeth bow her head in respect to the fallen heroes of Eire's fight for independence and self determination.

And the likes of you deserve no respect nor decorum. You spew poison and bigotry and keep past wounds open.

Go away!

18 May 2011 at 00:45  
Blogger Owl said...

Thank you Viking,

The Guardian report states that this statement was made by Josephine Hayden, who seems to be a complete nutter, not Gerry Adams.

I checked the irishcentral site where this statement is made by "dissidents". I could not get back on to check further.
The same story is refered to on another site once again stating that this comment is from a "Josephine Hayden".

His Grace says that this has been frequently said by Gerry Adams but I can find no reference to this at all which seems a bit odd.

18 May 2011 at 00:47  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 May 2011 at 00:54  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

A fine song to reflect on English Viki.

This is the stuff real men are made of -living and dying to free their country from centuries of foreign oppression.


In Mountjoy jail one Monday morning
High upon the gallows tree
Kevin Barry gave his young life
For the cause of liberty

Just a lad of eighteen summers
Yet there's no one can deny
As he walked to death that morning
He proudly held his head on high

Just before he faced the hangman
In his dreary prison cell
British soldiers tortured Barry
Just because he would not tell

The names of his brave comrades
And other things they wished to know
"Turn informer or we'll kill you"
Kevin Barry answered "No"

Another martyr for old Ireland
Another murder for the crown
Whose brutal laws may kill the Irish
But can't keep their spirits down

Lads like Barry are no cowards
From the foe they will not fly
Lads like Barry will free Ireland
For her sake they'll live and die


A true patriot and a true hero. It was his death that focussed world attention on the plight of the Irish and the brutality of the British.

18 May 2011 at 01:02  
Anonymous Dick the Prick said...

Your Grace

An excellent day - I didn't realise I would feel so much. My Catholicism stretches as far as the sea and brother Ireland has calmed down.

A joyous day! Memory is ownership and perhaps their government has got some Euro shit but economics only carries the faith of its citizens, their security. I don't think anything has ended today - I think we can stop though. Just for a bit, just for a generation. Governemnt is 6 Counties - not daughters. More bothered about breakfast.

Excellent day - diary day big style!


18 May 2011 at 01:21  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Is any-one else wondering just who is this "Englishman that she married"?surely it can not be phil the greek can it?

18 May 2011 at 08:35  
Anonymous len said...

Blessed are the Peacemakers!.
In a World full of violence peacemakers are very rare.Each party in a conflict points out the atrocities of the other and demands vengeance for those acts committed, hence the circle of violence and hate continues.
The Queen is performing the function of a peacemaker and must be given all due respect for doing so.
As the Head of the Anglican Church the Queen is displaying Christian principles regarding reconciliation and I admire Her for it!.

18 May 2011 at 08:38  
Blogger Simon Harley said...

Owl, ten second of googling produced this excerpt from an interview, from "The Bulletin" of 1984, where Adams stated, "While the British and their forces remain in Ireland, I presume the IRA will view any British minister as a legitimate target."

18 May 2011 at 08:47  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

As much I as I think that this visit is still a little premature, I have nothing but admiration for Phil and Madge. The motive for the timing is I believe the 100 years gap since the visit of the last Monarch and the two heads of state do seem to get along well enough.

In 1911 the world was a different place and Britain was after all still holding on to an Empire. They must have felt invincible. The Empire has gone. Time is healing the post imperial wounds, but the people of Eire and Northern Ireland are still at 'war' if only ideolgically, with themselves.

The Irish as an island people must resolve their long tern future by their own democratic means and Britain has to be prepared to let go ... eventually.

18 May 2011 at 09:36  
Blogger English Viking said...


It is HIs Grace's prerogative as to who does and does not frequent his blog, not yours. I'll leave when he tells me to; careful whose toes you tread on.

Freedom fighter/terrorist. That old chestnut.

I made it abundantly clear that the IRA of the early 20th century was not the same as the one in latter part. Nevertheless, they were either supposed to be loyal to the Crown and the became insurrectionists, rebels and traitors (and were dealt with accordingly) or they were enemy combatants (and were dealt with according).

The British Empire was the most beneficial and enlightening empire the world has ever seen. Were it not for that empire, long-gone now, the world would be a much darker place today (although the light is fading fast).

No opinion on Irish collaboration with the Nazis? Strange that. Although not all that much, when one considers the rabid anti-semitism that has infested your so-called 'church' for centuries.

18 May 2011 at 09:56  
Blogger Simon Harley said...

Noone seems to have corrected this, so I may as well.

"... when her father George V was monarch ..."

Grandfather, not father.

"And it was a fight for freedom from colonial oppression."

I wonder just how many good people were intimidated into not standing against Sinn Fein in the Irish Election of 1921?

18 May 2011 at 10:28  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

....No opinion on Irish collaboration with the Nazis? Strange that

Leave it out EV - so did the Norwiegians - Vichy France - Italy -Austria - Japan etc etc. All collaborated to a greater or lesser extent but we let matters rest within a couple of years. How can you regard yourself credible if you are still holding subsequent generations guilty for something that peaked 70 years before. This is the same as harping back to the days of the Battle of the Boyne to keep Orange wounds open: Or the Muslims, still blaming the Jews for everything -

If Israel and Germany can manage to get along with their history then why not between Ireland/Eire/UK?

18 May 2011 at 10:58  
Blogger English Viking said...


The comparisons you make are faulty. The nations you list were either invaded by Nazi Germany, and then compelled to co-operate, else they were willing allies with the Germans. They were not supposedly neutral nations that were saying one thing and doing another thing completely.

This is not a century old, long finished conflict. Murderous scum like Adams and McGuinness sit in Government whilst their erstwhile mates continue to wage war and make mayhem. A bomb on a bus yesterday, a dead Policeman last month, etc.

It's not over, it just calmed down after Blair agreed to let mass murderers out of jail if they promised not kill anyone else for a while.

18 May 2011 at 11:16  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Dreadnaught 09:36 "In 1911 the world was a different place and Britain was after all still holding on to an Empire. They must have felt invincible." Yes and no.

By then the Navy and everyone knew the "Great War" was looming; Kipling had already published RECESSIONAL for the diamond Jubilee in 1897 followed by The White Man's Burden, 1899, addressed to USA and Theodore Roosevelt; and that was the year when reform of the House of Lords went onto the statute book.

18 May 2011 at 11:17  
Blogger English Viking said...


'Blessed are the peacemakers...'

That's what Chamberlain thought.

It is a terrible mistake to apply Christian principle to the State that was taught as applying to the individual.

Roman 13 teaches that the State is God's appointed executioner, offering the evildoer a sword, not God's priest offering forgiveness.

18 May 2011 at 11:38  
Anonymous len said...

English Viking, 'Blessed are the peacemakers'
That`s what Jesus said.

I do not believe we should not have resisted Hitler with all possible means.But I believe this is a last resort.
Our first intention should be for a peaceful settlement.
Our ultimate goal should be to live at peace with everyone ,however I am not so unrealistic as to realise that this is not always possible.

Law and order must be retained and a system of punishment has to be used, I am fully in agreement with this.

Bottom line is, there is;
'A time to love and a time to hate. A time for war and a time for peace.'

18 May 2011 at 13:05  
Anonymous Boatmad said...

Firstly as an Irishman living in Ireland I warmly welcome her majesty to the republic of Ireland. It's long overdue. It seems the delay was caused some activities of her subjects in northern Ireland over the years. The citizens of the republic have always seen a visit as appropriate

As to the issue between Ireland and the Nazis. While some nutters in the old IRA saw helping the nazis as a useful activity. But deValera clamped down on the IRA even bringing in internment. Nazi submarines were never facilitated in Ireland. It's an old myth. In fact allied airmen and seamen were repatriated within 24 hours whereas Germans were interned for the duration. 50,000 irish people volunteered to fight in WW2 despite their governments express wish for them not to.


Stop spreading lies and open your ears.

