Saturday, June 25, 2011

The EUterus - the womb of the cult of death


His Grace's regular readers and communicants will know that he eschews hyperbole, exaggeration and distortion, for he likes to deal objectively, dispassionately and impartially with facts. Bruno Waterfield brings us the latest from Brussels - details of the EU's new £280m building which is to become the Presidential Office and home to future Brussels summits, replete with 'humane gathering place' and 'diversity carpet', all enclosed in a steel (rib-)cage which houses 'the heart of Europe'.

Our President, Herman Van Rompuy, described his 'Europa building' as a 'jewel box' (he would).

David Cameron refers to it as a 'gilded cage' (but even as Prime Minister is impotent to do anything about it).

Bill Cash, Chairman of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, called it an 'Aladdin's palace...a cross between the bonfire of the vanities and Kafka's Castle' (and, being a mere MP, is also impotent to do anything about it).

But Mr Waterfield reveals that EU officials refer to this hubristic architectural extravagance the E-Uterus (His Grace prefers EUterus), on account of its womb-like central structure. "It looks like a womb and, I am sure, many grand visions of Europe will be birthed from there," quipped one official.


It is up to us to ensure that this moniker sticks. From this moment on, the EUterus must be a reminder to us all of the cult of death to which it gives birth.

Hyperbole?

Not a bit of it.

It transpires that EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding has threatened Hungary with financial penalties for promoting adoption over abortion.

There is apparently no justice for the unborn child in the EU's secular cult of death. No, indeed: steel and glass count for more in Brussels than flesh and blood. This is the 'pro-life' poster to which the EU so forcefully objects. The caption on the advertisement reads: 'I understand it if you aren’t ready for me. But think twice, and put me up for adoption. Let me live!’ This, apparently, is a message unpalatable to EU Justice Commissioner Reding. European Dignity Watch informs us:
During the plenary session of the European Parliament on the 8th of June 2011, the Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding expressed concern that the Hungarian Government’s campaign, encouraging adoption instead of abortion to promote a better work-life balance was “not in line” with the European Social Agenda and asked the Hungarian Government to stop the initiative without delay.

...Although Mrs Reding expressed her disapproval for the campaign, she did not explain in her answer to the European Parliament, the basis upon which she disapproved of the campaign. She did not cite any legal basis for her comments, nor did she say how it contradicted the European Social Agenda....
Protect the Pope comments:
Here we see the depth of intolerance among the leadership of the European Union to any expression of pro-life sentiments among member states of the EU. Only one message is acceptable to the EU, the unquestionable, unassailable right of a mother to kill her pre-born child through abortion. To suggest the possibility of adoption is intolerable to a political institution that so actively promotes the culture of death.

The tragic irony is that it is the Justice Commissioner of the EU that is perpetrating this gross injustice against the pre-born children and mothers of Hungary and Europe. She wants to censor a campaign that merely raises the possibility of adoption. What of Europe’s much vaunted claim to defend the right to free-speech? This right only seems to apply to those who blaspheme and desecrate!

What more proof do we need to show the world that the European Union is developing into a totalitarian political institution that will only allow the promotion of anti-life propaganda?
This being the case, why did the Pope lure Ireland into the EU's rotten heart? Why lead Poland into mortal sin? Why are the bishops positively effusive over ever closer union? Why deceive Hungary into believing that they can lead a Christian club? Why lure Croatia into what is manifestly a profoundly anti-Christian secular political cult?

If the sanctity of the uterus is to be guarded and preserved, the profanity of the EUterus must be abated and bound. The uterus brings forth life; the EUterus is the harbinger of death. There can be no fellowship between darkness and light.

150 Comments:

Blogger john in cheshire said...

I have long held the view that satan is alive and well and purposefully doing his best to destroy mankind. islam is satanic, in my opinion. socialism is satanic, in my opinion. The EU is a manifestation of the works of satan. Perhaps if there were more Christians who actually believed in the power of evil, then they might just recognise where that evil lies and start to mobilise against it.

25 June 2011 at 20:58  
Anonymous not a machine said...

£280mn for an additional building that is the imaginations of a political construct that can not even sign off its accounts , disclose MEP corruptions , or enquire about funding corruptions and lobby group links .
Our contributions have gone up an eye watering 45% this year , just for it to carry on , claiming it needs more unelcted officials , more ill thought legal progress and at least 5 countries having to ask for bail out money , when they have had wonk corrupt EU spending lavished on on creating an usustainable boom .

Even at this weeks meeting still not making right noises about crisis and dramatic spending and reform.

And all the europhiles have gone to ground , after spinning all the tripe for years that led to greece having debts of 175% of GDP .

25 June 2011 at 20:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I was quite unconcerned with the EU project a decade ago but I've come around to thinking we really must extract ourselves now by some means or other.

But anyway.

"'I understand it if you aren’t ready for me. But think twice, and put me up for adoption. Let me live!’"

This is a bit disingenuous/over-sentimental on the poster. Not only does the foetus not have language, it doesn't have consciousness for much of its development. That is, its interests are hypothetical in some way or other.

A related phrase could be used in the 'mouth' of the unconceived of a couple: "Don't use contraceptives, let me live!" or even for the unconceived of single people yet to come together (and possibly split apart afterwards): "Have sex with someone please, let me live!"

Obviously, adoption *is* an alternative to abortion and ought to explained, offered, and facilitated to people with an unwanted pregnancy. But it comes with costs, as does abortion.

25 June 2011 at 21:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

jic: "Perhaps if there were more Christians who actually believed in the power of evil, then they might just recognise where that evil lies and start to mobilise against it."

*shudder*

We've had enough of that in our history already, thanks.

25 June 2011 at 21:03  
Anonymous Sov_Res said...

The supra-national community has laid in plans for Hungary's demographic decline that are already years old.

The UNHCR has already moved large parts of its operation and staff from Geneva to Budapest pre-emptively.
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e48dd76

The EU also has dedicated "refugee" funding and legislation tailored only for Hungary.

The Magyar's have every right to be worried, but most are blissfully ignorant of the immigration driven reality that is about to hit them.

25 June 2011 at 21:07  
Anonymous AndrewFinden said...

@DanJo: "Not only does the foetus not have language, it doesn't have consciousness for much of its development. That is, its interests are hypothetical in some way or other."

So anyone who is unconscious or lacks the ability to speak forfeit's their membership of homo sapiens, and their interests become hypothetical??

"A related phrase could be used in the 'mouth' of the unconceived of a couple: "Don't use contraceptives, let me live!"

