Monday, May 30, 2011

Billboards display posters declaring: JESUS: A PROPHET OF ISLAM


There’s a little spat going on down under about a few billboards which are carrying posters with the slogan: ‘Jesus: a prophet of Islam’. They form part of a campaign by the Islamic group MyPeace, which seeks to propagate the 'common ground' (as they see it) between Christianity and Islam. Future posters are planned, with slogans such as `Holy Quran: the final testament' and `Muhammad: mercy to mankind'.

Reactions have been polarised: Roman Catholic Bishop Julian Porteous, from the Archdiocese of Sydney, has referred to them as being ‘provocative and offensive’; he said it was important for religions not to antagonise each other with such statements: “For the sake of preserving social harmony and respect between major world religions these billboards should be withdrawn, along with others which carry messages directly offensive to Christians," he said.

But Anglican Bishop Robert Forsyth of South Sydney is of the opinion that it is ‘complete nonsense’ to say Jesus was a prophet of Islam: “Jesus was not the prophet of a religion that came into being 600 years later,” he said. But he didn’t find the posters offensive. “They've got a perfect right to say it, and I would defend their right to say it [but]...you couldn't run a Christian billboard in Saudi Arabia,” he observed.

His Grace finds this very amusing – a little reminiscent of contemporary reactions to The Life of Brian, with one journalist echoing: ‘He's not the son of God, just the support act’.

Of course Christians wouldn’t be able to display such posters in Saudi Arabia. And neither would Jews, Buddhists or Jedi Knights. But that is because there is no freedom of religion or freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia. The comparison is facile. It is absurd to insist that a liberal democracy should deny these rights to a particular constituency within it, especially on matters of theology. And no doubt there will be Christians who will seek to respond to this Muslim campaign with posters saying: ‘Mohammed: a false prophet of God’, which would be purposely designed to antagonise and offend.

His Grace would like to recommend a better way:

Instead of whingeing, fuming and fulminating, why not thank the Lord for the MyPeace advertisements, and as the Apostle Paul did at the Areopagus, seize the opportunity to tell Muslims that Jesus is not merely a prophet, but the Son of God and Saviour who died that they all may be free from the law of Allah which binds?
"Men of Islam! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found a billboard with this inscription: JESUS: A PROPHET OF ISLAM. Now what you worship as Isa the prophet I am going to proclaim to you...
This is a model for Christian proclamation. St Paul does not condemn the Athenians’ idolatrous false religion: he begins by commending their conviction to their faith. By employing the language of reason and invitation rather than reproach and condemnation, he offers the Church a model for proclamation in our own 'multicultural' time. He quotes the Greek poets and sees the light within their philosophy, and he builds on this to articulate the name of the God who is the source and destination of their quest for salvation.

If Greek philosophy can be a legitimate discourse for evangelism, then so can Islamic theology, however perverted a particular interpretation may be. If St Paul were to preach in Bradford (or Sydney or Brisbane) today, he would not vandalise offensive billboards or return hatred for offence. But neither would he ignore the statement and ‘turn the other cheek’: he would tell of the God of love who sent His own Son to die in order that we might live. He would begin by praising their loyalty and devotion to Isa their prophet, and then he would tell them that their lower-case prophet is also Prophet, Priest and King; the Word of God; the Spirit of God; Saviour and Redeemer of the world.

This is an opportunity for evangelism – to discuss who Jesus really is – and it is a Muslim group which is paying for it.

Praise the Lord!

132 Comments:

OpenID Paul Dean said...

Wonderful - thank you.

To be worried about such posters is to imagine that the religion with the best PR is the one that will succeed. On the other hand, if the truth will succeed, then all honest dialogue will be of advantage to the religion that is true.

30 May 2011 at 10:41  
Blogger Dean Roberts said...

Loving this, Your Grace.

I think I may well comment on this issue in my blog too.

Us Christians can't be demanding free speech and then taking it off of other people which spread teaching that we don't agree with!

Instead, let's use it for evangelism! Great idea.

Dean

http://deanroberts.net

30 May 2011 at 10:51  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Amen to that Cranmer.

Only one problem: 'evangelism' ... a dirty word for many; a hate-crime to others!

Would welcome some of these posters in Bradford. Often have some great conversations with the taxi drives as it is.

30 May 2011 at 10:54  
Blogger John M Ward said...

I am entirely with you on this, Your Grace. Indeed my first thought on seeing the poster, before reading below it, was a wry smile and a thought that there must be a way to turn this towards doing the Lord's work.

Perhaps I'm fortunate in having had several negative occurrences in my life that were able to be turned in a different, positive direction; but nowadays I tend to think that way and it is a good way to defeat the devil and thwart his plans.

There's something immensely satisfying in doing that...

30 May 2011 at 10:57  
Anonymous Hexe said...

...quiet desperation, it's the English way... the time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say...

And go on, try to get that add you mentioned of 'Mohammed is a false prophet'(might maybe add' but Jesus is the real thing(tm)'? on any bus or poster in the UK and prove to us that there is 'religious freedom' exists here.

And it's the same moral nihilism as yesterday again, where you thought that Sikhs should go against the Jhatka requirement in their community centre, and those who believe in their faith and are prepared to stand up for it get maligned as 'islamified' and 'extremists'.

Btw, Jesus forbid divorce, and your 'superior Jesus-loving' Anglican church was the first to break this rule. I'd say the reason Christianity is dying is because Christians are fakes that don't believe in their own scriptures whenever it's inconvenient to them. (Jesus also had something to say about that... and it was not friendly or forgiving.)

30 May 2011 at 11:00  
Anonymous Derek M said...

Your Grace,

May I suggest that you contemplate the absalute outrage of the trendy left, and their associates, if a poster was displayed saying "Mahommed, a desciple of Jesus."

30 May 2011 at 11:00  
Blogger Josh VB said...

The other thing to do is encourage Muslims to read the words of Jesus in the New Testament. If he is a prophet, then what are they doing not listening to him?

30 May 2011 at 11:14  
Blogger anchorhold said...

I entirely agree with your Grace, though it must be admitted that the Athenians weren't all that impressed by Paul.

30 May 2011 at 11:25  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

At best Muhammed epitomises the feudal warlord mentality and the Magna Carta would never have come into being without feudal Lords.

Christianity and feudalism was an interesting marraige for a time, until Church greed succombed to the Merchant desire to pay for a place in heaven.

In fact when Napolean called the English a Nation of shopkeepers, it was not so much a slur against the English. More a rebuke of the Merchant class that had been despised since feudal times.

Here again, we have evidence of the Commercial corruption of beliefs, only now the Merchant profits from religion.

Religions can find common ground by displaying signs saying Commerce is the Prophet of Sin.

30 May 2011 at 11:29  
Anonymous Philip said...

How right this post must be! One can indeed imagine Paul would have responded as HG describes in debate, and turned this into an opportunity for evangelism (just as were the Dawkins posters questioning whether there's a God), although some thought would need to be given on how to convey an Areogapus-type message in sound-bite (or billboard) form that also seems necessary today.

I also think the Anglican Bishop is justified in making the point that Jesus was before Islam, and about the degree of freedom in Muslim nations to put up Christian posters. The RC Bishop's desire for posters that are offensive to Christians to be withdrawn perhaps serves to remind us of the fuss we could expect if posters were put up that are offensive to Muslims.

30 May 2011 at 11:39  
Blogger English Viking said...

It is a false comparison, no matter the kernel of truth it contains, to use Paul's evangelism at Areopagus alongside these posters, as if the same strategy could apply today.

The Areopagans openly declared that there was 'an unknown God'. They spent their time discussing what 'new things' there may be in regard to religion. They were open-minded. There was always a possibility to these men that there was some new revelation that answered their deepest questions.

Muslims openly declare that they have the final revelation of God, that Mo is the perfect fulfillment of religion, the perfect man, incapable of being equalled or bettered. They are closed-minded. They have been taught since birth that they are destined to rule the planet, and that this rule will not come until the 'kuffar' (all non-muslims, including Christians) are removed or converted, and the Jews disposed of. They have been taught that any who 'blaspheme' the 'prophet' or the koran (is that how we are spelling it today?) are infidels and should be punished with death. If a cartoon of a man with a bomb in his turban can provoke numerous murders, riots and civil unrest in nations thousands of miles away, imagine what fun an organised attempt at evangelising these people would bring, when it was made clear to them that mo was not a prophet, he was a child-raping murderer, and the koran contains a similar amount of spiritual truth as the Beano?

Paul would not have lasted 5 minutes with such a message in Sparkbrook, for example.

It is important that we do not allow the enormous gulf between Christianity and islam to be bridged by the deception that islam is in some way related to Christianity, other than in the fact that a medieval war-lord corrupted some of the Jewish and Christian scriptures to start a death-cult.

If I lived in Sydney, the spray paint would definitely be making an appearance.

30 May 2011 at 11:41  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"The Areopagans (?)... were open-minded."

Mr English Viking,

Have you not read your scriptures:

"...some of them sneered..." (Acts 17:32).