18 May 2011 at 13:41  
Blogger Willie said...

I do not think HM is Chief of Staff. Did you not mean Commander in Chief?
I think she shows great courage in going on this visit especially as she has had the particularly cowardly assassination of her husband's uncle to remember. I think the memory of those Irish from North or South who fought fascism will be more likely remembered in the longer term than the nasty poisoned murderous corrupt crypto communists in Sinn Fein. The Ulster Division prided itself on being the first to mobilise as there was no conscription in Northern Ireland. They were with the BEF in 1939. All great men.

18 May 2011 at 14:09  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Well said Boatmad.

18 May 2011 at 14:11  
Blogger Owl said...


Owl, ten second of googling produced this excerpt from an interview, from "The Bulletin" of 1984, where Adams stated, "While the British and their forces remain in Ireland, I presume the IRA will view any British minister as a legitimate target."

This has nothing to do with HG's statement that G.Adams frequently said that the Queen is a legitimate target. He says "I presume that the IRA will...". Totaly different.

I now presume that, as no one seems to be able to find these words anywhere, Mr. Adams has not used these words and that HG is being cute.

18 May 2011 at 14:28  
Anonymous SussexMan said...


Quite right-The Irish Government in "the Emergency" had made plans to co-operate with the British Army for the defence of the Free State in the light of the Fall of France. (See Operation Sealion and Operation Green)

Like Sweden and Switzerland, the Free State was officially "neutral"- but like many of these countries, they were covertly helping the Allies, which increased in 1942 onwards. G2 Branch of Irish Army was working very closely with both MI5 on counter-intelligence matters (which was one factor why the Abwehr was so poor in the UK) , and with the OSS and MI6 on the intercepting diplomatic and political intelligence-which was vital to the Allied cause.

The Pro-German groups consisted of a faction of Anti-Treaty IRA and fascist Blue-shirts, and as pointed out 50,000 Irishmen joined the British Army plus hundreds of thousands of civilian workers going to the UK to help in the war effort (including my Gran who was a nurse in London)

The troubling aspects of Ireland role in the WW2 was De Valera's rejection of not taking up Churchill's offer of a settlement to the 6 Counties question in exchange for Ireland entering the war on the Allies side and access to naval bases during the hight of the U-Boat War, the diplomatic faux pas on the death of Hitler, and the Irish Authorities overlooking German War Criminals living in the Republic.

Poor political leadership by De Valeara who was being rather ton narrow in his world view than openly being pro-Nazi I would say.

18 May 2011 at 14:40  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viki

Do you actually believe people's with a seperate culture, tradition and homeland have a right of self-determination?

For centuries the Irish people were abused and oppressed by the British and no right of redress through the ballot box.

Interestingly, whilst the 'Irish Question' was heating up the Balfour Declaration was being drafted. Money talks! Do you support the Israeli State - born out of insurrection and terror against Britain's mandate?

Was the American War of Independence led by terrorists and murders - or a people intent on democacracy and running their own affairs?

So far as Ireland's neutrality during WW11 goes, that was there right as a free state. If they collaborated with Germany then I would see that as a disgraceful act on their part.

Yes, I agree, the British Empire was a fine thing in the 17th century through to the 20th century. However, we should have relinguished power voluntarily early on in the 20th century rather than have the American's insist on this after WWII.

And, by the way, have you read what Luther wrote and said about the Jews? It wasn't just a Catholic prejudice, you know. Let's thank God it's in the past.

So, my little 'potty-stank', carry on with your narrow minded bigotry if you must, it is your right and entitlement.

Thank God the Queen is able to rise above history and acknowledge Britain's unsavoury past - just as Popes John Paul and Benedict have in respect of Catholism.

18 May 2011 at 14:49  
Blogger English Viking said...


The 50,000 that fought must have been disappointed that their fellow countrymen refused to do so, and their leaders would not allow the British to use their ports to protect Atlantic shipping, causing the deaths of thousands of men, mostly civilians, and threatened the success of the war effort in its entirety.

Not all British/Allied airmen were repatriated, some were interned.

DeValera sent a message of condolence to the German High Command on hearing the news of the death of Hitler - the only European Head of State to do so, so please don't laud him as a man of integrity and morality. He was such a threat to the war effort than Churchill had considered invading Eire to gain control of the much needed ports, only deciding against when ports in the North were volunteered.

I'll admit I appear wrong on the U boat issue. I had heard it so often, I simply assumed it true. My mistake. I'll thank you to note there is great difference between a mistake and a lie, and refrain from bandying the accusation 'liar' at me, because you don't like my opinions.

Although I'm not wrong that the general sentiment in the South during WWII was one of ambivalence, that Allied lives were lost as a result (including brave Irish ones, an even greater betrayal) and that that attitude persists today. I have no idea why the Irish think it a good thing to be ordered about by Brussels instead of London, but if they ever were to attain true and total independence, they, like Scotland, NI and Wales would go bankrupt within a decade. In the case of Eire, you already are, but don't seem averse to a bit of British coin every now and then, via massive bail-outs and EU subsidies.

18 May 2011 at 14:58  
Blogger English Viking said...


I do believe that indigenous people's should be allowed the right to self-determination. The Irish had it then, and they have it now, what's the problem. We can't pull out of NI completely, because the catlicks will start offing prods all over again, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

That self determination must include the rights of the English to determine that they will no longer subsidise minor, insignificant countries and their profligacy, particularly those that refused to fight against the evils of Nazism. And the right not to forget who our traditional allies and enemies are.

Your understanding of the birth (resurrection) of Israel is faulty. Don't Stern- gang me, it's boring.

I'm not surprised there's a bit of residual 'joo-basher' in you - you're taught it from birth.

BTW I'm not a great fan of Luther either, so you can say what you like about him. And Calvin. Better by far than a pope, though.

18 May 2011 at 15:13  
Anonymous Boatmad said...

EV you really need to understand the situation in Ireland in the run up to WW2. Devalera had no choice but to declare neutrality as to have formally sided with the allies would have resulted in a restart of the civil war with the IRA. He sought to avoid a repeat of that terrible tragedy at all costs.

In fact Churchill made two deeply disengenious offers to force the end to partition of he could get uses of the old naval bases. Devalera rejected these because he felt that the British had no way of forcing the unionists to agree abd the result would be more civil war. It's interesting to chuchhills morals on this he was prepared to abandon the unionists. Paradoxically they have devalera to thank

I'm no fan of devalera but I can see the difficulties. As to internment. Both german and ailled servicemen were interred in the curragh. They were let out each day into the local town and later even overnight. Most ailled simply got a train or a bus to NI any that stayed wanted too. A lot of the germans and one or two ailled married locally. It was hardly a difficult existence.

Irish army intelligence activity co-operated with mi5 passing sightings of german ships and the reports from Irish based german abwher agents ( who stood out in Ireland like a sore thumb)

Probably a majority of ordinary people in ireland at the time would have supported the ailled position. But the political situation was on a knife edge.

Yes devalera was an idiot over the condolence issue. Yet he allowed 2000 British children into Ireland during the blitz

Remember particulary in the early part of the war it was likely that the Germans would invade Ireland with the active support of the IRA and devalera sought to avoid this at all costs.

Was it a good or bad call I don't know but I don't here you critising Sweden or Switzerland.

Degrogatory remarks about the EU and Ireland are irrelevant. If you don't like the EU then that's fine don't use Ireland as a whipping boy.

Ogh well pay back all that debt don't you worry. We remain the 16th wealthist country , we have a surplus balance of trade etc etc. Why be nasty when you could be nice.


18 May 2011 at 16:19  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viki

Potty-stank, potty-stank, getting your history muddled up?

The Irish had to fight for for their freedom up to 1922 - it was those who died for the cause whom the Queen honoured yesterday.

In time the Irish will vote for the 6 counties to join Eire and there'll be no blood shed - just a few lunatic Congregationalists and Presbyterians, who believe Rome is the anti-Christ, and die hard Unionists to contend with.

There's no residual anti-semitism in me! My father converted to Christianity from Judaism in the 1950's. He served in Palestine after the war and witnessed the terrorism and fanaticism of the Zionists.