False comparison. A foetus is a living being of the species homo sapiens. An unfertilised egg and sperm are not. The issue is not whether abortion kills the foetus - that is a fact - the issue is whether a foetus is a human being - a person - with the rights thereof. I fail to see how a being that is human is not a human a being, though.

25 June 2011 at 21:42  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Brilliant post, Your Grace.

Perversely this latest exercise in hubris by the EU Commissars is further polarising opinion against them and all their works. The chaotic state of the Eurozone seems to have finally persuaded the British political elite that the EU is a total disaster from which Britain must eventually withdraw. In the meantime, it seems to have become conventional wisdom to regard the EU as a glass half-empty rather than a glass half-full. The EU no longer has the benefit of the doubt in the minds of the elite. Even Dave tried 'very hard' and successfully to keep British taxpayers money out of the Greek vortex.

Opinion is shifting in other quarters too.

Your communicant was astonished to read that in a poll of members of Sinn Fein in Ireland, 49% thought that Ireland would be better off back in the Sterling area. If this is also the considered view of the cold-blooded killer that heads Sinn Fein, whatever next?

25 June 2011 at 21:46  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

It's ironic since Europe will soon be desperate to convince women to have children. But the assault on maternity has accomplished its work. Children have become a cost to be minimized, and not a gift to be received. The desires of the self have been prioritized above all else. Secularists don't have much to live for beyond the self, after all - the self being the sum total of their existence. And Europe is nothing if not aggressively secular.

There was a story out of Montreal last week about a neighborhood voting to prohibit a small expansion of a Hasidic synagogue. You could feel the grip of fear on the secular community towards the Hasidim, and their 5.6 children per family. This sterile hedonistic community likes things just the way they are, and here come these religious fanatics threatening to take control with their 5.6 children per family. Eventually the demographic imbalance catches those too selfish and too self-centered to invest themselves in children. The world is harsh that way. Except for the Islamic population of Europe, however. The Islamic immigrants still have children. They will observe the degenerate syphilitic drink-sodden and above all weak culture in which they reside, and say "Why should we end up like them? Come, they are pathetic. We can seize their wealth, and throw them in the street. We have served them, but now they will serve us."

Europe is going to know this fear, and soon. It will lash out at the rising tide like a man might strike at the rising water in his boat. But the tide will take no notice of his violence. It obeys natural forces that men cannot simply will out of existence no matter how hard they try. Acceptance of the unchosen obligation to receive and care for one's children is a necessary condition for a culture to survive. The culture of contraception and abortion and fornication has wrought nothing but many orgasms and no children. One of the wealthiest cultures on Earth has simply decided to opt out of parenthood. Soon they will discover they cannot maintain what they have without investing in the future, but the knowledge will come too late.

This is how a civilization dies. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to put a condom on its tombstone.

carl

25 June 2011 at 22:45  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Like the symbology YG, a bloated EU

25 June 2011 at 22:55  
Anonymous Orwellian Prophet said...

The design of this building tells us quite a lot about the character of its sponsors. Its grey inflexible steel “heart” a fittingly grotesque portrayal of totalitarian heartlessness. Chillingly uninviting, like the political monstrosity that spawned it. It will be an appropriate temple for this corrupt, duplicitous, insatiable Marxist Eurocracy, assuming that there will still be a European Project for them to preside over. When the empire finally collapses it will stand as a monument to political and economic folly.

25 June 2011 at 23:13  
Blogger DP111 said...

Brilliant post

25 June 2011 at 23:23  
Anonymous Sov_Res said...

Looked into this further. These Hungarians who are being disgustingly censored are attempting to do something very slight.

1,500 couples in Hungary are looking to adopt. Abortions in Hungary are 43,000 per annum. Down from a high of 73,000 in 1997 but still many times the European average.

It is estimated that since the 1950s, 6 million abortions have been carried out in Hungary. (This made me shudder Danj0) Some seek to moderate this trend and "SILENCE!" comes bellowed from Brussels by the EU justice commissioner.

Very moving comment carl.

25 June 2011 at 23:48  
Anonymous MrJ said...

The thing evolves like a sick soap opera: the outline was already there before the Treaties were drawn up. Year by year the scriptwriters dream up another episode to denigrate the people. Parts and persons are carefully matched: President, High Representative for Foreign Affairs; while the peoples are helpless with stupefaction.

From episode to episode, the performers are as deaf to the peoples as screen actors are to the viewers.

It pollutes the air with a poisonous miasma which must be inhaled. The worst affected decline into Delirium EUssr or Dementia EUssr, and for these a need is seen for somewhere to provide a 'humane gathering place' furnished with 'diversity carpet' and an image of lifegiving becoming deathbringing.

The end seems to be drawing nigh. Doomsaying, naysaying and gainsaying become the principal activities and pastimes.

How to devise a crowd pleasing de'nouement with Deus ex Machina? Will an episode bring the peoples the long talked of Droits de l' Homme before too late: the People's Deliverer, from all their ills and to all their wants, desires and appetites?

26 June 2011 at 00:07  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Brilliant post, Your Grace.

Mr. J:How to devise a crowd pleasing de'nouement with Deus ex Machina? - This is one of my suggestions for filling the narrative gap at the end of "House of Fame" -- our Chaucer left the telos to future audiences
but, as ever, he was way ahead of the game!!

In the meantime --- enmeshed as it is in a net of steel, I suggest a hysterectomy for the euthingy!

Though it would be better to cut the life support system
altogether. Even if its futuristic progeny will be of the test tube variety, no point in leaving them or their matrix vulnerable to adoption by some perverted entity.

26 June 2011 at 01:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Goodness me, the monstrosity looks like something designed by The Borg.

Similarities between the EU and The Borg? In encounters, they exhibit no desire for negotiation or reason, only to assimilate. Exhibiting a rapid adaptability to any situation or threat, with encounters characterized by the matter-of-fact statement "Resistance is futile" (as Ireland discovered when asked to vote again)!
The collective consciousness not only gives them the ability to "share the same thoughts", but also to adapt with great speed to defensive tactics used against them.

Spooky or what?

Ernst

26 June 2011 at 02:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AndrewFinden: "So anyone who is unconscious or lacks the ability to speak forfeit's their membership of homo sapiens, and their interests become hypothetical??"

No, of course not. Though someone whose consciousness has gone permanently no longer has interests in the way others have. Any interests they have are from when they were mentally alive.

"The issue is not whether abortion kills the foetus - that is a fact - the issue is whether a foetus is a human being - a person - with the rights thereof."