And later:

"...when they opposed Paul and became abusive..." (18:6)

And later:

"When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” Soon the whole city was in an uproar" (19:27f)

Paul manifestly did not preach to the 'open-minded'.

30 May 2011 at 11:55  
Anonymous bluedog said...

The adverts were paid for by private donations? Your communicant thinks not, Your Grace. Quite who is really paying, apart from the Australian taxpayer through some multi-culti programme, remains to be seen.

As an even-handed gesture, some fly-posting of the Mohommad cartoons may be in order.

Freedom of expression and all that.

30 May 2011 at 12:14  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

You are a naughty boy.

My criticism was of comparing Paul's approach to the Areopagans, in Athens, whose harshest response was to sneer, even though others responded to the Gospel and were saved.

You rebut with Acts 18 v 6, which took place in Corinth, and 19 v 27, which was in Rome.


One de-merit.

30 May 2011 at 12:27  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr English Viking,

Not at all. His Grace clearly said 'and later' (twice) and the reference to other groups (the Ephesians) was not omitted.

Your primary contention was that Paul preached to the 'open-minded' (whether in Athens, Corinth or Ephesus is immaterial). On your (selective) reading, you said his approach could not work today. That is clearly a fatuous assertion. Setting aside (for the moment) how a 'sneer' may constitute evidence of being 'open-minded', the NT is replete with examples of the apostles preaching to the hard-hearted, dogmatic and the 'closed-minded', and doing so not without a measure of success.

You may sneer at His Grace's exposition. But that you do so cannot be interpretated as evidence of your being in any sense 'open-minded' to a contrary view.

30 May 2011 at 12:37  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

What is more YG as your erudite blog encourages freedom of thought.

And also since a certain amount of feudalism would invigorate our politics and promote thinking outside the box.

How about cross party agreement to adopt the slogan

" A liberal democracy is the prophecy of the liberal democrats"

We could join the Muslims in stoning to death the liberal democrats, the one who survives would be the true prophet!

30 May 2011 at 12:40  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

The reason I think the mean in Athens were willing to consider new things is because the Bible says so. Acts 17v21


I would be interested to see your approach put into practice in Sparkbrook, as I have said.

Tell you what, you go and do it, I'll watch. I'll even hold your hand while we wait for the ambulance. Or the hearse.

I shall not argue with you in your own house.

30 May 2011 at 12:54  
Blogger English Viking said...

Men, not mean.

30 May 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

@English Viking

"Muslims openly declare that they have the final revelation of God, that Mo is the perfect fulfillment of religion, the perfect man, incapable of being equalled or bettered."

They would not appear the only religion making such claims. Good job that most agnostics and atheists are able to demonstrate a tolerance of different views of which you are not capable.

30 May 2011 at 13:07  
Blogger English Viking said...

tbngu,

I do not tolerate evil.

The difference between Christian orthodoxy and muslim orthodoxy is that Christian assertions are followed with an appeal that basically amounts to 'take or leave it'. Muslims eventually get round to a similar thing, but the devil is in the detail:

Take it, or leave.

30 May 2011 at 13:15  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

L enjoyed the article and agree with the approach it recommended. Incidently, it is one followed by Pope Benedict following Blessed John Paul before him.

What is the alternative to a reasoned profession and explanation of our faith?

30 May 2011 at 13:39  
Blogger Stushie said...

When the Church is uncertain of what to do in the face of heresy, then unbelievers will begin to believe anything. Maybe we should all read Tertullian instead of Cranmer.

30 May 2011 at 14:04  
Blogger Josh VB said...

Tory boy,

as always, the nice atheists and agnostics prove your point - you simply need to selectively remove the atheists who crawled their way to the top: Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. You can do that with muslims - remove the nasty ones and lo and behold all the muslims left are nice! Christians can and have done the same.

What you want to see is how the ideas people hold correspond to what has happened. If the centre of someone's faith is a warmonger, you might expect his followers to be less than peaceful. If you hold that everything came by chance and only the fittest (= those who manage to kill the weaker before they propogate) survive, then it might not be surprising if those who make it to the top end up mass murderers. If on the other hand you follow a God who was willing to forgive those who put him to death, you might end up with a society that is willing to let their opponents put up signs attacking their core beliefs.

30 May 2011 at 14:08  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

It all begs the question what effect the problem of local official and civilian collaboration with the Muslims contributed to Byzantines downfall.

And will western civilization survive liberal democracy.

30 May 2011 at 14:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Josh VB: "If you hold that everything came by chance and only the fittest (= those who manage to kill the weaker before they propogate) survive, then it might not be surprising if those who make it to the top end up mass murderers."

God, he's like Cliche Central!

30 May 2011 at 14:53  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The great thing about these posters is that Jesus Returned From The Dead and Mohammed is still in Hades so it seems a bit of an own goal.

That Islam now recognises The Resurrection is fantastic progress

30 May 2011 at 15:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"The bishop said he would pay for billboards to counter those of MyPeace if he could afford it, and 'maybe the atheists should run their billboards as well'"

I wonder if they have organisations like Christian Voice down there who would try to censor atheist-oriented billboards, or Christian bus drivers who would refuse to drive by them?

30 May 2011 at 15:34  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Josh VB said...
Tory boy,

If you hold that everything came by chance and only the fittest (= those who manage to kill the weaker before they propagate) survive, then it might not be surprising if those who make it to the top end up mass murderers.

What people hold to be the truth is important, however what is true is far more so.

Are we a product of chance, and therefore evolution by natural selection, or are we not?

Is confounded by a general consensus in the developed world, that we are.

For to accept evolution by natural selection, all types of the most horrible things imaginable, must be seen as not only perfectly acceptable, but also exclusively natural.

Among the foremost of these, are racism, murder, genocide, wars, and eugenics.

You name the horror, and some socialist somewhere has claimed with much passion, that Evolution by natural selection justifies it morally, biologically, politically and of course socially.

Indeed evolution by natural selection is the most highly suspect foundation on which Socialism, (National or otherwise) rests. Also assisted by liberal helpings of Freudian 'blank slate' BS.

This is of course the REAL reason why Darwinism has been thrust into our education system, without having the sightless amount of evidence to back up its basic theory.

It would seem logical that as we know all else but nature is created by someone, it would seem more likely then not to say the least, that nature has been, and still is being created, as well.

This rather then being a product of the sort of odds that make winning the national lottery jackpot 10 times on the trot, look like a relative racing certainty.

Yet in this so called modern world creationists are in general regarded as insane nut-jobs by our so called educated class, and MSM.

Even more so today, then in the past, this in spite of the coming of modern Quantum Physics which scientifically makes all things possible, very much including creationism, as well as travel in both directions between vast periods of time, and distance.

Could the likes of Dawkins and his followers be starting to become more then a little desperate? What are they so fearful of, the TRUTH maybe?

Do they have so much of their status tied up in there Emperor Darwin, that they are afraid half to death, we might finally see that he very likely has no cloths at all.

You see there once was a time when our ruling elites for various reasons thought it best for their subjects to believe in a higher being. That time has long since passed with the coming of much smaller and far more powerful standing armies.

Now they see any kind of substantial faith in anything but the sanctity and worthiness of their controlled state, as a threat, rather then as a control mechanism.

Therefore fundamentalist religion in particular, is on their 'TO GO' list, lined up to be replaced with a more unified world religion that will give to our establishment the best of both worlds, and the worst of none to us.

Remember pre-warned is pre-armed. However whether this battle can be won, or not, or is even worth fighting, is quite a different issue.

You never know perhaps you might prefer worshipping the trees and planets, it could turn out to be fun.

One thing is fairly certain the idea of eternal life will have well and truly gone off of the establishments list of promises, for the reasons I have already alluded to.

The good news is that the TRUTH reigns supreme. This because there is either eternal life, or there is not.

IMO what we personally believe with respects to this particular matter has no baring on whether it does exist or not.

Which is just one reason why I do not consider myself to be a Christian in the sense that most of you lot do. Although even on this, I keep an as open a mind as possible.

30 May 2011 at 15:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Atlas: "For to accept evolution by natural selection, all types of the most horrible things imaginable, must be seen as not only perfectly acceptable, but also exclusively natural. Among the foremost of these, are racism, murder, genocide, wars, and eugenics."

What an utter load of bollocks. Aren't you embarrassed to write that?

30 May 2011 at 15:55  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

According to Islam, Jesus was a Prophet, and He was sinless. They deny he is the Son of God. They deny His divinity. They deny the Scriptures speak truthfully about Him. They deny He was crucified, and therefore reject the resurrection. They deny that men will turn to Him on the last day. In fact, they assert that Jesus will point men to Mohammed to turn aside the wrath of God. But the statement on the billboard is factually correct.