Me thinks it is you that dislikes our Jewish brothers, Viki, given you insist on calling them 'Joos'.

18 May 2011 at 16:19  
Blogger English Viking said...


You're not a Mick, are you? You are, aren't you?

BTW My history is fine, and if you think that Eire will have a vote and the North will say 'Grand, why didn't we think of that before?' you're as demented as your ex-Nazi Youth leader.

18 May 2011 at 16:28  
Blogger Owl said...


You're out of line, calm down.

18 May 2011 at 17:07  
Blogger English Viking said...


Bite me.

18 May 2011 at 17:27  
Anonymous len said...

Dodo , Viking,who is best............................................fight!

18 May 2011 at 17:32  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


I'll happily scratch that bare backside of yours with my claws!

And, yes, I'm Irish on my mother's side and Jewish on my father's.

Raised on:

"We're all off to Dublin in the Green ..."

The majority of Catholics in the North will, in time, vote for reunification, trust me. Check the demographics.

"A nation once again ..."

18 May 2011 at 17:36  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
"Dodo , Viking,who is best............................................fight!"

Now there's a thought!

I tear him to bits, although we Dodo's are passive by nature. Once aroused we can be awesome!

He's probably a dumpy wee fatty who's heavy on his feet and can't move.

And to think earlier you posted:

"Blessed are the peacemakers"

18 May 2011 at 17:41  
Blogger English Viking said...


Ahhhh, I knew you were. A bog-trotter, no less!

Come and have a go, if you think you're hard enough.

18 May 2011 at 17:49  
Blogger English Viking said...


The use of the word 'aroused' by a cat-lick is, I must admit, a trifle disturbing.

18 May 2011 at 17:51  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


So just what ethnic catastrophe produced you - the brutish rape of an innocent northern lass by a filthy savage?

Take care who you challenge. A short, dumpy fingered potty-stank would have no chance against this Jewish Celt!

18 May 2011 at 20:06  
Anonymous SussexMan said...


"De Valera had no choice but to declare neutrality as to have formally sided with the allies would have resulted in a restart of the civil war with the IRA. He sought to avoid a repeat of that terrible tragedy at all costs."

Hmmmm......I think thats not strictly true-he could not trust the Army because of the legacy of the Mutiny at the Curragh in March 1924.

One of the clauses in the Treaty (and remains so today) is that in the event of foreign aggression, the United Kingdom will come to her defence.

The Irish Republic and its existence has been brought and paid for since 1922 by British lives-either fighting the IRA (who only more recently have accepted "Linster House") and abroad.

But I have to say as I am watching this evenings speech-all those TD's bowing to our Queen (after all they need the gravy train to pay for those stud farms), and the remarks even by Irish commentators about the UK continuing to prop up the Republic's economy, the question that the citizens of the Republic have to ask is-Are we really independent?

18 May 2011 at 20:16  
Blogger English Viking said...



18 May 2011 at 20:38  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Sussex Man said ...

God there are so many small minded 'Little Englanders' on this blog as represented by the above.

The wealth of Britain was built on the exploitation of 'colonial' peoples and slavery. Time to repay a little of the debt owed. Besides, as so many point out, Britain is no longer 'independent' being a part of Europe.

18 May 2011 at 20:46  
Anonymous SussexMan said...

Last Dodo

I am far from the "little Englander" that you are quick to dish out to others-I have traveled the world, lived abroad and my partner is not even English.

The irony that you so fail to see (please read ALL my posts before commentating and if you watched both the speeches you would recognize) is that Independence is the ability to stand on your own to feet and be isolated.

But Ireland,England,Scotland and Wales cannot ever be "independent" ,anymore that the moon and the earth can ever be independent from each other.

Our histories have, and will always be forever, intertwined-how can I disown my own heritage (which is both Welsh and Irish)?

But with the formation of ever larger economic blocks in an ever more competive world, it is natural that people that have common cause should seek to strengthen ties.The Republic has first hand knowledge now what a globalized really economy means.

Now its economic future is in the hands of the EU (if I recall we still have the pound) and the still has the possible option of walking away if we can get round to it.We have enough economic,military and cultural ties around the world to do so.

Ireland has forgone that to become a voiceless entity in Europe in order to escape its "colonial" history (which it participated in).No wonder we have become an "friend" of Ireland.

But as the President pointed out, many of the institutions and traditions which are deemed "Irish" are Anglo-Irish-common law, the assertion of a democratic parliament and democracy,language,art,culture and sport, which are shared not just in Ireland, but in the far flung reaches of the world.

That is the forgotten legacy of Empire which brings us together-today I can sit down with my Indian friend and talk the language of cricket-or chat to my girlfriend about Singapour and its Victorian architecture.

As for the "debt" we owe Ireland-that is the myth of history, Irishmen were also quite happy to participate in the blood letting of Empire building.Irishmen have killed Irishmen for all manner of causes-you only have to read the local histories in places like Clonmel,Cork, Roscommon,Dublin,Doolin,Roosky or countless of other town's and villages to see how people suffered-the family of an RIC officer, the Protestant farmer, the Jew, the factory worker who wanted to carry on working, the shop-owner
who was boycotted, the soldier returning from the Great War, the family that attended the GGA games in 1920.

That is the real legacy of Irelands troubled past-and the Irish people are thankfully starting to acknowledge is own history more a objective light.

Republican propaganda (and fellow travelers who feel guilty about history) might wallow in "victim-hood"-but the truth is far more complex-nobodies histories is innocent.

18 May 2011 at 22:18  
Blogger Owl said...


What are you afraid of?

Fear of the unknown can be dealt with. I suggest a trip over the water and you will be pleasantly surprised and I can assure you, you won't need your axe.

18 May 2011 at 22:18  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...

So what's new? Judging by your comments, if they can properly be called such, you're always half asleep.

18 May 2011 at 22:36  
Anonymous SussexMan said...

One other point I would like to make Dodo

Following the logic of your argument regarding the "crimes" of the British Empire,which the (i)liberal are so keen to have us do.

Do you think that the Italian Government should be apologizing for the Roman Occupation of half of Europe?

Do you think think the Turkish Government should be apologizing to the Arabic world for the crimes of the Ottoman Empire, and the Arabic World should say sorry to Bulgaria for the sack of Adrianople?

What about the slave owning Aztec's or the Mayans? Should not every Central and South American country be apologizing to each other for mass slaughter in the name of religion?

Then there is the ecological holocaust that the Maori brought with them when they inhabited New Zealand-they brought cats,rats,dogs and other pests with them, as well as caused the extinction of the Giant Moa? Surely they are guilty?

And what of those other Empires of the 17/18th centuries? The Zulu's that waged war and butchered most of Southern Africa? The Mughal Empire was hardly squeamish about dealing with their enemies, Japan occupied Okinawa and imprisioned the royal family-the crimes of slave owning China , Russia,Vietnamese, the Dutch,French,Spanish,Danish,SwedishEmpires are littered with bloody corpses.

What about Ireland and Scandinavia and the Viking Raid-think of all that culture that was put to the torch by them in the British Isles in the 7th Century?

Greece has a lot to answer for-after all should not the Greek people be charged with Genocide and Crimes against humanity because of the icon of Imperial Power-Alexander. While we are at it why not put the Persians in the dock too?

Easy to be Noam Chomsky and come out with high minded comments about the evil of Empire- or play Jean-Jacques Rousseau and fawn over "lesser" cultures (his words not mine) and "victims"-but intellectual and cultural dishonesty about the history of mankind and sand bagging of "easy" targets (the usual suspects: the USA/UK axis) shows in a staggering how little "clever" liberals know about history.

18 May 2011 at 23:16  
Blogger Owl said...


"The Irish Republic and its existence has been brought and paid for since 1922 by British lives-either fighting the IRA (who only more recently have accepted "Linster House") and abroad. "

What an extraordinary statement!

I sometimes dispair of my fellow man.....