Well, the issue was the use of language like that as though a foetus were a person with interests. As you say, an important issue is whether a foetus is a person with rights.

Obviously it is not at the moment with our codified form of rights but people assert that it is and the rights are not recognised. But that has its own problems.

The article below talks about the charity LIFE, and their website accepts that a foetus may be knowingly killed, say through the use of chemo, in order to save the life of the mother. As long as it is not killed intentionally then it is acceptable to them. What's your take on that if both have rights of the person? Why would the foetus 'get it' in that case and not the woman?

26 June 2011 at 05:52  
Anonymous Homo Hamed said...

I am confused by the opposition to pro life morality.

Perhaps some statistics would help?

Does anyone have stats on the social class, marital status and ethnicity of women who abort, by EU nation?

Is this a eugenics programme? Or genocide?

26 June 2011 at 07:25  
Anonymous Homo Hamed said...

I recently read that since legalisation the Uk has carried out around 6 million abortions.

A number that resonates, don't you think?

Now what does that sound like?

26 June 2011 at 07:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a Catholic I must say that the infatuation of the Pope with the EU is disastrous. It is with the billions in bribe money for all and sundry provided by the EU and the cover provided by its dastardly 'Human Rights' regime that the EU has proceeded to foist abortion, sodomites and in general an anti-Christian atmosphere on the poorer countries of Europe. Does he not see this?

Ivan

26 June 2011 at 08:02  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Homo Hamed (07:25, 26). The horror is coming out of concealment, but how long can it remain unseen, and then continue by stealth in another cloak?

non mouse (01:31) That puts me in mind that the design for this structure and the utterances quoted could be considered by some a mockery or travesty of Orthodox "Theotokos" and Papal "Immaculate Conception", and by others as promotional propaganda.

Imagine a collage based on the third image in the Cranmer-piece, topped with a EUssr flag and over drawn with an image based on "Theotokos" (such as at fine art america: the-inexhaustable-cup julia-bridget-hayes; or Mother of God of Oinoussai, John Snodgren), or on "Immaculate Conception" (such as St Peters basilica, Immaculate Conception Altar; or National Gallery, Juan de valdes Leal "...with two donors").

Could be as explosive as a cartoon of the Prophet.

26 June 2011 at 08:22  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Not an EUterus but a spastic colon. The only thing that swollen monstrosity will hold is the soulless arsehole of Europe. A big black political sphincter that dumps on the rest of us from a very great height and not a single, decent colo-rectal surgeon in sight...

26 June 2011 at 08:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Homo: "Perhaps some statistics would help?"

Well, the UK produces abortion statistics in some detail.

26 June 2011 at 08:46  
Anonymous IanCad said...

YG: It is much easier to take over an organization and change it from within, than to start from scratch. Benedict knows this, as do the bishops. The cultural commonality of the EU is profoundly Roman Catholic. That is why the Pope dissembled against the admission of Turkey, a robust nation of seventy million tough and hardy Islamists whilst agitating for the entry of Poland, Hungary and Croatia.
The Holy Roman Empire is being revived. Given a great crisis; war, famine, disease - it will come- and Rome will rise again to direct kings and rulers and the souls of men.

26 June 2011 at 09:44  
Anonymous Rodney Atkinson said...

Your Grace asks why the Vatican should lure Catholic countries like Croatia, Poland etc into the increasingly anti Christian EU. The answer is that the Vatican hates the nation state. From 1865 it sought to destroy the embryo Italian nation state because democratic nations broke up the Vatican's direct imperial control over the peoples of Europe. The Vatican seeks to re-assert that control - and is prepared to swallow the evils of abortion, secularism and much else on the road to that EU State within which it has always in theory at least enjoyed a privileged seat.

Rodney Atkinson

26 June 2011 at 09:59  
Anonymous Graham Wood said...

"And they left off to build the city
(Gen.11:8)

This second Babel will suffer the same fate as the first.
In a few short years it will be nothing but a rusting hulk, a spectacle for passing tourists.

The writing has been on the wall for many years. The EU's destiny has been determined by the smallest of its own acolytes - Greece.
The EU political 'elite' might just as well pay off the builders now, and save the Belgian taxpayers another massive penalty.

26 June 2011 at 10:03  
Anonymous berserker-nkl said...

It looks to me like one of those early 18th century balloons. Will someone untether it and let it float up to the heavens (with a full compliment of officials) and never to be seen again.

I agree with several of your correspondents that the Vatican is playing a long game. I also agree with 'John in Cheshire' that the Devil is up and about. As Andre Gide said... it is illogical to believe in God and not the Devil.

Getting away from the subject a bit... why are so few women concerned about the EU and Islam? It seems to me that your bloggers are almost all male.

26 June 2011 at 11:18  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

When I was looking into those Magyar Hun a couple of year ago, I happened across a marvelous film footage of an isolated Kingdom called Hunza in modern day Pakistan.

Although Islamic now, they claim an Alexandrian Greek heritage.

26 June 2011 at 11:19  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

National and Pan-national Socialism are both Death Cults, this irrespective of there obvious obsessions with EUgenics, wars, and murdering unborn children.

The EU is not only a wholly fascist/corporatist organization, it is becoming ever more 1940's stile NAZI in its proclamations.

Although I have little doubt that the majority of European people do not want to live in a Orwellian nightmare, it would seem that our ruling elites have other plans for humanity.

Plans that not only involve the negation of democracy, and pandemic warfare, but also genocide of a so far unseen magnitude.

However; as many ordinary German people found to their horror over 70 years ago; it is one thing to notice the train coming down the tack, it is quite another working out how to get safely off the track.

26 June 2011 at 11:56  
Anonymous Christopher said...

Something looks... Unhuman about it. Looks like a hive.

26 June 2011 at 12:17  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Perhaps the Pope feels like it is easier to change the EU if it is comprised of Christian nations rather than the feckless Western European nations.

The fact is, whatever we in England feel/want/do the EU is going to remain. Bar us and possibly Ireland, the EU has popular support throughout the European peoples (perhaps partly because of their socialist leanings, partly because they have finally gone more than 10 years without a war). Given that it cannot be dismantled easily, it is far better to change it.

The Pope may see his attempt to help the EU improve it's morality and finally acknowledge its Christian heritage, or it might backfire spectacularly. At least he's trying to do something though. He has far less persuasive power than you think :/

26 June 2011 at 12:52  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

AB Cranmer said ...

" ... why did the Pope lure Ireland into the EU's rotten heart? Why lead Poland into mortal sin? Why are the bishops positively effusive over ever closer union? Why deceive Hungary into believing that they can lead a Christian club? Why lure Croatia into what is manifestly a profoundly anti-Christian secular political cult?"