The beginning of effective apologetics is a correct understanding of your opponent's position. There is no need to fear these signs. They are no different from Mormon claims about Jesus. Demanding they be removed is therefore asinine. It shows weakness and not strength. Fear and not confidence. Instead, they simply need to be answered. The answers are easily given.

carl

30 May 2011 at 15:57  
Anonymous Oswin said...

English Viking makes a most vaild point: ''sneering'' is hardly to be compared with a boneheaded refusal to admit to anything, other than that of the mind-numbing brain-washing, that is Islam.

I accept a measure of Your Grace's point, but it would take the subtlety, and scholarship, of Jay Smith, to better counter the devious assertions of the bill-board. Whereas, the average 'Joe' may be beguiled into accepting it as a reasonable version of the truth; which it is not.

As for all you athiests and agnostics mealy-mouthing out there, it's about time you at least adopted some sense of 'your least vile enemy' before you succumb to the muslim hordes.

30 May 2011 at 16:02  
Anonymous len said...

Jesus certainly was a Prophet and He warned us that false prophets would come after Him and deceive many.
Could he have been referring to Islam, as well as other branches of religion which used his name?

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" So then, you will know them by their fruits.(Matthew 7)

30 May 2011 at 16:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"As for all you athiests and agnostics mealy-mouthing out there, it's about time you at least adopted some sense of 'your least vile enemy' before you succumb to the muslim hordes."

I work with Muslims, and live in a mixed area containing Muslims, and see Muslims down at the gym, and shop in the same shops. They're essentially just like you or me. Well, me anyway. Happy to live, and work, and play alongside everyone else. Hordes? Lol. There will no doubt be people who fall for that sort of alarmist language. People who know no better, or people who compete for resources and want a scapegoat. But no, it's wasted on me.

30 May 2011 at 16:09  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Len, as per usual, succinct unto the point!

We now have over two million 'bad apples' rotting in our British barrel. What a firkin mess!

30 May 2011 at 16:10  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo - you are working with them at present, but you seem not to have learned much about them, or of Islam. As you say, it's wasted on you...

30 May 2011 at 16:14  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo - culpable ignorance won't save you; it would appear that you can't even be bothered to listen to what Islam says upfront, loud and clear. As such, you'll never listen to anyone else ...

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

DanJ0

Do your colleagues know of your, ahem... predilections?

30 May 2011 at 16:21  
Anonymous Oswin said...

English Viking :

I suppose we have to face it, it's pointless trying to tell DanJo any damned thing whatsoever. Some 'nasty' Christian probably once called him a 'big Jessie' and forever after he's had it in for the rest of us. It matters not that his muslim mates would happily stone him to death; that's beyond those important 'formative' years when his meagre self was forever gelled in the aspic of intransigence.

Indeed, he probably 'gets-off' on the recrimination thereof, it's a form of crucifixion.

30 May 2011 at 16:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "Do your colleagues know of your, ahem... predilections?"

No. The Muslims are young and normal so I doubt they'd care anyway. A couple of the Christians too, though they're cultural Christians as far as I can tell. It's the older ones who have been brought up using Christianity as an excuse who might have things to say.

Oswin: "I suppose we have to face it, it's pointless trying to tell DanJo any damned thing whatsoever."

It's probably pointless you doing so anyway. I was watching the Nazis and the Final Solution on TV earlier. The similarities in rhetoric with some of you, and especially you Oswin, are startlingly similar at times. But you probably know that. This forum is one of your secret pleasures, I expect, where you can be a little more, erm, open about your views. *shudder*

30 May 2011 at 16:49  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

You have to admire the gall of the Muslims* (*at least the organised and politically motivated), they don't give a 4x whom they offend - they will always turn it round their way so to become the victims no matter what the outcome.

The sad thing is no one, no religion or organisation is prepared to challenge them. The more you espouse Christians to join in their warped game the more vulnerable you become to being held responsible for the inevitable deaths of your brethren whomever and where ever they may be, to silence your criticism.

As much as I find most of Ev's comments laughable in their Tom and Jerry bellicosity - on this occasion I fully agree with him. Indeed, I would gladly sharpen his axe for him and hold his coat.

30 May 2011 at 16:58  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Oooh, he loves it, doesn't he just!

DanJo, do you recall that you once said you regarded the Salvation Army as ''sinister''?

... yet you see nowt wrong with Islam; says it all really.

You make frequent recourse to accusing others of your own grubby little thought-processes; yet you must be aware of it, you cannot be that daft, surely?

Whatever my ''secret little pleasures'' might be, they sure as hell don't equate with your stunted appreciation of the world around you. That takes real effort; to be that purblind doesn't come naturally, it must be cultivated.

Oh spurn me Master, spurn me!

The latter is in resignation of your need to be 'spurned'... like all those 'soft-furnishings', it all gets a tad boring after awhile.

Now please excuse me, I must away to polish my jack-boots; you'd love the uniform, sweet-thing. x

30 May 2011 at 17:11  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

I see Rag, Tag and Bobtail have another little friend.

Oswin said...
"... it would take the subtlety, and scholarship, of Jay Smith, to better counter the devious assertions of the bill-board. Whereas, the average 'Joe' may be beguiled into accepting it as a reasonable version of the truth; which it is not."

And I thought you believed in was all down to the Holy Spirit. Doesn't He make Himself available to Muslims? Or is hard, reasoned logic, as practiced by the Apostles, necessary afterall?

Oswin said... (a bit later)

"We now have over two million 'bad apples' rotting in our British barrel. What a firkin mess!"

Oh how very evangelical!

Oswin said... (a bit later)
"English Viking : it's pointless trying to tell DanJo any damned thing whatsoever. Some 'nasty' Christian probably once called him a 'big Jessie' and forever after he's had it in for the rest of us.
Indeed, he probably 'gets-off' on the recrimination thereof, it's a form of crucifixion."

And that's just plain nasty!

30 May 2011 at 17:17  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0,

Why not tell the tolerant, understanding, broad-minded followers of the religion of peace about your 'lifestyle'?

Surely it would make not one bit of difference to lovely way they currently treat you?

(I'm joking, don't tell them, it could all get a bit nasty).

Oswin,

None so blind as will not see. Some people will have to learn the hard way, like the RE teacher who was disfigured and disabled recently, for having the temerity to teach islam to children in a manner not acceptable to four of these proponents of love and understanding. I notice they seem pretty tasty when they are mob-handed, or when their target is a woman, or a child, or they have a weapon and the victim doesn't.

It's not even a religion, and comparisons with actual religions are worthless.

30 May 2011 at 17:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "... yet you see nowt wrong with Islam; says it all really."

Huh? Have I actually said that? Really?

30 May 2011 at 17:23  
Anonymous len said...

DoDo,
You posts seem to have deteriorated into just 'sniping' at others .
Your ever decreasing circles seem to have a definite downward trend.
I don`t think attending the cut and thrust of public debate is doing you much good.
Perhaps a period of quite refection with ones rosary beads(just joking)

30 May 2011 at 17:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "Why not tell the tolerant, understanding, broad-minded followers of the religion of peace about your 'lifestyle'? Surely it would make not one bit of difference to lovely way they currently treat you?"

I don't tell the white, middle-class, often middle-aged Brits about my orientation at work either. Why?

1. Because it's not relevant to my work or workplace.
2. Because in certain industries like mine it can still affect promotion prospects, or influence redundancy decisions, or simply create unnecessary animosity.
3. Some of them are certain types of Christians.

It's why I understood the position of David Laws even if he did wrong in what he did.

I notice you wrote 'lifestyle' rather than 'orientation' up there. What lifestyle do you imagine I have?

30 May 2011 at 17:32  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo,
Are you aware what your 'nice Muslim friends' would do to you in Iran?

30 May 2011 at 17:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Are you aware what your 'nice Muslim friends' would do to you in Iran?"

Len, is your public image slipping here?

The Muslim friends and colleagues I have are British. They're just like other British people, except they're Muslims rather than Sikhs, or Christians, or Hindus, or the non-religious majority. Which is kind of the point I'm making. What would you do to me in Iran, Len? They'd probably do the same.

Or are you saying that all Muslims are the same around the world? Like all Jews are the same? Or all black people are the same? Irrespective of culture. Do tell.

30 May 2011 at 17:45  
Anonymous len said...

The punishment for sodomy is the death penalty, in islam. however islam has not specified the method of execution, so it can be any, apart from punishing with fire, which is forbidden. saudi arabia uses public beheading for gay sex,iran,kuwait uses hanging.

( I only post this as an illustration as to what life would be like in an Islamic dominated country, rather than a Christian one, I in no way agree with these harsh punishments.The Christian God is a God of love who gives the opportunity for a person to be born again ,totally changed.)

30 May 2011 at 17:47  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0,

I deliberated did not use the word 'orientation' as I do not believe in such a thing.

When a person commits acts of homosexuality, it is purely out of choice.

Strange you seem so ashamed of your secret that you won't tell anyone. Not very 'Out and Proud', is it?

PS David Laws should be in prison. Despite being a millionaire, he falsely (deliberately so) claimed (stole) 40,000 quid from the taxpayer, which he gave to his 'lover' (rent-boy) and when the fraud was discovered, he bleats about privacy and not wanting to upset his parents, blah, blah, blah, expecting a pass, because he's a shirt-lifter.