18 May 2011 at 23:37  
Anonymous Steve Mac said...

Last Dodo said: "The majority of Catholics in the North will, in time, vote for reunification, trust me. Check the demographics."

I have. They won't. They don't at present. Less than half of Catholics in NI would vote for reunification and that's before testing opinion in the wake of Eire's financial crisis. What sane person would want to triple their share of a national debt by exchanging the the UK one for an Irish one?

What sane person would willingly subject themsleves to governance by feckless, gombeen men in the thrall of the EU?

More to the point, since the citizens of the Republic have a say in the matter also, what sane person among their number would vote to embrace not one, but two large groups of people they despise - loyalists and Shinners?

And when was a united Ireland ever a nation?

18 May 2011 at 23:43  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

SussexMan said...
"One other point I would like to make Dodo ..."

Blah, blah, blah ...

Are you really stupid or just pretending?

19 May 2011 at 00:57  
Anonymous len said...

The past is history we cannot do anything about it,only learn from it.
The future is the important thing and we don`t have to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Viking ,Dodo,and others you are illustrating the futility of the 'blame culture'which seems to be 'cement ' which holds people in conflict.
The Queen(God Bless Her)is showing us the way forward.

19 May 2011 at 07:17  
Blogger English Viking said...


If you had your way, we'd be posting in German by now.

Except we wouldn't, because most of us would have been shot. But probably not you; reckon you'd look good in a nice, shiny uniform; it'd match your nice, shiny conscience.

19 May 2011 at 11:37  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
"The past is history we cannot do anything about it,only learn from it.
The future is the important thing and we don`t have to repeat the mistakes of the past."

I fully agree with the above sentiment and the Queen's speech yesterday was a brilliantly crafted message to both the Irish and British. Her honouring the dead of the Irish revolution and the dead of WWI was also a powerful message.

However, the Irish 'troubles' are not completely resolved and, in historical terms, are our very recent 'past'.

Let's be clear and not fudge the past in a sentimental attempt to sooth past wrongs though. Proper healing requires ownership of past 'mistakes' - a weak word for the systematic subjugation of a country and its peoples.

For centuries the Irish were victims of British greed and suffered grieviously. They experienced economic and social oppression. The uprising in 1922 was a justifiable act of civil rebellion and but for political compromises, Ireland would be one united island now.

Yes, let the 'past' go but actually learn from it by accepting the wrongs committed.

19 May 2011 at 13:02  
Anonymous len said...

EV, I am going to practice what I preach and forgive you for your thoughtless remark.
Bless you.

The thing about forgiveness is that if you forgive everyone no one can possibly hurt you, so he that forgives everyone is perfectly free.
Try it,its the Christian way.

19 May 2011 at 13:14  
Blogger English Viking said...

Len said: The thing about forgiveness is that if you forgive everyone no one can possibly hurt you, so he that forgives everyone is perfectly free.

I'm afraid that is demonstrably untrue. It is also not the Christian way. It is a wickedness that encourages evil to forgive murderers that are not repentant, for example.

The Lord God does not forgive those that do not repent, either, and giving that impression to others is a disservice to the truth.

I'm prepared to forgive you for this thoughtlessness and muddy thinking, though.

On this occasion.

19 May 2011 at 14:12  
Anonymous len said...

E V, `till we meet again then.

Forgiveness is my part, retribution is God`s part.

God is not mocked.

Best wishes len.

19 May 2011 at 14:45  
Blogger English Viking said...


Perhaps I should have added that I believe it my Christian duty to always leave the door open, so to speak, for those who have committed terrible acts. I don't keep a list of those that have wronged me, either lightly or more damagingly. These things don't matter, and I hold no grudge as I am as bad as the next man. But I can assure you, If someone were to harm a friend, or a family member, as the IRA have done and continue to do, there would be zero forgiveness until there was repentance.

I do no put any in the category of 'unforgivable', nor do I seek retribution against those that wrong me.

But I do not offer false hope to the unrepentant, nor wish to see crime go unpunished either.

PS Were you implying I was mocking God?

19 May 2011 at 15:37  
Anonymous len said...

Forgiveness is a decision not an emotion.
I have forgiven people who I certainly did not feel like forgiving.I forgave as an act of obedience to the Lord.
Forgiveness can also release feelings of bitterness which are damaging if held onto.Also God says that He will forgive me in exactly the same way I forgive others, and I have not had an entirely blameless past!

Christians are sometimes seen as a 'push over' because they are taught to forgive, not to strike back but the Lord says; "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord." (Romans 12;19.)

God is not mocked. There is a Law of sowing and reaping.(even the World knows this"what goes around comes around")

This was not to imply that you were mocking God,but if people hold unforgiveness, harbour hate , want to gain revenge etc , they are sowing seeds that they will ultimately reap in return.

When some one offends me and says 'sorry'( or not) is immaterial as I forgive them as an act of obedience.

Repentance before God is necessary for salvation however,and punishment for crime is something I would uphold.

19 May 2011 at 17:29  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

If a Republican was lying dying by the side of the road in need of help, what would you do?

19 May 2011 at 17:32  
Blogger English Viking said...


Call an ambulance and perform CPR. If he/she was conscious, I would attempt to give them a last moment opportunity to repent of their sins.


I don't know if you actually read my posts properly, or just pick out a few key-words and jump to a conclusion.

I thought I made it clear that I care little about being offended; these kinds (and more serious) wrongs are forgiven without the person needing to apologise, or even be sorry.

But if you think it Christian to sweep under the carpet the murder of a loved one, and dole out forgiveness willy-nilly without the merest hint of contrition from the killer, you have not understood the Gospel properly, and are misleading sinners into thinking their crimes are so bad after all.

You are wrong when you say that forgiveness is not an emotion (as you later admit when you say it releases feelings of bitterness). If I should find myself, God forbid, in the position of being related to a murder victim, who displayed no remorse, I think my faith would just about stretch as far as keeping my hands off him/her, but there would be no reconciliation without repentance, and then only out of obedience to God, not out of a deep concern for the killer.

Did God forgive Judas for helping to murder His Son?

19 May 2011 at 18:45  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking asked ...

"Did God forgive Judas for helping to murder His Son?"

Sorry to intrude on your conversation with len, but this is a question theologians have debated for millenia.

We know from the Bible Judas was filled with remorse and this suggests repentance. Did Christ's words "Father forgive them ..." cover Judas?

What was Judas' sin? Was it simple averice or can we infer from the Gospels he was attempting to force Jesus' hands into becoming a wordly King?

No one knows how Christ will judge us when we stand before Him to give an account of our lives.

19 May 2011 at 20:16  
Blogger English Viking said...


Judas was not forgiven.

This he [Judas] said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Jn 12 v 6 My brackets.

Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? John 6 v 70

The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born. Mk 14 v 21

Hebrews 12 gives us the a fuller picture. we see that Esau, significantly the firstborn, despised his birthright (his inheritance) and was never able to recover it, thou he sought for repentance with much tears. There is never anything for God in the first birth, 'ye must be born again.' Jn 3 v 16 There are numerous examples of this type (in the true sense), Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac. Note that God considered Ishmael Abraham's ONLY son, even though Ishmael was alive. Without the second birth, one cannot have God as one's father. Gen 22 v 2

For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. Hebrews 12 v 17

Regret and shame are not the same thing as repentance. Judas didn't lose his salvation, he never had it. His sin was refusing to be saved in the first place, years before, and coming then to repentance about what he WAS, not so much what he'd done, although that is important too.

You'll note that upon the appointment of Barsabus as a replacement for Judas, in Acts 1 v 12, Judas, in effect, became the 13th 'disciple', a number loaded with spiritual significance in the Bible.

Finally, you say that no one knows how Christ will judge us when we stand....

It is important not confuse the Judgement given out to those who have refused to obey the call to repentance, ie those that refused to be born again, refused to become Christians, and the judgement of the SERVICE of those who have become born again. Chalk and cheese, sir.

19 May 2011 at 21:10  
Blogger English Viking said...

BIG TYPO!!!!!!!!!!! TYPO ABOVE!!!!!!!