Nort sure about the words "lure" and "deceive" but then I'm getting used to your peculiar views about Rome.

Maybe entry is being encouraged for the same reasons the Vatican is opposed to Turkey's entry, i.e. with more Catholic influence it might be possible to counter the more secular influences.

26 June 2011 at 13:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

referendum NOW

26 June 2011 at 13:54  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

Do keep up. The Pope supports Turkish entry to the EU. How, then, do explain that?

And, once again, you show nothing but your own bigotry. Just examine the OED dfinitions of the words you quote, and then ask yourself why you omitted words like 'lead' and 'effusive', which appear in the same paragraph. And, if Ireland was not 'lured', what verb would you employ for the Pope's lead on their referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

26 June 2011 at 14:06  
Anonymous Paul said...

That building looks like a monstrosity to me !

26 June 2011 at 14:15  
Anonymous MrJ said...

"... Vatican is playing a long game." (11:18)

If some of the above is correct we are on the way to seeing the Security Council places of this country and of the French Republic usurped by (surrendered to) a Papal Nuncio, and it will not be long before this comes out into the open. Then there is the matter of a Concordat with a Caliphate.

Unless outflanked by someone from the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Has everyone except Vaticanese adherents, brokers and agents forgotten the Investiture Contest, Canossa, Unam sanctam and the rest?

26 June 2011 at 15:15  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr AB Cranmer

Bigotry to point out your consistent anti-Catholic position? How on earth a post on a building concluded with an attack on the Vatican is beyond me.

I stand corrected on the Vatican's position regarding Turkey. Thank you.

Maybe the Vatican see Turkish entry to Europe as preferable to a neo-Ottaman foreign policy. This could be a bigger threat to the West and to Christianity.

Words, words ...

"Lure" and "deception" even you must accept that taken together these words conote a dishonest enticement and false attraction towards some objective for hidden purposes?

Are you really accussing the Pope of wilfully misleading the Irish people over the Lison Treaty and that he has some hidden motive in mind for Ireland and similarly for Hungary and Croatia?

I would use the term "encouragement" in the sense of expressing a favourable opinion and support and approval. It has no suggestion of deceipt or enticement.

26 June 2011 at 15:45  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

You refer (again, to the point of tedium) His Grace's 'consistent anti-Catholic position'.

How then do you explain this, this, this, this, this, this or this (to link to just seven - there a very many more)?

And you assert, in your spiteful, bigoted and prejudiced anti-Anglican manner, that His Grace is 'consistently ant-Catholic'. You see, the evidence belies your bigotry, but you will not retract because the irrational bigotry is quite clearly yours.

You are no longer welcome to His Grace's blog: it is a place for reasoned and intelligent discussion. You have consistently shown yourself to be incapable of discerning goodness or perceiving reason, or of comprehending the motive for rational and constructive criticism. Please, go and spout your spiteful bile elsewhere. Doubtless The Telegraph will embrace you.

26 June 2011 at 16:18  
Anonymous IanCad said...

HG. Said:
"Do keep up. The Pope supports Turkish entry to the EU. How, then, do explain that?"
Oh Dear! This requires a little further study. I had not seen the PTP article which is in obvious conflict with other sources.
It would be great if Benedict would post on this site to clear it up!

26 June 2011 at 16:22  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr AB Cranmer

What if I humbly retract and promise to try to do better in future?

26 June 2011 at 16:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's quite bad form to openly criticise the blog owner you know, Mr Dodo. :)

26 June 2011 at 16:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Give Dodo another chance - a yellow card, not a red!

26 June 2011 at 16:50  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

His Grace doubts that you are being sincere, not least because you have neither retracted nor apologised. Instead of engaging with the evidence placed before you, your knee-jerk reaction was to fire off ad hominem (duly deleted) and now you merely venture a question into the possible consequences of retracting and apologising.

Really (and most sincerely in Christian fraternal love) this is not the blog for you. Please just recognise that and join a fellowship more conducive to your prejudice and anti-Anglican temperament.

26 June 2011 at 16:51  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr AB Cranmer

I do apologise for misunderstanding your position and having read the references you cited, accept your position vis a vis Rome is more complex than I perceive.

I take it on the chin that I have evidenced 'prejudice' against you i.e. having an unreasonable preconceived judgment or conviction about the meaning of some of your posts. I will add though that I'm not, as far as I am aware, prejudiced against the 'Anglican temperament', as I understand this.

In summary, I offer an unreserved apology for the reasons given above and an honest committment to being more considered in the future and to thinking before pressing the post key.

26 June 2011 at 17:07  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

Apology accepted.

Though His Grace remains convinced that you would be better to fellowship elsewhere. Really, do consider that.

Only a few days ago you left the distinct inference by one of your snide comments that Mr J and His Grace were one and the same. His Grace is sure Mr J will correct you on that. You appear ill at ease here; every article is perceived by you to be 'anti-Catholic', and your tedious mantra has the effect of limiting freedom of speech and expression.

26 June 2011 at 17:17  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr AB Cranmer

Thank you for accepting my apology.

I will, of course, give consideration to your advice about my future conduct and indeed whether this is blog is best suited to me.

26 June 2011 at 17:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo's been plucked and well and truely stuffed ready for a good roasting!

26 June 2011 at 17:43  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I think I can offer a brief translation of HG's latest comment to yourself (I'm asking for trouble, I know, but I can't resist it);

Piss off.

26 June 2011 at 18:07  
Anonymous MrJ said...

MrJ, noting Archbishop Cranmer (16:51), has no hesitation in confirming that he and Archbishop Cranmer of this blog (or any other existence) are not one and the same, and desires to be permitted to repeat his comment at 23 June 2011 14:33 (under Cranmer 9:11).

"At the risk of boring any who have followed previous attempts to help Mr Dodo get over an unhappy tendency to make misguided comments: MrJ disclaims the honour of being identified with "Mr Cranmer's personal secretary" (13:59) (or any other person who may be one of his staff, household or affiliates)..."

26 June 2011 at 18:33  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I'm anti-catholic, does that help?

26 June 2011 at 18:38  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Have we seen the last of the last Dodo.

26 June 2011 at 19:04  
Anonymous Sov_Res said...

There's nothing more unseemly and sycophantic than when people on a blog gang up on a particular commenter.

Dodo has been chastised by His Grace, and delivered an unreserved apology - rare indeed - and left the field.