He got one, too. Punishment? 7 days paid holiday.

You couldn't make it up.

30 May 2011 at 17:49  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
"DoDo,
You posts seem to have deteriorated into just 'sniping' at others."

len said... (7 minutes later)
"Danjo,
Are you aware what your 'nice Muslim friends' would do to you in Iran?"

Pot - Kettle - Black!

30 May 2011 at 17:52  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo, Just pointing out the reality of the situation.
Go to Iran see if what I say is true.

You live in a Christian country and benefit from all the advantages of that.You may despise these values and freedoms but they are the value system that give you the freedom to be, and say, more or less what you want!.People have died to preserve your freedoms which you seem to scorn and treat with contempt.

30 May 2011 at 17:53  
Anonymous len said...

Dodo,
Discussion/ sniping /different.

BTW, you just did it again!

30 May 2011 at 17:56  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Open season on homosexuals from the 'solar scriptura' brigade led by Rag, with Tag and Bobtail in the wings!

"Can the blind lead the blind? Do they not both fall into the ditch? ... And why do you see the mote in your brother's eye: but the beam that is in your own eye you consider not? ... Hypocrite, cast first the beam out of your own eye: and then shall you see clearly to take out the mote from your brother's eye."

Whatever happened to the Christian maxim to 'hate the sin, love the sinner'?

30 May 2011 at 18:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "I deliberated did not use the word 'orientation' as I do not believe in such a thing.

When a person commits acts of homosexuality, it is purely out of choice.

Strange you seem so ashamed of your secret that you won't tell anyone. Not very 'Out and Proud', is it?"

If you think a gay sexual orientation doesn't exist then you are a cretin. And I am getting the stick from racists and the like here for not apparently seeing the obvious elsewhere? Oh dear.

As for being ashamed, I am neither ashamed nor proud. It's like having brown hair ie. a natural attribute, only it's not obviously out in the open. Some people like sex in different ways or use things like role play but they don't always tell everyone at work.

It is known that one of my straight managers had at one time a gimp mask and related equipment in his garage ... and he presents a most unlikely mental image. There's nowt wrong with that stuff of course but it hasn't done him any good with the workforce. I expect he wishes that hadn't become public knowledge.

30 May 2011 at 18:05  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
"The punishment for sodomy is the death penalty, in islam ... saudi arabia uses public beheading for gay sex,iran,kuwait uses hanging.
I only post this as an illustration as to what life would be like in an Islamic dominated country."

What's the method of capital punishment in Turkey?

30 May 2011 at 18:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Danjo, Just pointing out the reality of the situation.
Go to Iran see if what I say is true.

You live in a Christian country and benefit from all the advantages of that.You may despise these values and freedoms but they are the value system that give you the freedom to be, and say, more or less what you want!.People have died to preserve your freedoms which you seem to scorn and treat with contempt."

Len, I know what it is like in Iran. I have seen the pictures of teenage boys hanging by their necks from cranes for being gay. However, that is Iran and this is the UK, and British people are products of the environment here including its diversity and liberalism. That said, it's only been a small number of decades since we were imprisoned for consensual gay acts and people are still beaten up simply for being gay.

Len, I live in a liberal democracy which came from the Enlightenment as much as anything else and I have the benefits of that. When it was a more Christian country, we were beaten up and imprisoned and riled.

As for scorning and treating with contempt my freedoms, that bloody outrageous. Christ on a bike! I'm a liberal and most of the time I'm arguing for freedoms, including freedoms for my fellow Brits who are not Christian or not white with a family history back 7 generations or whatever some of the BNP lot here want.

30 May 2011 at 18:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "What's the method of capital punishment in Turkey?"

:)

30 May 2011 at 18:22  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace perhaps has set a theology exam with this post, I am a little unsure quite what offended Mohammad 600yrs ago about the jews and christians to consider them irrelevent to his inspired new order.
however if jesus is to considered a prophet , then perhaps a wise question would be "what was his prophecy" in the quoranic sense.
No doubt Islam has both its loving and militant practices , but to me it seems to forget the power of jesus teachings , which surely if prophets are akin to christian saints , a faith would not denouce previous prophets, for fear it would destabilise what they profess.

What is Islam trying to conquer ? what has it conquered in some countries ,poverty , corruption ?

Whilst I appreciate your graces oppertunity to make evangelism instead of division , it would be nice to take some comfort that the leading clerics had decided that islam had not quite got its views of christainity and judaism in order.

How can the christian, be at fault if it is part of god ,how can Islam be so sure it is gods will to degrade what came before it.

We are all waiting for the time when Islam sits around a table and starts considering its theological problems to enable its own people run countries and goverments better.

My own view has changed little , christianity says somthing far more profound about mind body and soul and the quest for preparedness for heaven.
I take some comfort in both my christian theology and christian faith/spirit , that its highest achievements is to heal, bless and pray for peace .

There are however enemies to the christian conscience some of which are our own doing , for some time I have been trying to consider if a society of personal comforts/desires satisfied is the same as one that has relationship with jesus . We are busy in this technological construct , but we are also logical and i am wondering if the logic snuffs out the god inspirations and motives. What may be termed as the unity in suffering is now being determined by systems outside of us .
I can see how communist constructs fail , but I am unsure if mentally we are no longer seeking god as we should and our minds are becomming supply and demand formuales themselves .

If I crack it I shall let you know.

30 May 2011 at 18:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"What lifestyle do you imagine I have?"

Viking?

30 May 2011 at 18:26  
Anonymous Oswin said...

No one is 'going there' DanJo ... we be but sensitive wee souls ...

30 May 2011 at 18:46  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

I must admit that there is a contingent on this bog that would be quite content with a "Final Solution to the Islamic Question in Great Britain." Which is curious. The solution to the threat of Islamic violence would seem to be the preemptive application of violence.

The problem is not Islam. The problem is the dessicated post-Christian spiritual vacuum in which Islam has been placed. The problem is the dominant secular worldview that is dissolving the culture like acid dissolves metal. If there was a robust Christian culture still remaining in the UK, the Islamic subculture wouldn't matter.

Christianity cannot be rebuilt in the UK by crushing Islam. It must be rebuilt by evangelism. Even evangelism of the Muslim subculture. With the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. The power that is able to turn even the hardest heart to God. Even the hard Muslim hearts.

carl

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

The Last Dodo said...
len said...
"The punishment for sodomy is the death penalty, in islam ... saudi arabia uses public beheading for gay sex,iran,kuwait uses hanging.
I only post this as an illustration as to what life would be like in an Islamic dominated country."

What's the method of capital punishment in Turkey?

I'm still waiting, len. What's the matter? Don't you like discussion?

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

It would seem that Mohammed came into contact with corrupted forms of Christianity which gave him such an unbalanced view of it.

The Koran teaches that Christians believe in a Trinity of God, the Father, Jesus, the Son, and Mary the Mother!(wonder where they got that from!)In Sura Al-Maida 116-117 Allah questions Jesus, saying, ‘Did you say unto men, Take me and my mother as gods apart from God?’ Of course nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus or any of the Apostles say that Mary should be taken as a goddess or worshipped as the ‘mother of God’, but by the time of Mohammed corrupted Christianity had done just that.
The Islamic 'Jesus'is in fact not the Biblical Jesus at all, and all the 'facts'in the Koran about biblical Christianity are incorrect.

It is good to get these things out in the open where they can be discussed and the truth revealed.(For those wanting and able to accept it.)

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

Dodo. When I was recently in Turkey our guide said that if he moved to the eastern side of Turkey he would probably not last very long as his lifestyle would be unacceptable to those who lived there.

Of course this would not be official.

30 May 2011 at 19:20  
Anonymous Preacher said...

To get back to the original post
that Dr Cranmer issued. I am in total agreement with his opinion
regarding the response to the posters.
Many people are now christians who once were muslims, or do we believe that Christ only died for us? they expose themselves to far greater danger than most of us will ever face. But continue to witness to the truth, despite the martyrdom that awaits many of them.
Is God's arm so shortened that he cannot save whosoever he wishes?.
Jesus told us to proclaim the gospel to the World & it's only when the last believer is saved that He will return.
I should be surprised at some of
the 'christian' responses here but
knowing the fear that exists in many hearts when it comes to evangelising the lost, I'm sad to say I'm not.
I disagree with all that Islam is &
teaches, but I am prepared to give everything to reach the lost.
As Charlie Peace the Victorian criminal said on his way to the gallows when the priest was giving the customary 'word' "If I believed what you are saying, I would crawl across broken glass, the length & breadth of Britain to save One solitary soul from hell".
If only we all could echo & follow that credo.

30 May 2011 at 19:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "No one is 'going there' DanJo ... we be but sensitive wee souls ..."