Isaac was considered Abraham's only son, NOT Ishmael, even though he was younger and Ishmael was still alive.



19 May 2011 at 21:15  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said ...

Way too complicated for my simple mind.

God and His mercy is unfathomable and and it's best not to speculate about who is condemned.

19 May 2011 at 22:38  
Blogger English Viking said...


It's not complicated, you're just too used to being spoon-fed by your 'priest' to look at these things for yourself.

19 May 2011 at 22:43  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

Okay then explain 'born again'.

Is it a process or a one off event? And do you accept the need for baptism by water?

19 May 2011 at 23:52  
Blogger English Viking said...

Being born again is a one-off, instantaneous moment in time. It's like being pregnant; one either is, or is not. One cannot be a little bit pregnant, one cannot be a little bit born again.

It is a wicked lie that a man must be baptised in (not by) water in order to be saved,

The thief, on the cross, was he baptised? I'll assume you'll say no. Then how could he have been with Christ, in paradise, that very same day, if it was necessary?

Please note that paradise and heaven are not the places.

A genuine question; how on earth can a person claim to be an enlightened Christian if they do not know what being born again entails? One has to bear in mind that Christ said it was absolutely vital to salvation, when talking to a very pious and religious man - Nicodemus. Confer John 3.

20 May 2011 at 00:43  
Blogger English Viking said...

The word 'same' is missing from the above.

Paradise and heaven are not the SAME places.

20 May 2011 at 03:44  
Anonymous len said...

Being born again is the minimum requirement of Christians.It is the process when God breathes Life into a dead spirit.All new life springs from this regeneration of the spirit.
We are born naturally from the desire of our parents ie ' sexual union '(normally).
But we are born again from above from the Spirit of God.That is why Jesus said "We MUST be born again" Without this process change is not possible, and we are left performing dead religious works.Religion seems' good'to the natural man, and puffs him up with self righteousness but this is merely a 'front' to the natural man inside who remains unchanged.

God `s plan for the salvation of man is far more radical,He changes man from the inside(spirit) out, whereas man tries to control(unsuccessfully) his
'natural ,fallen ,nature by being 'good' .

I was baptised as a baby, confirmed as an adolescent, was I saved?
Certainly not.

20 May 2011 at 08:17  
Anonymous len said...

The big illusion amongst the 'unsaved'(and some religious) is that God has some sort of 'sliding scale where He measures the 'goodness'of people.
People say " so and so is in Heaven because he was a 'good' person , but this doesn`t line up with what Jesus taught.]
Someone called Jesus good teacher, "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

20 May 2011 at 08:27  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Thanks to EV--Dodo--len, whose discussion has shown that the following are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

Witness, theology, doctrine, truth-seeking and experience.

20 May 2011 at 09:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen to that Mr J.

20 May 2011 at 09:44  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

If I understand your 'theology' correctly, it effectively damns all those who have not experienced a single life changing 'moment'; an irresistable epithany; a specific date when they were 'saved'.

This is not my understanding of the Gospel. For some, as evidenced by St Paul's conversion, this will be so. For others it will not be the case. I see faith as a journey and ongoing and deepening acceptance of Christ. A gift freely offered that is accepted. By some immediately; others more slowly.

Many people wrestle with their faith. They have to learn the good news, deepening their faith and need strengthening on the process.

Your understanding contradicts much of the New Testament - read Acts and the Epistles. It is an individualistic philosophy based on a narrow reading of scripture. It artifically divides Christians and discourages those on their journey.

And, of course, given that it is an individual revealation, it dismisses any notion of a collective, a community, a church.

20 May 2011 at 15:07  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


The 'good thief' was offered salvation not because he recognised Christ as the Son of God but because he showed human compassion and love to an innocent man.

20 May 2011 at 15:10  
Anonymous len said...

The' bottom line' here is that Eternal Life is IN the Son.
He who has(been put in, connected to) the Son, has Life, Eternal Life.

To be born-again is to be connected ie One Spirit with Christ.
His Life becomes My Life, His Spirit my Spirit.

It is a union of Spirits.

There is no eternal life outside of this.

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
(1Corinthians 15:45)

We are either 'in Adam or 'in Christ.
You can be the best'Adam' ever but
God still sees you as a 'sinner'.

20 May 2011 at 16:11  
Blogger English Viking said...


Once a person is saved, then the journey of deepening faith and trust begins. Salvation is not an extended process, else how can anyone know whether they are 'there yet'? What happens to those who were well on the way but got hit by a bus?

Making statements such as 'your understanding contradicts much of the NT' without showing me how, with scripture, not opinion, is useless.

I can assure you that my views wholly and fully include the Church, and it's not that whore in Rome.

BTW When you say the thief was saved BECAUSE HE.... you are saying that he had done something in order to deserve salvation, that he had earned the right to heaven because of his compassion and love.

Now who's flying in the face of NT teaching?

PS He wasn't baptised, was he? Why do always skip to new questions, raise new points, without dealing with current ones? I've yet to see a defense for your belief in infant baptism as a method of salvation.

20 May 2011 at 16:15  
Anonymous len said...

Dodo, One last thought on the re birth.

I have heard it described this way and it works quite well for me, hope it does for you too.

There are two trees, 1, the tree of Adam, this has certain characteristics which are relative to that tree.
2, The tree of Christ,which has characteristics relative to that tree.

If a gardener takes a cutting from the first tree and grafts it into the second tree that cutting draws it life from that tree.Whatever the history of the second tree has been becomes the history of the cutting.

The 'gardener ' of course is God.

20 May 2011 at 17:21  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

Your 'God' and mine are clearly not the same. The God I worship is Love and full of compassion.

God will welcome whom He chooses.

You are full of hate - "that whore in Rome." Just the latest in a string of abusive comments made by you - "Mick" "bog plodder" etc.

If that is being "born again" then you can keep it!

20 May 2011 at 18:53  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


We're not that far apart - really. It's just we disagree on how we arrive at the destination.

20 May 2011 at 18:54  
Blogger English Viking said...


If you are going to complain about people being rude, it helps your cause if you are not.

Some of your recent quotes:

Stick it where the sun don't shine, a short, dumpy- fingered pottystank that is the product of a rape, you claim you want to scratch my bare backside and tear me to bits.

As I do not care what you call me, and do not complain when people are abusive, I feel morally permitted to continue 'spewing hate'.

You'll note that the Bible refers to false religion as a 'whore'. Does God 'spew hate'? The Bible commands me to hate certain things. Romans 12 v 9

That includes false religions, including catholicism and islam. You'll note that I have only ever been 'offensive' about your so called church, it pervert priest and one of the anti-christs which sit on throne beneath an upside-down cross. These deserve all they get and more. I think you'll find the worst i've called you personally is 'cat-lick'.

Not really as offensive as being considered the offspring of a rapist, is it?

People in glass houses....

BTW Any defense for the heresy of infant baptism, or did you hope I'd forget after you told the nasty man to go away?

I'd prefer your answer, not one from a book (unless it's the Bible), the net or your 'priest'. I mean, you should be able to defend what you believe, from scripture, without having to look it up, surely?

20 May 2011 at 22:12  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

Ooooo ... now you're showing your real colours!

A bit of harmless banter and name calling is not the same as racial or religious hatred and abuse. Learn the difference! If you masquarade as a Viking and throw out challenges - "if you think you're hard enought" - what do you expect? Lighten up!

As I said the God you worship is not the God of Love I worship. Your 'God', according to your profession, condemns and judges taking no account of the particular circumstances of people. My God looks into the heart and soul of a person and where there is Love accepts that person as a child of His.

I do not accept the 'theology' of a single, life changing, moment of revelation as a pre-condition for salvation.

Your God is harsh, cold and uncompromising. A god of vengance and judgement. Your comments are divisive.