I see no reason why everyone else should feel the need to chip in. Including me. So I'll shut up.

26 June 2011 at 19:17  
Anonymous Oswin said...

As for the edifice in question, it belongs in an episode of Dr. Who. Most decidedly sinister!

It is more like a blast-furnace than a womb; or perhaps an oven even?

26 June 2011 at 19:19  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"Dodo,
I think I can offer a brief translation of HG's latest comment to yourself (I'm asking for trouble, I know, but I can't resist it);
Piss off."

Thank you, English Viking. I have always appreciated your plain speaking.

English Viking also said...
"Dodo,
I'm anti-catholic, does that help?"

Really? I had no idea! Wonder how I missed that!

I've apologised for my behaviour and had the apology accepted. I've always understood this to mean a line is drawn under past conduct and a fresh start made.

26 June 2011 at 19:31  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Fair enough.

26 June 2011 at 19:33  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Ha, Mr. Dodo, the release of the confessional! :o)

26 June 2011 at 19:36  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Thank you English Viking.

Indeed, Mr Oswin! My firm purpose of amendment now has to be matched by avoiding those occassions that might prompt a repitition!

26 June 2011 at 19:43  
Blogger Frau Farbissina said...

It is Dr Evils' new lair where he and his team rules the world, extorting money from all the silly little governments and arresting their people who protest.


Where are the fembots?

26 June 2011 at 20:05  
Anonymous avi barzel said...

Worth repeating:

"This is how a civilization dies. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to put a condom on its tombstone." (carl jacobs, 25 June 2011 22:45)

26 June 2011 at 20:16  
Anonymous avi barzel said...

Worth repeating:

"This is how a civilization dies. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to put a condom on its tombstone." (carl jacobs, 25 June 2011 22:45)

26 June 2011 at 20:17  
Anonymous Florence said...

I noted the earlier comment about no women having posted and so just wanted to confirm that as a mother of three on earth and one 'gone on ahead' I think babies are actually very conscious in the womb. They react often to very loud sounds or movement or even being poked by a midwife. I think instinctively that it can't be true that they don't feel pain if they can hear sound, feel touch and even be soothed after birth by familiar sounds or music from the womb. May God Himself turn our hearts back to our children in this country and may we learn to welcome each one as He does.

26 June 2011 at 20:39  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

The above matter concerning Mr Dodo is closed. He has apologised; His Grace has accepted.

Any further comment on the matter will be summarily deleted.

26 June 2011 at 21:06  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Frau Farbissina asks: Where are the fembots? --- Delighting in euSSR's promotion of The Marxist Gynaecium, I imagine.

I still thing the best treatment would be Hysterectomy. Mr. J's Deus ex Machina would make a brilliantly creative prosthesis![26 June, 08:22]. Perhaps selected music could accompany the pastiche - and might include Monty Python's "Universe Song."

Thus assuring rejection of the monster, the deconstructionist effects of Blank Irony Disease on the euro-body would be arrested and all support to Brussels cut. Rehabilitation of euro motherlands would be a suitable follow-up.

That's if the Trumpets don't sound first.

26 June 2011 at 21:09  
Anonymous non mouse said...

sigh -- think.
And : The rejection... thus assured,

26 June 2011 at 21:12  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

It's interesting (and significant) that the central architectural feature of the EU Gov't should be identified with something as feminine as a Uterus. Normally gov'ts desire to project strength and power with their symbolism. Here we see a symbol of passive nurturing - perhaps even a return to pagan goddess imagery. I don't know if it was consciously chosen, but it does seem fitting for the new Europe.

carl

26 June 2011 at 21:26  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

EUterus? - more like a cul-de-sac I reckon - this I think makes more sense.

26 June 2011 at 21:32  
Anonymous Toby the Jug said...

When did the EU become a profoundly anti-Christian cult? The countries making up its membership if they want to uphold Christian values need to exert this on the EU. To accuse the Vatican of contriving to lure countries into this cult and into mortal sin is hyperbole. Vatican policy is open about its views on the EU and the direction it should take.

26 June 2011 at 22:45  
Anonymous The Elder said...

Why does that building have so much steel? It's like a fortress! What are they defending themselves against? Couldn't be the coming revolution by any chance!

26 June 2011 at 23:09  
Anonymous avi barzel said...

Yes, a uterus, or a snake trying to crush or digest something big. As the old adage goes, "never eat anything bigger than your head."

Mostly, though, it reminds me of a stylized mihrab (http://www.flickr.com/photos/swamibu/3517878833/), which wouldn't be entirely new, if one accepts the Gothic arch as the European version of that Islamic feature. Not that I'd like to compare this clunky new monstrosity to the soaring lightness of High Gothic and clasical Islamic architerctural styles.

26 June 2011 at 23:19  
Anonymous Petronius said...

I find myself in concurrence with Ivan's comment of Jun 26th, 08:02. I'm perplexed as to why the Vatican continues to show a broad support for the EU. Can it not discern that which I think I can discern about the EU?
The Vatican is, on some issues, the only body which continues to voice a principled, uncompromised stance, regardless of the prevailing winds of the day. Yet, on the EU, it seems like either they haven't "woken up asnd smelled the coffee" yet, or else my own opinion must be vastly in error. I cannot decide which is the case, because (naturally, as a RC) I have an inclination to accept and obey Vatican teachings - call it a sort of deferral, if you will. Yet on the other hand, everything I see and experience about the EU seems to be in stark contrast to any idea of traditional Christian ethics and teachings. This paradox certainly wakes me up, and leads me into a (hopefully temporary) state of confusion. On one of my shoulders, there is a voice saying "continue in obedience to Rome; this EU position is better understood by the Vatican than by yourself", and on the other shoulder, a voice says "Protest! The Vatican can, and has in this case, got it wrong re the EU".
Oh dear me, one is always asked to play such a direct part in these matters! I certainly see the benefit and holiness of obedience, yet should one stand silent when one's own conscience tells one that an error is possibly being made?
Yet, I'm sure the early apostles had to grapple with such questions.
May I ask the communicant Len for some advice from scripture on this, please. Many thanks.

26 June 2011 at 23:39  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Petronious

Forgive me for repying as your post was directed to len. However, I felt it might help you to know the Roman Catholic Church's expectation towards you in politics.

On matters not directly contradicting the doctrines of the Church you are free to act entirely independently.

The Vatican has a policy about EU integration, certainly not a teaching that you have to obey.

You are entirely free to hold and express whatever your conscience tells you about the EU.