I'm afraid you'd be disappointed by the ordinary nature of it, the obvious excepted. Of course on the 'Net people are not always what other people might imagine. For instance, I reckon it is pretty likely that Viking is actually a balding 5'6" single man called Nigel who lives with his mother, wears tank tops, and has a model train set in the attic. The "Tom and Jerry bellicosity" is a perfect description and suggests massive over-compensation. But that's fine! It doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. I'm not cruising public toilets, dressing like a member of the cast of Glee, and sucking every bloke off that I can find. I doubt the hordes of murderous Muslims where I live would even know I'm gay. Phew.

30 May 2011 at 19:36  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo,
Would you be totally at home In a Muslim Country?. Just asking.

Dodo, There appears to be no capital punishment in Turkey...at the moment,this is probably because they are trying to get into the EU, however if they fail that will all quickly change if they fail.
( there I answered your question, remember to do the same!
Also, .............
The mass violations of human rights in the mainly Kurdish-populated southeast and eastern regions of Turkey in the 1990s took the form of enforced disappearances and killings by unknown perpetrators which the state authorities showed no willingness to solve. In a press release on 1 September 2009 the Human Rights Association stated that until the end of 2008 a total of 2,949 people had been killed by unknown perpetrators and 2,308 people had become victims of extrajudicial executions

30 May 2011 at 20:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Danjo,
Would you be totally at home In a Muslim Country?. Just asking."

No. I'm not that comfortable with the vaguely Christian element of our country either to be honest. I can't be doing with the certainty of the religious, whether Muslim or Christian. With certainty inevitably comes problems, I reckon. This will come as news to Oswin of course as he believes I think there is nothing wrong with Islam, despite my being an atheist, my being gay, and my regularly advocating a secular state. Perhaps he thinks I just don't like bushy beards or something. I don't, actually. But hey.

30 May 2011 at 20:13  
Anonymous Roman Catholic said...

I cannot understand why Dodo calls himself a Christian- all too often he is backing islam and/or the left/liberal view as followed by Danjo. At least he could actually be honest and call himself an atheist?!

30 May 2011 at 20:19  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
"Dodo. When I was recently in Turkey our guide said that if he moved to the eastern side of Turkey he would probably not last very long as his lifestyle would be unacceptable to those who lived there.
Of course this would not be official."

Same goes for certain parts of Britain where the ignorance and hateful attitudes of certain Norsemen prevail.

I asked what the legal penalty was for homosexual acts. Earlier you implied all 'Islamic dominated countries' would impose the death penalty.

As you probably know, homosexual acts between consenting adults over 18 years of age are legal in Turkey. An Islamic country with secular and civil freedoms. Impossible? Somewhat disapproves your point about Islam.

As for your later small minded and ill-informed stab at early Christianity, just remember you are referring to the Church in 600AD. Even at that time Christians recognised Mary as a unique woman who played a significant role in salvation by assenting to be the mother of Jesus - true God and true man.

The point being made in the text you quote is that Islam believes in monotheism and Muhummed failed to grasp the concept of the Triune God of christianity and the human nature of Jesus as well as His being God.

Of course, the Trinity and the Christology now accepted by most christian communities, is not clearly stated in the Bible - not covered by 'sola scriptura', and needed the Church to discern and teach it in opposition to numerous earlier misunderstandings.

That's how we have Holy Scripture, the Nicene Creed and why Christianity has survived 2000 years. Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to all truth and protect it.

30 May 2011 at 20:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I love Morocco though. But just to visit. They sort of have capital punishment, but not for gay people, and it's rarely carried out. That's a Muslim country too. Gayness is frowned upon there like drinking alcohol is. But in Marrakech, lots of the locals drink at home and some straight single men engage in male anal sex in lieu of sex with women because sex before marriage is frowned upon ... for the woman. They are horrified by the idea of male-male sexual tenderness during or after though as that would be, well, gay. The drinking thing is because people who self-identify as Muslims are not necessarily religious.

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

Yet another lie from Dodo,

I have never advocated the use of force against homos.

30 May 2011 at 20:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

'Roman Catholic' (rolleyes): "[...] left/liberal view as followed by Danjo"

That'll be right/liberal. I loathe the Labour Party and much of what it stands for these days. I tend more towards libertarianism than any sort of communitarianism or girly socialism.

30 May 2011 at 20:59  
Anonymous bluedog said...

DanJO @ 19.36 said, '..is actually a balding 5'6" single man called Nigel who lives with his mother, wears tank tops, and has a model train set in the attic.'

Thank you for trying to understand me.

30 May 2011 at 21:51  
Anonymous len said...

I too have come to the conclusion after much thought and deliberation and (help from Wikipedia, bless them)that Dodo is a troll and beyond human help.

I will continue to post on pagan religions and related articles but realise that the dodo is stuck flightless and doomed and I don`t expect to get much sense out of him.

30 May 2011 at 22:04  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Viki said...
"Yet another lie from Dodo,
I have never advocated the use of force against homos.

Yet another ill-considered, baseless accussation from the font of toxic odour.

What was actually said:

"Same goes for certain parts of Britain where the ignorance and hateful attitudes of certain Norsemen prevail."

His attitudes are ignorant and hateful. He behaves like a Millwall lout and identifies with them. Hurls abuse and chants insults. Read his comments and judge for yourself.

All quiet len? Nothing to say?

Shot yourself in the foot, haven't you? On two fronts. One, Islam states can become more liberal and democratic; two, the early church accepted Mary as having a special role in salvation by consenting to be the mother of Jesus, both God and man. Muhommed couldn't grasp this and square it with the Trinity. Can you?

30 May 2011 at 22:11  
Anonymous len said...

As I said, I don`t expect to get much sense from you Dodo.

I believe you to be a troll good bye.

30 May 2011 at 22:16  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Roman Catholic said...
"I cannot understand why Dodo calls himself a Christian- all too often he is backing islam and/or the left/liberal view as followed by Danjo. At least he could actually be honest and call himself an atheist?!"

So who are you? Hiding behind a false name, are we?

Show one comment I have made that contradicts christianity, supports Islam as a revealed religion or justifies libertine, homosexual activity?

You'll find none. I object to bigotry, prejudice and hate and small minded, 'little englanders'.

Get you facts right - fake.

30 May 2011 at 22:21  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
"As I said, I don`t expect to get much sense from you Dodo.
I believe you to be a troll good bye."

Poor diddums. You know you can't answer a perfectly reasoned position. Walked into it after pontificating and now lost your tongue.

Fake.

30 May 2011 at 22:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

Yawn,

He'll have to change his scree-tag (again) as he is a busted flush now.

DFTT

30 May 2011 at 22:36  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Viki

I always thought Trolls were big, smelly, brutish, ugly creatures of Norse origin. Maybe you should change your name - troll.

I'll keep my user name and continue to challenge the sanctimonious nonsense of Rag,Tag and Bobtail and assorted hangers on.

Nothing wrong with being provocative on a site dedicated to religious-political issues. Your choice whether you reply or not.

30 May 2011 at 23:32  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Carl Jacobs @ 19.02 said.'The problem is not Islam. The problem is the dessicated post-Christian spiritual vacuum in which Islam has been placed. The problem is the dominant secular worldview that is dissolving the culture like acid dissolves metal. If there was a robust Christian culture still remaining in the UK, the Islamic subculture wouldn't matter.' and Mr Bitb @ 14.27 said, It all begs the question what effect the problem of local official and civilian collaboration with the Muslims contributed to Byzantines downfall.'

Your Grace, these two posts summarise the existential threat posed by Islam in the West today. The threat is not limited to the United Kingdom, but is clearly present throughout Europe, North America and now, Australia. Christianity faces a multi-faceted challenge.

Regarding the Byzantines, it is easy to blame military defeats on the collapse of their society. But military defeat tends to be a symptom of societal weakness rather than a cause of failure. So we can say in the case of both the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 and following the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 that the situation was retrievable. Certainly after Manzikert the Byzantines lost the resources of Eastern Anatolia, which were only thinly populated at the time. However for the Seljuk Turks these territorial gains transformed them from being nomadic tribesmen to a nation state with a structure they borrowed from the Byzantines. The Turks leveraged themselves off this opportunity and slowly picked off Byzantine positions. The Byzantines themselves somehow lost momentum and succumbed to dynastic squabbling. Lack of resolute and focussed leadership proved fatal.

One of this communicant's favourite commentators is 'Spengler' in Asia Times, channelled through David P Goldman who for a long time remained totally anonymous in the manner of His Grace. Goldman is a Jewish American who, like the Chief Rabbi of the UK, takes a benign view of Christianity. Goldman posits that human societies only prosper and expand when motivated by religious belief. He points to the Orthodox Jews as an example, where since the Holocaust they have embarked on an extraordinary population boom. Indeed, Israel is one of a very few democracies with natural increase.

Looking at the West, it therefore seems that loss of faith has lead to loss of self-belief and so to loss of confidence in the future, resulting in no more babies. Western populations seem to have been persuaded by their elites that the souless confusion of atheism (to quote Hegel) is preferable to their former belief in Jesus Christ. Ironic really, as it was the elites who introduced Christianity.