In short, you demonstate few of the true Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

20 May 2011 at 23:10  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

Everyone was surprised when the Queen spoke partly in Irish, but no one ought to have been. Whereas early Nationalist leaders were often highly scornful of the Irish language as a bar to progress, no small contribution to saving it was made by eccentric Anglo-Irish grandees and enthusiastic Protestant clergymen, staunchly Unionist in most cases. Douglas Hyde, the son of a County Sligo rector and born in an Ascendancy "Big House", became the first President of the Republic while remaining an observant Protestant, a dedicated Irish-speaker and educator in that medium, and an adherent to a political position fundamentally Unionist rather than Nationalist (which was probably why Fine Gael, pushed into declaring a republic by a coalition partner, gave him the job).

Sinn Féin may be creating a network of publicly-funded Irish-medium schools in order to banish the Catholic Church from the education, first of the Green side in the Six Counties, and then of almost everyone in the Twenty-Six. But at least as sterling, in its way, is the work for the language being done by the The Reverend Dr Eric Culbertson, country parson in County Tyrone, Honorary Clerical Vicar Choral of Armagh Cathedral (not the Catholic one), Deputy Grand Chaplain of the Orange Order, member of the Council of the Evangelical Protestant Society, and outspoken critic of the Good Friday and Saint Andrews Agreements. He stands in a long, long line.

In fact, the possibility, if still the outside one, of the Republic's third Protestant President may yet do what everything else has failed to do and partition the Church of Ireland. Dr Culbertson and the rest of its largely Conservative Evangelical two thirds that are in Northern Ireland might finally decide that a separate Province of the Anglican Communion was appropriate rather than continued integration with the far more liberal third that is in the Republic, if the most prominent Anglican layman on the island - the President of the Republic, no less - were to be the homosexual activist, David Norris. By all accounts, that Senator's spoken Irish is beautiful.

20 May 2011 at 23:51  
Blogger English Viking said...


You twist my words, attribute statements I have not made and consistently refuse to answer simple questions.

You are correct; we obviously have different Gods, but I could have told you that as soon as I realised you are an RC who is unwilling to see the plain truth laid out in the Bible. I have met RC's that are saved, but that is in spite of, not because of, their religion. 95% leave the 'church' to worship 'in spirit and in truth'.

The single, life changing thing you speak of as a pre-condition of salvation, is not a precondition, it is the thing itself. It is the moment a person is born again, translated, adopted into the family of God with the rights, responsibilities and privileges of a firstborn, Jewish male. Then they must learn how to behave as a child of God, and grow in grace and patience. This process takes a lifetime, but is not salvation, it is training. I do not attempt to discipline and train children that are not mine. Nor does God. It is a thoroughly useless thing to try to 'be good' for God, if you are not first His child.

You have not answered my questions (again). If salvation is a process, how does one know when one is 'there'? Are you there? If your theory is correct, how do you know that I worship a false god, and am on the wrong path, instead of merely some distance behind your excellent standard?

Infant baptism explanation, please. Lets dispense with the insults, lets get down to business.

Biblical evidence would be good. I note that your comments are heavy on sarcasm and insult, but lacking in scripture. If you wish to save this savage, you must convince me the Bible teaches what you believe.

No Googling, remember?

21 May 2011 at 00:31  
Blogger English Viking said...


You say 'my comments are divisive' as if it's a bad thing.

The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Luke 12 v 53.

You can't get much more divisive than that.

But Christ wants us all to hold hands, put flowers in our hair, and skip with tambourines, eh?

21 May 2011 at 00:35  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Some of the division may well be attributable to presentation of Christ's message of Love - have you considered that?

Naturally, the message of Love also contradicts the inclination of man's fallen nature, which is selfish and lustful. Loving God, accepting His plan for our lives and His ordinances, would bring division.

One measure of a Christian is surely to attempt to reconcile differences and divisions? To work spiritually for mutual understanding and politically for peace and social justice? And, on a personal level to set an example as a Christian?

Actually, I don't the Jesus I know would object to us holding hands and singing His praise with joy in our hearts!

There is sin in the world. People are turning away from God and souls are being lost. I accept there is a place of eternal damnation and the gate there is wide. (Like most Catholics I've read the Secrets of Latima and other revelations from Mary.)

Be ernest and militant for Christ. But do stop this idea that in a momentary 'Sprit filled' instant people are 'reborn' and this is the only route to Christ. And please announce the message of Love and the ease with which people can turn to Christ, that they can take their time to learn about Him and that He is a gentle shephard who guides and leads.

21 May 2011 at 01:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

How embarrassing to be corrected by a savage?

Fatima, not Latima.

Or were you referring to Hugh?

You are out of your league. Admit it.

You look like the fat kid that needs arm-bands in the pool, struggling desperately to keep up, when everybody else knows you are drowning.

Accept your fate; take a deep breath, and go under.

21 May 2011 at 04:09  
Blogger English Viking said...

STILL no answer on infant baptism.

STILL no answer on division as a good thing.

Really, it's over.

21 May 2011 at 04:14  
Anonymous len said...

Much as I disagree with Vikings method of presentation of facts I am in total agreement with him regarding the re-birth.
There is no other way.The absolute necessity of a spiritual rebirth is a basic fact.

21 May 2011 at 07:34  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said ...
len said ...

You have my reply on division, Viki.

And of course infant baptism is rebirth through a inward of joining with Christ's death and a resurrection into new life and becoming part of His Body. It's what the early Fathers taught and the Church has believed for 2000 years, notwithstanding some protestant misunderstandings during the reformation.

Of course one must be "reborn from above". To be "born again" had always been understood as a spiritual regeneration via the sacrament of baptism and confirmation. This is still the understanding in Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

The evangelical understanding only started to develop during the reformation and really only became prominent in USA in the 1960's.

The idea it is a one-off conversion has thin Biblical authority. There are two small references in John and one in Peter's epistle to the need to be "born again". Neither lend themselves to the inference it is a single life changing event.

21 May 2011 at 18:19  
Anonymous len said...

I went through infant baptism and adolescent confirmation and I can categorically tell you I was not saved!.

Man is a spirit, he has a soul(mind, will and emotions)and lives in a body.

When Adam fell the spirit (of God) was withdrawn from within Adams human spirit..Adam became a living soul, he still had a spirit but this spirit was dead to God,but alive to fallen spirits.

Upon repentance and seeking God (upon some sort of revelation of his wretched condition) the way is opened for the Spirit of God to to come into the human Spirit and regain authority .

This is why fallen man resists the Word of God, because his fallen spirit is aligned with the enemy of God.

This is the re-birth, the quickening of the dead spirit when God breathes Life into it.

So in God`s eyes the unsaved, the un- born again, are' walking dead men'.

21 May 2011 at 19:01  
Anonymous len said...

I was baptised(complete immersion) as an act of obedience to the Lord and a public announcement (to the church) of what had happened inwardly.
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”

“John’s baptism,” they replied.

Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.
(Acts 19)

21 May 2011 at 19:19  
Blogger English Viking said...


You are a liar, sir. Your account of Church Fathers, and orthodox Anglican teaching is an outright falsehood.

You seem to be saying that children can have salvation 'inflicted' on them by their parents.

Hitler was baptised as an infant, in the Roman 'church', as a matter of fact. Was he saved? Yes or no will do.

Scriptures for your argument, please.

21 May 2011 at 20:45  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


Hitler's baptism, like all baptism, is insufficient on its own for salvation.

Baptism frees one from the original sin of Adam and joins one to Christ.

"You are a liar, sir. Your account of Church Fathers, and orthodox Anglican teaching is an outright falsehood."

Now, now, now!

A 'lie'? What I said was no falsehood. I stand by my statement about infant baptism in the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and the Orthodox Church. The doctrines of these churches are based on the Church Fathers and on tradition.

Do you hold to the Nicene Creed as formulated at Constantinople in 381?

"We believe ... In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge ONE BAPTISM for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

21 May 2011 at 23:49  
Blogger English Viking said...


Stop the waffle.

Scriptures please.

22 May 2011 at 00:51  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS The baptism spoken of in the Nicene creed does not involve water.

Even if it did, you forget that I am not Protestant, in the sense you understand the word.