The Vatican policy as I understand it is simply that a Europe united around Christian beliefs is a good thing. The more Christian countries that join, the greater the chances of achieving this. It seeks to articulate Christian values within the EU to counter the growth of the anti-Christian 'culture of death'.

If, on the other hand, you believe the bigger the EU becomes the more of a threat to Christian freedom it will be, then that's fine.

The Vatican neither claim nor desire any 'magisterium' status on the EU. Naturally, they would hope you considered their opinion but you are not bound to accept it.

27 June 2011 at 00:17  
Anonymous Petronius said...

No need to apologise; Your input is most welcome, Mr D.
"a Europe united around Christian beliefs" would certainly be a good thing. However, such do not appear to be the goals of the EU, as far as I can discern. If anything, the EU appears to be promoting a set of core values entirely at odds with those of Christendom (as our host His Grace has given evidence on many occasions).
I would hope that, at some point, the Vatican would proclaim words to the effect that "yes, a 'united Europe' is a great idea in principle, but what we are seeing enacted so far is something very much at odds with the scenario we would like to see".

27 June 2011 at 00:51  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Petronius

The entry of new countries where Christianity is more deeply rooted and their influence in the EU 'corridors of power', may turn the tide.

The Vatican sees the struggle in terms of moral and spiritual warfare and bases its political strategy on this. Rome's analysis of today's social and moral ills informs its policies and the expression of it's opinions.

Another example is the Pope's views about welfareism creating a 'culture of dependance' that weakens individual, family and community responsibility.

It will be and is directly outspoken on matters where doctrine is concerned. It has clear teachings on abortion, ethenasia, homosexuality, divorce, contraception etc. Roman Catholics would be expected to support these teachings in their individual lives and so far as they can, as citizens.

27 June 2011 at 01:10  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Sad to say (Mr) carl jacobs (21:26), however it may seem from afar or aloft, among those actually born and bred in the countries of Europe and continuing in residence, it is "fitting" because it is another, and blatant, pseudo-truth [sic, MrJ]. It was always so, but now even those who were deluded about it, have an inkling when faced with the current euro crisis, the situation in Greece, Italy, France, Germany, Ireland and all the others, whether actively or passively implicated: an outcome of what had long ago been recognised as the bad-housekeeping and rearing habits of this "nurturing" -- of doubtful origin, inspiration and intent.

27 June 2011 at 06:54  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Is a 'united Europe' such a good idea (Petronius 00:51)?

The self-styled European Union has shown the present generation how not to do it: what now, what next? Can diplomacy as practised by Stato della Città del Vaticano be relied on towards this end?

The inhabitants of the territories within the continent of Europe have been united in various ways, from the time of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, and in modern times from the Peace of Westphalia: the Swiss Confederation, the older kingdoms most of which have become republics, some latter day kingdoms. What could have been, and may still be, a healthier line of development would be what was started as the European Free Trade Area.

But a condition of all is serviceable world trading arrangements and a system of monetary exchange which is suited to it, and realistic domestic policies in matters of transport, welfare and so on. Sitz im leben in all things.

And such intractable poblems as the arms trade and the laws of monopolies, including patents for invention, also need close attention.

So also, the unequivocal affirmation of the State of Israel, and exposure of falsehoods about a right of return for "Palestinians".

27 June 2011 at 07:54  
Blogger len said...

It is the dream of man since Nimrod to set up a Kingdom ruled by Man,where God is 'second placed'so to speak. God is there but not as a Sovereign King but as a servant to man.
This Kingdom is a Political /Religious/ Kingdom. The religious part of this Kingdom will be a 'works based'religion which will include both Catholicism and Islam.Many others will join.
Both of these religions imply(not directly perhaps) that man can be God, man can 'work his way' up to God. This was the intention of those building the Tower of Babel
This(working a way up to God )negates Jesus Christ which is God`s only way for us to approach Him.
People like Blair and his' multi faith'doctrines are part of this 'tower 'men are building towards God ,whether Blair is a willing or unwitting tool in this process one can only surmise.
Secularists realising that God has been relegated to 'second place 'will join in with this process(in the name of toleration, rights of man etc)

The Bible (as always) is spot on with the prediction that this process would happen, and I (and others) can see this happening before our eyes.

27 June 2011 at 08:13  
Blogger len said...

The only obstacle that stands between Islam and Catholicism and other religions is the divinity of Jesus Christ it that is removed there is no obstacle.
Jesus says " I am the way".

'New agers' are saying there are many ways to God.If you add works to faith you have joined the 'club so to speak'

27 June 2011 at 08:25  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Well put, (Mr) len (08:13, 08:25)

Not in contradiction-- if a role can be found for Stato della Città del Vaticano, here is a proposal:

Participation in the development of an epistemology fit for the purpose, compatible with the canonical Bible, and putting that ahead of promoting or protecting the disputed papal claims in respect of theology or church government.

And, in the capacity of "Servant of the Servants of God", accepting, if offered, the appointment of the Pope (Vatican State Ruler) as Honorary Recorder of the proceedings and transactions, and Custodian of a duplicate copy of documents in a dedicated archive in Vatican City.

In my view, the importance of such a task cannot be overestimated.

A midsummer night's dream.

27 June 2011 at 09:52  
Anonymous Michael Fowke said...

Diversity carpet?! Is this for real?

27 June 2011 at 10:14  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

Catholicism isn't a 'works based religion' at all. As discussed previously, it holds Christ as Head in all things and the Vatican strives to apply His teachings rather than attempting to build a man made way to Heaven.

Mr J

Not sure I completely understand your post but as the Vatican is not a member State of Europe I'm not sure the Pope would be able to be offered any post within it.

27 June 2011 at 10:44  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Another misreading on the part of Mr Dodo. The proposal at 09:52 was not about states of the "European Union". It was of the divine world mission of the first Apostles according to the documentary record transmitted as "the Bible", including the witness of Elijah and the Prophets, of John and of Paul, and the Ascension and the event of Pentecost.

27 June 2011 at 11:07  
Anonymous C.S.P.B said...

DanJ0 said..."Not only does the foetus not have language, it doesn't have consciousness for much of its development. That is, its interests are hypothetical in some way or other."

Neither does a sleeping baby have language or consciousness. On the basis of this reasoning one could extend the current mass murder of unborn children to the living child and the sleeping Danj0 —whose interests, after all, are merely "hypothetical in some way or other".

27 June 2011 at 12:11  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

C.S.P.B: "Neither does a sleeping baby have language or consciousness. On the basis of this reasoning one could extend the current mass murder of unborn children to the living child and the sleeping Danj0 —whose interests, after all, are merely "hypothetical in some way or other"."