30 May 2011 at 23:45  
Anonymous not a machine said...

tonights second part of , all overseen by machines of love and grace , takes a little thought. It had some powerful themes almost autopsy of recent/current thought. Some of the terms used whilst commonly used , are not so well expanded by most people , for instance say ecosystem , most will think of habitat like a forest, rather than measurement or represenation of habitat.
The one aspect I am still mulling over is the relationship between the computer and steadystate systems, I have noticed how the ammount of interaction between both computer and social media changes people , my self included. I noticed that the role of people was changing quite rapidly as it seemed like control yet liberating in application .
Whilst wires show interactions , I am reminded they do not show truth/lie or indeed other emotional aspects. They are also representations of enviroment , somthing uniquely human .
I also wasnt sure if the anomynity of its power was a good thing ,if lawyers are complaining about tweets anonimity , and yet many of the companies that run the systems are faceless and locationless.
The systems them selves may create efficencies eg move factory to cheap labour market ,but they do not answer the what happens to those people whose job has relocated. A whole financial system running like this in my view begins to run to the system and not quite in the human sense of service.
I am a little cautious about systems theories being depressive and I can see any idealogical rush to abandonement as a pointless uncelbratory revolution, because it may be the computerisation of some systems that is a problem ,rather than systems themselves , we clearly drive on one side of the road to avoid carnage.
Nor should the socialists have much to cheer about as there systems go wrong , but as i have wondered for some time these fabian utopias have consequences as efficent systems are not benign, but then niether are inefficent/corrupt systems.

I would think that the only way out of this is to gradually reduce global population and reduce the need for all powerfull systems.

I am reminded though that systems discussions are very different from god belief but i do wonder if the bible emphasises not just an internalised sort of system , but that if external systems are not trying to replace the christian concience (if it can be called a system) or at least vying for power.

A very powerful piece of televison with some revealing/troubling subjects that have come to govern our lives. As i said who guards the guards is one aspect ,but who controls the desires is another . should perhaps come with a warning that it may lead you to troubling thoughts about reality ,but apart from that a unique program in the media landscape .

31 May 2011 at 00:16  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Interesting comments bluedog.

How much has the division of Christendom contributed to the growth of Islam and the secularisation of the West?

The East–West Schism of 1054 divided the State church of the Roman Empire into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin). Relations between East and West had long been embittered by political and ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes. Islam was able to take advantage of this militarily and politically.

The 'Protestant Reformation' further weakend Western Christianity by undermining its unity and fragmenting its followers into numerous sects who engaged in bloody disputes with one another. Along came the Enlightenment, the Rights of Man and secularism. These developments, not bad in themselves, but without the solid foundation of Christianity a poor substitute for God's ordinances.

Human nature and ego on all sides and a failure to resolve the internal issues facing the Church as a family.

The decline in birth rates reflects a view that sex is primarily for hedonistic pleasure, children are a burden and pregnancies can be aborted if inconvenient.

Liberal democratic capitalism also has an internal logic that means women and men both have to work full-time to cover the cost of a home and are 'persuaded' happiness lies in the acquisition of material possessions.

'Welfarism' also undermines a sense of community solidarity and familial responsibility. The 'State' will provide. And if we get depressed, as more and more people are, a pill will be prescribed.

In the words of Solomon:

“Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

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

Lakester91

In case you don't see it on an earlier post below thank you for your observations, positive criticism and the kind words of encouragement.

Unfortunately, I let the unrelenting goading of the Norse Troll and his associates get to me and fell into the trap of fighting like with like. Lesson learnt!

I'll heed your advice in the future and am grateful for the spirit in which it is given.

31 May 2011 at 01:36  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 0047 asks, 'How much has the division of Christendom contributed to the growth of Islam and the secularisation of the West?'

Answer, the secularisation of the West per se and the growth of Islam within the West are completely unrelated trends. They just happen to be simultaneous.

This communicant believes that the secularisation of the West is a reaction to sectarian strife. We have become embarrassed by faith and belief for fear of offending others, even though they may be fellow Christians. A generation has grown up in which Christianity has been inhibited by these fears. But the silence of Christianity is not being filled by Islam amongst Westerners, the growth of Islam is through immigration. If the immigrants were Buddhist or Confucian we would not feel so threatened because neither of these lifestyle belief systems has the aggression, intolerance and violence of Islam.

It is noteworthy that Islam suceeds within its demographic without the corporate ecclesiatical structures which are unique to Christianity. Islam has the two major sects of Sunni and Shia with a raft of sub-divisions; Sufi, Salafi, Wahhabi etc. Islam blooms as a thousand flowers do, without rigid hierarchical structures. Maybe Christianity could learn something from this informality, which by chance is relevant to our age.

Significantly Islam is not making inroads within indigenous Western populations.

Therein lies our hope.

Our greatest danger lies in the probablity that Islam will be propagated within the prison system and infect racial minorities living within Western states. Thus the vexed question of race relations is complicated by a religious dimension.

31 May 2011 at 08:49  
Anonymous len said...

Constantine "invented" the Catholic Church in 325 A.D.
This is the beginning and the cause of the division in Christianity.Christianity became corrupted and the church became split. ALL the Church did not go up to Nicea !.In terms of obtaining political protection and temporal power and influence for the church the Council of Nicea was a coup for those church leaders who were willing to compromise. But the spiritual fallout from this meeting was deadly. It can only be described as an awful tragedy. It was the first and truly the epic compromise for the church. The Council of Nicea set the pattern for the church-state compromise which continues to this day.

The Christian Ekklesia is very small, a tiny percentage of the population,hunted down persecuted, and every attempt has been made to destroy it by its big 'brother'.

Similar I suppose to the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac.The battle still rages today and is a reflection here on Earth of that which is occurring in the 'Heavenlies.

31 May 2011 at 10:28  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

In point of fact the First Council of Nicea in 325 resulted in the first ststement of a uniform christian creed and doctrine. It did not create doctrine, it did not invent a church, but it did settle what the Apostles had taught and what the early chrisatian communities had believed about Christ's divinity.

Invitations to this first Ecumenical Council were issued to over 1000 Bishops, with some 300 attending. Its primary focus was on settling the dangerous Arian heresy that held that Jesus was created by God, not co-eternal or of the same substance with God.

A degree of authority was exercised at the Council by Constantine in order that a creed be agreed. Not a theological leadership.

The agreement:

Jesus is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God"; He is said to be "begotten, not made"; He is "from the same substance of the Father".

Without Nicea settling this issue, and setting a precedent for future Ecumenical Councils to resolve issues of doctrine, where would christianity be today?

The point is that indivdual readings of scripture can result in error and flights of fancy as has been shown by countless times down the centuries.

Leadership and authority, based on theological reasoning and church tradition, arriving at a consensus of beliefs, was the model set at Nicea.

31 May 2011 at 12:57  
OpenID scottspeig said...

I am late as usual your grace, and so will only add a small contribution.

I think your analogy to Paul is just wrong, for when heresy is touched upon, Paul is quite vocal and argumentative. In my opinion, he wouldn't have thought "ah, how to use this", rather, he would be condemning the posters as a lie and preaching the good news instead.

31 May 2011 at 13:34  
Blogger William said...

It reminds me somewhat of the attempt to create Tashlan by the Calormenes in "The Last Battle" by CS Lewis. Tashlan being a compound of Tash and Aslan: "Tash is the same as Aslan: Aslan is Tash."

31 May 2011 at 14:56  
Anonymous len said...

What was the result of this meeting at Nicea? Many of those attending took the bait. The result was that Christianity was "established". And it was thereby set up for compromise. Inevitably it was quickly corrupted as pagan religious leaders saw what power, influence and lucre could be gained by taking on the new name "christian". That maneuver gave them a license from the state to practice pagan religion as before. Only now they could do it INSIDE the established Christian church. These pagan leaders, with a few adjustments to their religious repetoir came right on into the established church and took their places there. They brought with them their pagan beliefs and agenda, their hierarchical church structured programs and pagan temple architecture. For fear of the wrath of Constantine Christian elders decided not to make a fuss about all this. And so the rot set in.

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

Len,

You're feeding the troll again. You're wasting your time; he doesn't want answers, he wants to argue, either in a pathetic attempt to look clever or just to annoy you.

DFTT

31 May 2011 at 15:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2011 at 15:25  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo @ 16:47

A minor point, but: this forum is NOT, for me, a ''secret pleasure'' but a very open one, which I enjoy enormously.

Similarly, it is not a place where I ''can be a little more, erm, open about (my) views''. Quite the opposite infact, as I am generally on my best behaviour here.

31 May 2011 at 15:36  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
"What was the result of this meeting at Nicea?"

The emergence of a clear understanding of Christ as both God and man, based on Apostolic teaching, early church tradition, scripture, prayer and theological debate.

Without this who knows where we would be today. Individual understandings gleened from individual readings of the Gospels. An absence of a clear set of believes, biblically based.