I am Christian. You, most certainly, are not.

Scriptures please.

22 May 2011 at 00:54  
Blogger English Viking said...


Was Hitler saved, yes or no?

22 May 2011 at 00:56  
Blogger English Viking said...


Come now, let us reason together...

A quote from the Bible, though you will most probably not recognise it.

Scriptures please.

I'm starting to think that you either don't know any, else you know them well enough to know that they prove your position absolutely false.

Your mate Hitler; was he saved?

22 May 2011 at 01:01  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

As I've said more than once, Hitler's baptism was insufficient on its own to secure him salvation. Was he "saved"? You probably mean was he "born again". He was clearly a madman and it's not my place nor yours to say if he is damned or not.

No doubt you can 'prove' anything you want by selective passages from scripture. Its been going on for 2,000 years and has spawned multiple heresies.

Unlike you I am not an obsessive quoter of scripture. You miss the wood for the trees. Besides, I think it unbecoming to spar with Holy Writ. I am no theologian and, unlike some, do not pretend to be one.

I trust my Church and its 2,000 years of study, prayer and service to Christ. The Church founded by Christ and protected by Christ. I do not flatter myself that I know better than the great church Fathers and theologians.

Finally, I would not challenge your right to use to use the term 'Christian' - though I think you are misguided and confused.

You are an arrogant and ignorant man to question my commitment to Christ and my right to call myself a Christian. Who the hell do you think you are?

Here's a quote for you:

"Get thee behind me Satan"

22 May 2011 at 02:19  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


Do you accept the nicene Creed? Yes or no?

"ONE BAPTISM for the REMISSION of sins"

No mention of being "born again" or "saved". A remission of original sin and personal sin up to that point. And early Baptism was by water!!

Anyone who 'protests' against the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrines is a 'protest-ant' You got a problem with that?

22 May 2011 at 02:25  
Anonymous len said...

Dodo, 'One baptism for the remission of sins.'

Just one question regarding infant baptism "How do
you bring an infant to repentance?
Regarding one baptism;
The Early Church understood water baptism much as John the Baptist did, representing God's cleansing and the washing away of our sins (Acts 22:16). It is a baptism of repentance still, since by submitting to Christian baptism, a person either tacitly or explicitly acknowledges his need for cleansing, and therefore his sins that demand forgiveness and cleansing. On the Day of Pentecost, Peter told his convicted hearers, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), tightly tying repentance to baptism as John the Baptist had done (Luke 3:3).

The point of comparison between John the Baptist and the Messiah is in the medium in which or with which] the baptism takes place. John immerses his disciples in water, while the Messiah will immerse his followers in the Holy Spirit.

22 May 2011 at 07:57  
Anonymous len said...

Dodo, What does it mean to be baptised in the Holy Spirit?. Church doctrines aside, the basic meaning is to immerse or dip a person in the Holy Spirit. To flood a person with the Holy Spirit. Water is just a symbol of cleansing. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is the actual agent of cleansing and empowerment.

To study the meaning a bit further, let's look at two closely-related passages written by Luke, one at the end of Luke, the other early in Acts:

"I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed (enduo) with power (dunamis) from on high." (Luke 24:49)
"Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water (hudati), but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit (en pneumati hagio).... But you will receive power (dunamis) when the Holy Spirit comes on (epiechomai) you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:4, 5, 8; see 11:15-16)

The "baptism of the Holy Spirit" involves being covered with, immersed in, empowered by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the very basis of our life in Christ and our connection to God. Jesus floods us with the Holy Spirit.

22 May 2011 at 08:05  
Anonymous len said...


You might find this interesting, particularly the part on


22 May 2011 at 11:59  
Blogger English Viking said...


I'm telling a plain, straight fact, and you can call me all the names you like, but if you bow yourself to crosses and statues, observe mass as a contributing factor to salvation, participate in trans-substantiation for the same reason, hail Mary or any other dead person in prayer, attribute to the pope power that belongs to Christ alone and think that salvation is partly by works, you most certainly are not a Christian.

The word Christian means a follower of Christ. How can you be following Mary, or the pope, or a bishop, or pseudo-biblical writings, or some long dead saint, and be following Christ at the same time. You can't, hence you are not a Christian.

Whether you are saved is a different matter, and only God knows the answer, and if you are it is in spite of, and not because of the teachings of your 'church', but you are not a Christian. You are living in a dreamland that your 'church' deliberately encourages, that demands almost nothing from you (except your cash and your attendance once in a while). You have your senses stimulated by beautiful architecture, art, music and costumes. You have your conscience salved by a priest who claims to have the power to forgive sin on God's behalf, if you chant enough mumbo-jumbo to Mary, and you have your spirit sedated by the lies and tricks of that great deceiver, the Roman Catholic Church, chief of which is that there is no salvation outside of that organisation itself.

That you willing check your brains at the door, because you think God gave an old man in Rome more wit and wisdom to know how to approach Christ for salvation than he gave to any other man, including you, is a sad indictment of the power of the narcotic that is human religion, not a living relationship with a living God.

It is apparent that the reason you are light on scripture is that you are not familiar with it. If you were, you would be able to use it to back your arguments, but then again, if you were familiar with it, you wouldn't be making those arguments.

It is a very dangerous, stupid and unnecessary thing to place your eternal destiny in the hands of men that teach things that the Bible does not. Read it for yourself, don't take mine or anybody else's word for it.

22 May 2011 at 15:44  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

Strangely, you seem genuinely concerned above my eternal destiny. You have even (reasonably)restrained you contempt for Catholicism, although you misunderstanding and simplification of it still comes through.

Were you once a follower of Rome? Maybe as a child? A 'lapsed' Catholic? You sound as if you might be.

The Catholic Church has developed over 2,000 years and bases its pracices on the Bible, the early church, the Church Fathers and theological study. It's just not possible to snap these over on a blog, as you surely know.

'Sola Scripture' is misguided. Where does it say in the Gospels, Acts or the Epistles that only the written Word should be followed?

Indeed it actually says the opposite - that all had not been revealed and the full truth would follow. Peter and the Apostles had the authority invested in directly them by Christ to loose and bind on earth and also to forgive sin, all on behalf of Christ, and the promise the Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit.

It really cannot be much clearer!

So I'll trust the Roman Catholic Church knowing it was established by Christ and invested with the power and responsibility to lead people to the fullness of Truth and to the promise of salvation.

23 May 2011 at 00:37  
Blogger English Viking said...

I have never been part of the whore.

You take one verse (Peter the rock) and base an entire belief system upon it - namely you cannot possibly know as much as the 'fathers' and the pope, thereby excusing yourself from the need for individual study of God's word.

Tell me, as the pope is such a key figure in your brand of 'Christianity', where does he figure in the Bible?

What about nuns? Monks? Monasteries? Papal bulls? The Vatican?

Surely it will be stuffed with information on these issues?

No? I wonder why?

23 May 2011 at 08:50  
Anonymous len said...

It is very dangerous to KEEP ON refusing to accept the Truth.
Because at some point God(The Holy Spirit) will move on.
There are times in ones`s life when the Holy Spirit 'comes alongside' and draws one towards Christ and the gospel,if one keeps stubbornly resisting Him He will with regret move on.

'Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.'(Isaiah 55:6)

23 May 2011 at 09:15  
Anonymous len said...

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,( 2 Timothy 3:16

So, do we need someone to interpret the Scriptures for us?

The great promise of the New Testament is that all believers shall be ‘taught by God’ (John 6:45; see also 1 Thess. 4:9). No man is self-taught in sacred things.

Who will the Holy Spirit teach? He will teach those who are meek and humble, those who give themselves to continual prayer, meditation and study in God’s Word day and night, and those who strive to conform their lives to the truths he instructs them in. Because these are hard conditions to flesh and blood, there are few who apply to study in the school of God, while many will apply to other teachers, especially to the church of Rome, where no cost in self-denial need be involved.

23 May 2011 at 16:14  
Blogger Owl said...


Just for clarification, are you suggesting that the Bible should be taken literally?