You're equivocating between the various meanings of 'consciousness' there, where one or other is usually gleaned from the context. Or perhaps I need to be explicit each time so there can be no misunderstanding.

What I am saying is that when someone becomes a 'subject of themselves' they gain an athical 'passport' to things. This is not just about being awake or being in non-REM sleep, it's about being able to mentally experience one's own life.

You are using 'murder' and 'children' in ways that are not typical. A foetus is not a child, and abortion is not normally murder unless, of course, you choose to define a zygote as a child and murder to mean immoral killing based on your own particular moral code.

Of course, claiming abortion is the mass murder of children is deliberately using emotive language to highlight your views but it does not inherently make the point you wish. The same can be said of ethical vegetarians who chant "meat is murder" at stands in the high street, it falls on deaf ears unless one believes in that case that non-human animals have the same right to life as human animals.

27 June 2011 at 13:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like the 'Transformers' meets The Matrix, meets the Daleks.
"Exterminate Exterminate!,The Machines will takeover".

27 June 2011 at 14:46  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

MrJ said...
"Another misreading on the part of Mr Dodo. The proposal at 09:52 was not about states of the "European Union". It was of the divine world mission of the first Apostles according to the documentary record transmitted as "the Bible", including the witness of Elijah and the Prophets, of John and of Paul, and the Ascension and the event of Pentecost."

Mr J you really must understand I am not as well versed as you in the Bible and the subtle application of texts from the Old and New Testaments.

In my simple understanding the mission of the first apostles was to spread the word of God and the good news about Jesus. I'm not aware they understood they had a 'political' role other than teaching the message of love.

Forgive me if I misunderstood you.

27 June 2011 at 15:31  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Now a perverse misreading by Mr Dodo. 09:52 has nothing to do with the first apostles having a 'political' role.