That others, much later, used the church for political ends is not a arguement against Ecumenical Councils or, indeed, Church structures. It is more a reflection on man's predisposition towards sin.

31 May 2011 at 16:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "A minor point, but: this forum is NOT, for me, a ''secret pleasure'' but a very open one, which I enjoy enormously.

Similarly, it is not a place where I ''can be a little more, erm, open about (my) views''. Quite the opposite infact, as I am generally on my best behaviour here."

I'd rather you be as open as possible as it goes. When people with extreme views speak out, even if it's anonymously on the Net, it tends to set the boundaries within which normal people reach a much more reasonable consensus. I don't mind you getting a frisson of excitement by saying what is normally unsayable in polite and educated company. Whatever floats your boat etc.

31 May 2011 at 17:34  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Len,

I am afraid that much of what you have just written is untrue. Nicea was a large council that formalised already common beliefs and practises (and most importantly what Dodo was talking about). Constantine observed (obviously as he had the power and interest to do so) but had no role in theological decisions.

BTW. A minor point perhaps

...taking on the new name "christian"

...Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called 'Chrestians' by the populace.

These are the words of Tacitus, a Roman historian who died 155 years before Constantine was born. Christians were Christians from the beginning.

31 May 2011 at 18:46  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester,

Tacitus is not required, Luke will suffice;

'And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.' Acts 11 v 26 KJV

31 May 2011 at 19:26  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Viki said...
"Len,
You're feeding the troll again. You're wasting your time;
DFTT"

Who is the real Troll on here? Me thinks it is the Norse savage.

A selection of Viki's recent post on West Dumbartonshire Council stream:

"Nob-head. I suppose you think you're hard?"

"I didn't get where I am today by being 'nice'.
You are a liar.
Pwnd. Raped. Battered.
How foul you are.
Tit.
PS Liar."

"Ooooooh It's all gone quiet over there,
It's all gone quiet over there,
It's all gone quiet, all gone quiet,
It's all gone quiet over there!"

"BTW I don't support Millwall, but I am a bit like them;
We are Millwall,
We are Millwall,
No-one likes us,
We don't care."

All serious statements intended to facilitate an educated debate? You decide.

31 May 2011 at 19:44  
Anonymous len said...

Lakester 91,
Can you imagine a Roman Emperor sitting quietly whilst the Bishops decided how his Empire would be ruled ,and by whom.?Constantine was a vain and superstitious man who murdered several family members.

When Constantine selected and brought together 318 bishops for the Council, it was a military and political decision. He needed the support of the new religion in his battles. He claimed that he saw a vision of the Cross in the middle of the sun, his god before 'converting to Christianity' in his last day. Even the bishops had no illusion about that, for not only did the Emperor preside over the Council, he also proclaimed that his will was a divine law. The senior pastors accepted him as a "Universal Bishop" even though he was not baptized, and they let him take part in votes on church doctrine. Constantine was completely ignorant of Jesus’ teachings. He was a follower of the solar monotheism of Mithras (the ancient god of light), who was portrayed on coins as the "invincible sun". When Constantine gave his name to the old Greek commercial city of Byzantium and made Constantinople in 330, five years after the Council, the capital of the Roman Empire, he had a mighty column erected for the ceremonial opening with the Emperor and the "invincible sun god" on the top of it.
Historically, pagan Babylon worshipped the sun as a deity, and pagan Rome also worshipped the invincible sun. The Roman Catholic Church, with the assistance of Caesar's civil Sunday law (Constantine), transferred the Sabbath rest to the Sun Day, and commonly uses images and symbols of the sun.

Under Constantine, the pagans were permitted to bring their statues and idols of Semiramis, “The Queen of Heaven”, and Nimrod, “Baal”, “The Sun God', into the Church. The names were changed to the Virgin Mary, “Queen of Heaven” and little Jesus, “The Sun God.” For example: Is this Catholic image Mary and baby Jesus or is it Semiramis, “The Queen of Heaven” and son Nimrod?

31 May 2011 at 20:53  
Blogger English Viking said...

Go to the match, did you Dodo?

Liar. And Jew hater.

I'm not surprised the Jews aren't over keen on 'Christians' when, in their mind, that includes drongos like you.

PS What was score?

31 May 2011 at 21:37  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len

Knowing church history as you do, you will know it was the strategy of the early church to take over pagan shrines and sites and reassign them as christian places of worship. Similarly, as a way of helping converts understand their new faith, some old imagery was redefined and given christian meaning.

This process was NOT the assimilation of paganism into christianity but was about rebuilding a christian culture on top of pagan practices and helping to embed the 'new' beliefs.

Agree with the approach or not but don't misunderstand or misrepresent it. Personally, I believe many pagan practices were counterfeit precursors intended by Satan to confuse and mislead. For example, the idea of resurrection of a God-man was not uncommon.

You must know Sunday became the sabbath day because Jesus rose from the dead on this day - and not to worship or honour a pagan sun deity!

There are different 'histories' about Constantine and the valididity of his conversion.

Stick with the theological outcome of Nicea. It was clearly guided by the Holy Spirit in agreeing its great statements about the hypostatic union. Jesus never promised His church would be free from sin or politics. He did promise the Holy Spirit would lead it to all truth and that it would survive the gates of Hell.

31 May 2011 at 21:51  
Blogger English Viking said...

Len,

DFTT

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

Who is the real troll on here?

31 May 2011 at 22:52  
Blogger English Viking said...

Said the troll.

31 May 2011 at 23:12  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr Len,

So you condemn Constantine and the Church based on speculation? i.e. that he must have intervened, rather than there actually being any evidence for this. Much of the Marian/pagan links were retconned by those such as Jack Chick, and even if true, it's quite common for God to lampshade paganism anyway (virgin birth and all that).

PS Sabbath for the man, not man for the Sabbath. It could be Wednesday for all I care, as long as it's there.

Mr Viking,

Well versed that man. I should have used it myself.

1 June 2011 at 02:30  
Anonymous IanCad said...

TLD @ 21:51

"Yu must know Sunday became the sabbath day because Jesus rose from the dead on this day - and not to worship or honour a pagan sun deity!"

Really? I don't see that anywhere in the Scriptures.

1 June 2011 at 07:29  
Anonymous len said...

Lakester,
You are clutching at straws.

Constantine's reign was that of a hard, utterly determined and ruthless man. Nowhere did this show more than when in AD 326, on suspicion of adultery or treason, he had his own eldest son Crispus executed.
A brilliant general, Constantine was a man of boundless energy and determination, yet vain, receptive to flattery and suffering from a choleric temper.

Lakester,Would you stand up and oppose this man, bearing in mined his will was(in his opinion) 'divine'?.

1 June 2011 at 08:59  
Anonymous len said...

Constantine only 'converted' to Christianity on his deathbed.
But I believe it was quite acceptable in Roman Times to have several 'gods'.
Many merely added the Biblical God to their other 'gods' as a way of 'hedging their bets'.
Constantine used Christianity to unite his Empire ,wedded Christianity to the State and introduced all sorts of pagan rites which have their origin in Babylon.
Don`t take my word for it, do the research.

1 June 2011 at 09:11  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

read the Quaran, it specifically denied that Jesus was divine, or that he died on the cross at all let alone for our sins.

1 June 2011 at 10:13  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

IanCad said...
TLD @ 21:51
""Yu must know Sunday became the sabbath day because Jesus rose from the dead on this day - and not to worship or honour a pagan sun deity!"
Really? I don't see that anywhere in the Scriptures."

What?

"And that he was buried: and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures."

1 June 2011 at 12:39  
Anonymous IanCad said...

TLD.

"And that he was buried: and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures."

That in no way changed the Sabbath. Indeed, Our Lord rested on that day in accordance with the Fourth Commandment.

1 June 2011 at 13:02  
Blogger English Viking said...

IanCad,

Much as I hate to appear on Dodo's side, Jesus rested on the Jewish Sabbath, which was (approx) 18:00 Friday until 18:00 Saturday, Saturday being the last day of the week in the Jewish mind. Their days did not begin at 00:00, but at 18:00, (approx)

I believe that Christianity's moving of the day of rest to 00:00 Sunday until 00:00 Monday is due to the fact that believers gathered on 'the first day of the week (Sunday, in the Jewish mind) to break bread in remembrance of Christ.


And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Acts 20 v 7

Upon the first [day] of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as [God] hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.1Cor 16 v 2

This day became known as 'the Lord's day':

I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Rev 1 v 10

All quotations are King James Version

1 June 2011 at 13:56  
Anonymous len said...

Sun worshipping and its absorption into the Catholic church.

The statue in St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome includes a solar disk above his head. Tradition has it that this was actually a statue of Jupiter taken from a pagan temple and simply renamed "St. Peter"! Sun worship, which appears in nearly every pagan religion in the world, soon appeared in Christian art, imagery, and theology. The halo often seen on Christ and Mary is actually a symbol of sun worship. Madonna ("Mary") was depicted holding sun disks.
The real secret of Constantine and the bishops of Rome is their cunning introduction of sun worship and paganism into Christianity. It was done so shrewdly that, incredibly, it has been veiled within the faith for centuries.