23 May 2011 at 16:33  
Blogger English Viking said...


My name is either English or Viking. Dodo like to call me Viki because he thinks it annoys me.

Just to clarify, do you think the Bible a book of myths and fables, untrustworthy for absolute moral instruction in a post-modernist world?

23 May 2011 at 18:45  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Hey Vicky,

Do answer the question. And please explain the passages of the Bible referring to the authority invested in the Apostles.

Where in the Bible does it say that one's individual interpretation of scripture is the only authority? And if such reading is always guided by the Holy Spirit, why is there such disagreement amongst 'protestants'?

And the Nicene Creed:

"One holy, catholic (universal), and APOSTOLIC church."

24 May 2011 at 13:25  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"( 2 Timothy 3:16)

Is that it! Of course scripture is "useful" for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training!

Who does the teaching, rebuking and correcting?

You? Vicki? Or those appointed by Christ with this authority invested in them and the cast iron promise to protect them in this?

24 May 2011 at 13:29  
Blogger English Viking said...

I'll make you a deal, Dodo,

Answer my questions on why there is no mention of popes, monks, nuns, cathedrals, arch-bishops, mass, the Vatican, papal bulls, monasteries, purgatory, catholics, creeds (Nicene or otherwise) cassocks, Mary chains, holy water, inquisitions and wot not, and I'll repeat the answers I have already given on my interpretation of scripture, including the one on Peter (which appears to be the only scripture you know). My answer is basically the same as Len's, which he also has repeated numerous times.

You are either being deliberately obtuse, or you have memory problems, or you're trolling.

With regard to the Nicene creed, I broadly agree with it, but don't formally use it. The 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic' bit is the part you seem to think proves that the pope is not a liar and an anti-christ. You'll know I think otherwise.

One: It is indivisible.

Holy: It is to be separate from the world, its philosophy, aims, hopes and desires.

catholic. Small 'c'. As in universal, not as in pertaining to the Roman death cult.

Apostolic: In its origins in and continued following of the doctrines laid down by the Apostles, not evidence of papa being a direct successor of Peter, otherwise either A) the pope would not live in a castle in his own private country and sit on a throne, ruling his kingdom and ordering (past popes I speak of now) the executions of heretics and organising crusades, else B) Peter would have done those things, which he clearly didn't.

Somebody's idea of 'church' is up the Swanee, and it ain't mine.

24 May 2011 at 16:42  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


You know the answer!

These doctrines and practices, not all of which are actually required by Catholics or necessitating their internal consent, (but that's a whole other ball-game), stem from the early church traditions, preserved over 2,000 years. Alongside tradition, there is the vast depository of theological works by the early and more recent Church Fathers. This is combination with the Bible has and continues to be used as the basis for the Catholic Church's development and social and individual teaching.

Tradition, theology and the Bible. Add the authority given to Peter and the Apostles to 'loose' and 'bind' and to 'forgive' or 'retain' sins, and you have the basic foundation for Papal authority.

I don't like the history of Christianity and the brutality of past Popes. I do not necessarily ascribe to all the non-dogmatic statements of Popes or other Bishops, but I do believe Christ intended one Church, with authority and leadership. He also promised to stand by it, suggested Hell would use all its cunning to prevail against the Church.

Now, answer my question about the Biblical basis for 'Sola Scriptura' and how it squares with Christ's statements that not all had been revealed to the Apostles.

24 May 2011 at 17:57  
Blogger English Viking said...


I will not answer your question, until you've answered mine.

Where is the biblical warrant for the megalomaniacal Nazi that sits on a throne, in a palace, in his own little country, protected by his own little army, dictating his own little view on how Christianity should be interpreted? I refer to your papa.

You know full well there isn't one, else Peter and the Apostles would have done the same. If they had have done, it would have helped your pathetic attempt at maintaining the fiction of Apostolic Succession. Either that way around, or I would have expected the popes of all ages to have been humble, righteous, living from the labour of their own hands, in modesty and soberness. Why does the pope wear such outrageously expensive clothes, live in an outrageously expensive house, eat the most outrageously expensive food, as though he is a King, when if he was to follow his master, he 'would have not where to lay his head'? Because he is following his master, and it is not Christ.

You have repeatedly refused to answer my questions. You have told out and out lies about me and my position. You display a kindergarten-standard knowledge of scripture. You bow slavishly to a fat, old coward who claims to be a vicar of Christ, when he is in fact an anti-christ, you mock and sneer at those that will not cave-in to this blasphemy and when your stupidity is laid bare for the reading public to see, you attempt to shift the subject by asking new questions, because you have no answers to the questions put to you.

No wonder real Christians think cat-licks are at best deceived, and at worst liars, perjurers and thugs.

24 May 2011 at 19:37  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS You refer to not liking the 'history of Christianity', yet appeal to tradition, the 'Church Fathers' (yet another unbiblical term) and 2000 years of so called 'history'.

The reason you don't like it is because it shows you for the liar you are. You would do well to note that it is also not the history of Christianity, it is the history of popey-filth which bothers you most, be it inquisition, the burning of heretics, the starting of wars, the vilification of science, witch-hunting, the appalling anti-semitism, the sexual immorality of popes or the buggery of children by modern day 'priests'.

There has ALWAYS been a significant body of genuine believers outside of the whore, throughout all ages, and they have always been persecuted (when numbers permit) by the followers of that fat fake in Rome. It did not start with Henry VIII, nor Elizabeth I. It started with Christ, when he met one of the most religious men in Israel, a devout, sincere and pious man (unlike 95% of cat-licks). He told him he was all wrong, that his religion was worthless, that he would not see the Kingdom of Heaven, except he be born again. That man was Nicodemus; a man far superior to any of the crooks and charlatans that have ever sat on the equally spurious 'throne of Peter'.

Thou art vile.

24 May 2011 at 19:52  
Blogger English Viking said...

PPS. Just to clarify, Nicodemus apparently heeded the warning.

I was not speaking against him, I was speaking against empty religion, no matter how pious and qualified the person carrying it out.

24 May 2011 at 20:39  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


You seem obsessed with the Papacy!

Christ did not promise all Church leaders would be saints or that they would get everything right every time. The Church is a human organisation. However, it is protected by Christ.

Judge it by it faithfulness to the message of Christ. This means reading the Cathecism which you refuse to do, and reading Papal encyclicals which you also refuse to do. All these documents are based on Biblical texts and on Church tradition.

Given your unbecoming vitriol, bordering on the pathological, and the sheer disrespect and hatred you display, it is best we cease this interchange.

Thank God we live in the 21st Century. Your aggression belongs to a dim and distant age.

Shame on you.

25 May 2011 at 00:17  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


Ps - there is NO Biblical passage supporting scripture ALONE.

You know and I know it.

25 May 2011 at 00:19  
Blogger English Viking said...


There are no passages supporting popes, nuns, monks, papal this, papal that, mass, buggery of choirboys, etc,etc.

Good job for you that you seem to wish to desist.

You're like the fat kid that squeals and pleads for a truce, after being battered in the playground, when he knows he is in no position to offer a truce, but offers one in hope that the stronger will pity him.

OK Piggy, truce it is. If you know your literature, it would bode you well to leave now, because it did not end well for Piggy.

Go, while you still can.

25 May 2011 at 01:39  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo said,

'Christ did not promise all Church leaders would be saints, or that they would get everything right, every time.'

C'mon dude; is that popey bitch right or not?

Don't hedge your bets; he is either the vicar of Christ, else a fat old Nazi.

You don't know, do you? Admit it, you're lost.

25 May 2011 at 01:45  
Anonymous len said...

It will take a great deal of courage and determination to face the facts. I don`t doubt that you and millions of other Catholics are sincere in their beliefs.
Your church, the 'universal 'church has lied to you.And you have believed them.
There is a way out of this.I pray that you find it.

This will help.


Bless You in the name of Jesus Christ, and may you know Him, as He is the Way ,the Truth, and the Life.

25 May 2011 at 07:55  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older