I believe that is why God is so opposed to Idols, statues,Icons etc because people can be deceived as to what they actually are or represent.

1 June 2011 at 16:53  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Shock horror, the Church used what people knew in order to spread the Gospel!

Do you know any Sun worshipping Christians Len?

No I'm afraid that I have done the research before, when I first found a quite ridiculous site called jesusissaviour. Obviously I was quite disturbed by what they had to say; or at least until I found out that the tiny bits that weren't complete fabrications were laughable distortions. Stop reading Jack Chick's nonsense drawings and learn to get along.

I could start talking about some of the nonsense fundie Christians believe in, but funnily enough I don't believe it would be productive and it doesn't change whether they are saved or not.

I'll ask this. Even if Easter, Christmas and the funny bits and pieces passed down as tradition are garnered from paganism (which whilst partially true, is also mostly false), does God not look at the heart? I didn't realise he condemned people on technicalities. Thinking about it; if He did, I wouldn't worship Him.

1 June 2011 at 18:34  
Anonymous IanCad said...

English Viking @ 13:56.

Let me first respond to the issue of the "Jewish Sabbath" There is none other. It is the Seventh Day Sabbath. It is the subject of the Fourth Commandment. It was established in the Garden of Eden. It was Blessed and Hallowed by God. It was changed by man.
The Biblical quotes that you cited were addressed in a previous thread on this subject. Excuse the cut and paste but here is part of a post relating to them:

"Both Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 should be understood in the context of the times. The day ended and started in the evening. Thus both refer to the first day of the week as being a time for meetings and business. Even the learned and much respected John Stott falls for this one.
Colossians 2:16-17 refer to the ceremonial laws which were abolished by Christ (Nailed to the cross)
Revelation 1:10 The Lord's Day is the Sabbath. It has no connection with Sunday worship. Christ is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8)"

1 June 2011 at 18:40  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

IanCad,

I hate to repeat myself, but the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The spirit of the law is to take a day off work and dedicate it to the Lord. I don't think that as a future doctor (God willing) that I will be condemned for working on a Sunday (Saturday in your instance) every once in a while.

1 June 2011 at 21:27  
Anonymous len said...

Least of your problems Danjo.

1 June 2011 at 21:57  
Blogger English Viking said...

IanCad,

My patience is wearing thin; a combination of my impatience and your obtuseness, no doubt.

As I have said previously, I hate to be on the side of a cat-lick, but he is correct on this matter.

The sabbath - the legally binding, punishable by death for breaking, once every 7 days, observed on Friday/Saturday by Jews rest day -was not on Sunday.

I am not a Jew, I am a Christian. I am not bound by 'special' days.

He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Romans 14 v 6

The Law is not my master, Christ is. The very same Christ who enquired - What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift [it] out?

Thereby breaking the sabbath

Should the Firemen rest the sabbath day?

The Drs and Nurses?

Does it matter which day you observe, so long as there is one?

You swallow a camel, and strain out a gnat.

1 June 2011 at 23:08  
Blogger English Viking said...

IanCad,

I forgot to add;

Yo are either an idiot, or a Seventh Day Adventist, which basically amounts to the same thing.

1 June 2011 at 23:10  
Anonymous len said...

Lakester91,

If you want to be involved in a religion which is a lot of pagan belief 'cobbled together' with a few Christian truths then I suppose God will not interfere with your free will.
Hopefully their are other Catholics not so tightly bound and trussed up and blinded with their religion as you are.

Hope and pray that you see the light of the truth of the Gospel one day.

2 June 2011 at 08:08  
Anonymous len said...

Lakester91,

One last thought.

I asked Mr the Dodo this question and he was very reluctant to answer but perhaps you( a genuine truth bearer) will.
This will help identify if you are following Christ or following religion.
This is theoretical, so don`t panic.

Would you renounce(theoretically) Catholicism and everything relating to Catholicism ie The Pope,Church , candles, rosary beads, saints, statues,traditions , creeds,in short everything relating to the Catholic church.

And having done that , would you still be 'saved 'and on your way to heaven?.

No 'fudging'now, or 'qualifying statements, after all the disciples had none of these catholic 'additions',neither did the thief on the cross next to Christ.

2 June 2011 at 08:24  
Anonymous IanCad said...

EV
The pre-incarnate Christ spoke the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai. They are the "Law of Liberty" spoken of in the NT. and thus binding today, for Christ "came not to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfil them"
At the time of Christ the Jewish Temple system had evolved into a legalistic and corrupt guild. Christ, by his actions on the Sabbath , should be our pattern for the keeping and remembering of it. A day of joy, an holy rest, a time to reflect, worship and to help others.
Much of the bloody anti-semitism, so replete in history, can find its roots in the fiction of the separation of the Sabbaths.

"Does it matter which day you observe, so long as there is one?"

OK; So Moses is up on Mt. Sinai, the ground is shaking, lightning and thunderings, smoke and fire. Moses is terrified. The finger of God is writing on tablets of stone. He gets to the Fourth Commandment and Moses jumps up and says "No God, you've got that one wrong. It should be the First Day not the Seventh"
Oh Yeah??

A small point perhaps, but it must be noted that the EU calendar now designates Sunday as the Seventh Day thus further diluting God's Word.

2 June 2011 at 08:39  
Blogger English Viking said...

IanCad,

You are a 7th Day Adventist.

I don't care less what the EU say on any matter.

Nor what you say.

PS It was not Christ that spoke on MT Sinai.

2 June 2011 at 13:20  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Len,

The rituals and funny bits that you don't like are, at worst harmless quirks and at best, fantastic ways of catalysing the faith by focussing the mind, body and actions of the believer.

The pagan bits have been so Christianised that they are Christian bits, not pagan. Like was mentioned earlier, it was and is a brilliant way of personalising God to people. Taking a pagan shrine or symbol and use it to glorify God is exactly in the spirit of the kind of thing that God would want one to do. You don't spread the Gospel via destruction and oppression.

Now, after all that, we come to your question. "Would you renounce(theoretically) Catholicism and everything relating to Catholicism ie The Pope, Church, candles, rosary beads, saints, statues,traditions , creeds,in short everything relating to the Catholic church.

And having done that , would you still be 'saved' and on your way to heaven?.
"

The Pope - Yes, he is the result of the necessity for leadership. His leadership is very useful but not a requirement for union with Christ. Think of him as a catalyst rather than a substrate.

The Church - As far as I know, the holy catholic and apostolic Church includes all non-heretical denominations and free churches. If I rejected the Church I would be rejecting all Churches. I could disagree with the non-core doctrine and still stay in communion with her (and receive the Eucharist).

Candles/Rosary Beads/Saints - Once again these are rituals and non-core doctrines. They are catalysts for good faith and good life etc. They are not necessary for salvation, and rejecting them would not excommunicate me.

But that's not really what you were trying to ask though was it. The question is more, 'could you be a non-Catholic and still be in union with Christ?'

The simple answer is yes, or at least as far as I can guess from God's nature.

Of course on a more personal level, you are asking 'In your eyes, am I saved?'

To that point I say only God knows, but not being a Catholic is not a reason to say no, just as being a Catholic isn't either.

God bless.

2 June 2011 at 13:30  
Anonymous len said...

Lakester 91,
Thanks for your response.

God Bless.

2 June 2011 at 15:51  
Anonymous IanCad said...

EV @ 13:20

I am a Wycliffian, a Lutheran, a Zwinglian, a Knox. An Anglican, an Anabaptist a Wesleyan and a Seventh Day Adventist. All reformers gradually adding to our understanding of the will of God.

Believe me, O Hirsute One; You had better care about what the EU says if you value your liberties.

Neither does my wife.

If you do not accept the concept of the Trinity that is your perfect right.

2 June 2011 at 15:53  
Blogger English Viking said...

IanCad,

I belief in orthodox trinitarian doctrine, right enough.

So it was the Father who spoke the sermon on the mount?

The Father is not the Son. You're getting confused.

I will resist the EU and its bully-boy tactics even under threat, I will not adjust my beliefs to fall in with theirs.

2 June 2011 at 16:10  
Blogger English Viking said...

Believe, obviously. Oops.

2 June 2011 at 16:11  
Anonymous IanCad said...

EV

"Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" John 14:9.
The mystery of the Trinity will only be fully understood in the hereafter.

"Our knowledge is a torch of smoky pine
That lights the pathway but one step ahead"

2 June 2011 at 19:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

IanCad,

The trinity is indeed a mystery, but some things can be definitively stated on the matter.

Just as the Father is not the Son, it is equally true that the Son is not the Father, and therefore John 14 v 9 was not Christ claiming to be the Father.

If it is, then we get into a whole load of unitarian mumbo-jumbo that I can't be bothered to argue about.

Believe what you like. I'll do the same. We'll find out which (if any) of us was right, one day.

3 June 2011 at 00:49  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older