27 June 2011 at 16:52  
Anonymous MrJ said...

~~~MrJ said... Now a perverse misreading by Mr Dodo. 09:52 has nothing to do with the first apostles having a 'political' role.
27 June 2011 16:52

27 June 2011 at 16:53  
Anonymous MrJ said...

16:53 inadvertent repeat.

27 June 2011 at 16:54  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Mr. Dodo @ 19:43 - well said Sir, well-said! I am suitably chastened by your humility.

27 June 2011 at 16:55  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Quoting out of context is not always helpful I must confess, but this could be:

“I know what ’it’ means well enough, when I find a thing,” said the Duck; “it’s generally a frog, or a worm. The question is, what did the archbishop find?”

27 June 2011 at 18:23  
Blogger len said...

All this talking and about whether it is PC to kill an infant or not quite frankly, is sickening.
To me this is just an indicator of how morally bankrupt we are becoming as a Nation, and how far we have fallen, and continue to fall.
To describe infants as lumps of meat, or bunches of cells, or zygotes, or whatever points to the amount of brainwashing this person has been exposed to.
This is a deliberate attempt to depersonalise the abortion 'process'.
It is a true mark of a society how it treats the helpless and those least able to defend themselves.
To take life and turn it into death is surely the most satanic triumph of all.

27 June 2011 at 18:33  
Anonymous Toby the Jug said...

Mr Dodo

I'd like to know what Mr J means too.

What role is he suggesting for the Pope?

"And, in the capacity of "Servant of the Servants of God", accepting, if offered, the appointment of the Pope (Vatican State Ruler) as Honorary Recorder of the proceedings and transactions, and Custodian of a duplicate copy of documents in a dedicated archive in Vatican City."

And:

"The proposal at 09:52 was not about states of the "European Union". It was of the divine world mission of the first Apostles according to the documentary record transmitted as "the Bible", including the witness of Elijah and the Prophets, of John and of Paul, and the Ascension and the event of Pentecost."

Perhaps he might explain himself.

27 June 2011 at 18:49  
Anonymous Petronius said...

I agree, Len.
However, I think that most women who have abortions, do so, not because they deliberately want to commit a wrong action, but because they are frightened. They see an unplanned pregnancy as potentially changing their whole lives (as it will do) and taking away their freedoms (as it will do). Unless the father is willing to stand by them and support them (and unless they want to remain committed to that father in the first place), the unplanned pregnancy becomes a terrifying prospect for such women.
I am not condoning abortion by saying this, of course. I'm merely saying that we have a duty as Christians to be understanding, compassionate and forgiving to women who feel so trapped and scared that they have an abortion. And I think that the problem needs to be tackled not only by campaigning to reduce the time-limit for abortion (with a long-term view towards abolishing it) but also by trying to build a society where women do not need to view abortion as their only way out of an unplanned situation. (A very empirical and vague-sounding mission statement, I know, and I'm not sure how to go about such a thing, except (as a start) by remembering that as members of Christ's Body, we can strive to be the image of Christ towards our fellows).

27 June 2011 at 19:10  
Anonymous MrJ said...

(Mr) Toby the Jug: The explanation is simple enough, and follows from what went before:

"Well put, (Mr) len (08:13, 08:25)

"Not in contradiction-- if a role can be found for Stato della Città del Vaticano, here is a proposal:

"Participation in the development of an epistemology fit for the purpose, compatible with the canonical Bible, and putting that ahead of promoting or protecting the disputed papal claims in respect of theology or church government."

If that meant nothing, what followed would not.

If you were truly interested, you could try again. If not, not.

27 June 2011 at 19:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "All this talking and about whether it is PC to kill an infant or not quite frankly, is sickening."

Who has actually talked about Political Correctness? Names please.

Do you actually know what political correctness is, or is it like your (mis-)understanding of liberalism?

"To describe infants as lumps of meat, or bunches of cells, or zygotes, or whatever points to the amount of brainwashing this person has been exposed to."

That'll be me and I haven't been brainwashed, quite the opposite actually. I'm not religious at all and religion is one of the closest things we have to brainwashing in everyday life.

Zygotes are two gametes fused together. That is, an ovum and a sperm containing the set of DNA which eventually create the body and give rise to the mind of a person. They very quickly become blastocysts, then embryos, and then foetuses. This is technical language from biology and nothing to do with brainwashing. Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, foetus ... this is exactly what a human infant is in the early stages of its development. That you call it an infant at that stage shows the extent of *your* brainwashing.

"This is a deliberate attempt to depersonalise the abortion 'process'."

No! You have it arse about tit, you numpty. You are trying to person-alise something that is not yet person-al, at least until towards the end of the second trimester anyway.

27 June 2011 at 19:53  
Anonymous Petronius said...

May I respond to your statement re Catholicism posted at 08:25, Len: "If you add works to faith you have joined the 'club so to speak' "

Catholicism does not replace Faith with Works, not at all. This is a common misconception about RC'ism which I often hear. We are absolutely crystal clear that Salvation comes by faith in Christ alone, and not by us "trying to earn our way to Heaven" with our works. We understand that (part of) the very purpose for which God gave Moses the Law, was to show the Israelites (and us) that righteousness cannot be obtained by keeping the law, because man is intrinsically fallen and cannot keep God's law by his own efforts.
We agree with the Protestant affirmation that it is through faith in Christ, and by baptism into his death and resurrection, that we are enabled to 'put off the 'old man' and put on the new' and clothe ourselves in Christ.

We agree with you that this "shedding the old nature and putting on the new nature" is not merely symbolic, but just as we received sin and death through Adam, we receive new life through Christ.

But, having received this new life in Christ, we ask ourselves, what do we do with it? As Paul remonstrates in Romans, "should we go on sinning so that more Grace can abound? - Heavens, no!"
And if we look at where Christ talks about separating the sheep from the goats at Judgement Time, do we find it written that He will judge us according to what we believed (our faith)? No, Christ's words in scripture are clear; He will judge each person according to what they have DONE (their actions).
Now, without faith in Christ, all any of us can "DO" is act selfishly, but, armed with faith, we can do good and unselfish acts, as we are freed from the old Adam-nature. Thus, faith is the key, certainly, but the purpose of that key is to unlock the door of our actions, hence faith and action are inseperable. "I will prove my faith by my actions", as Paul says. Indeed, Paul goes to great lengths to tie the two things together and define their symbiotic relationship.

I feel that this "faith versus works" issue is the cause of much misunderstanding between the RC and Reformed churches. I admit that Catholicism, when viewed from a distance, can seem very much like a sort of Judaism, with all its rituals, bells, incense and statues/symbols. Actually, I have struggled with this aspect of RC'ism myself, as by nature I am very disinclined towards symbolism and ritual, preferring to go straight to the inner heart of the matter. But the rituals and rites of the RC church are designed so as to be accessible to everyone, not just me. If Christ Himself took a humble piece of bread and a cup of wine and said "this is my Body, this is my Blood", then who am I to disregard the simple, physical aspects, and instead, seek to "get to the heart of the spiritual thing"?

Anyway, I hope I have put forward the basics of my argument, Len. I really do think we RC's are closer to you, doctrinally, than it might appear. Thanks for reading, and I shall read your reply (if you want to give one) just as carefully and respectfully.

27 June 2011 at 19:56  
Anonymous Tobyt the Jug said...

Mr J

I have read the posts again, and again.

Lets say denominational differences can be set aside and Christians agree on a common 'epistemology'.

What is the role of 'Honorary Recorder' of the proceedings (what proceedings?) and transactions, (what transactions?)and 'Custodian' of a duplicate copy of documents in a dedicated archive in Vatican City?

It would help me if you were a little clearer - unlike Alice in Wonderland!

27 June 2011 at 20:10  
Anonymous C.S.P.B said...

DanJ0 said..."You're equivocating between the various meanings of 'consciousness'. This is not just about ... being in non-REM sleep, it's about being able to mentally experience one's own life."

A person in non-REM sleep, a person in a coma, an unborn child, and a zygote are all potentially able to mentally experience their own lives.

DanJ0 said..."You are using 'murder' and 'children' in ways that are not typical. A foetus is not a child, and abortion is not normally murder unless, of course, you choose to define a zygote as a child and murder to mean immoral killing based on your own particular moral code."

It might be that in countries like the UK, which have adopted a culture of death, abortion is not legally murder. However, if there exists an ethically significant difference between a foetus and a child please let me know what it is. I do not choose to define a foetus as a child, it IS an unborn child. A person is a person no matter how small. The ethical significance of the taking of innocent life is independent of age and size.

DanJ0 said..."Of course, claiming abortion is the mass murder of children is deliberately using emotive language"

No, abortion IS the "mass murder of children". This is a fact. As Andrew Finden pointed out, "a foetus is a living being of the species homo sapiens."

DanJ0 said... " The same can be said of ethical vegetarians who chant "meat is murder"...

False implication. You surely do not believe that unborn children are non-human animals...

27 June 2011 at 20:29  
Blogger The Last (Chance) Dodo said...

Oswin said...
"Mr. Dodo @ 19:43 - well said Sir, well-said! I am suitably chastened by your humility."

Very gracious of you to say so.

27 June 2011 at 20:51  
Anonymous C.S.P.B said...

DanJ0 said..."which eventually create the body and give rise to the mind of a person"

"create"?

Both the human body and the human zygote materially encode persons with the same dignity.

27 June 2011 at 21:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo

Mr J is trying to wind you up. Ignore him!

A well wisher.

27 June 2011 at 21:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

C.S.P.B: "A person in non-REM sleep, a person in a coma, an unborn child, and a zygote are all potentially able to mentally experience their own lives."

A zygote is an ovum and a sperm ie. two biologocal cells. Would you explain to me how those two fused cells mentally experience their own life please? I'm intrigued.

"It might be that in countries like the UK, which have adopted a culture of death, abortion is not legally murder."

There's no 'might' about it.

"However, if there exists an ethically significant difference between a foetus and a child please let me know what it is."

In the UK, viability is used to differentiate in terms of ethics between those things. That's quite common I think since it allows ethical dilemmas involving dependency to be solved. Personally, I think being a subject of own's life is ethically significant.

I'm tempted to throw out my real world ethical dilemmas yet again to see what you make of it. It completely threw a staunch anti-abortionist Catholic from the other side of the Atlantic when I last did that, bless him.

"I do not choose to define a foetus as a child, it IS an unborn child."

Well, good luck with that assertion.

"A person is a person no matter how small."

Yes. You have a fondness for truisms? The differentiator is, of course, what constitutes a person.

"No, abortion IS the "mass murder of children". This is a fact."

Yet we have many thousands of people having abortions but no trials for mass murder. How odd! There's something amiss with your 'fact'. Could it be, well, that it's merely an assertion from a religious viewpoint and not widely held in the UK? You know, I think it might be.

"False implication. You surely do not believe that unborn children are non-human animals..."

No I don't think so. There's no false implication though, you're perhaps just inferring incorrectly. I was using that as an example of what happens when someone is extending the meaning of 'murder' to mean what they want it to mean in order to support their particular views. It's a good example, I think.

27 June 2011 at 21:21  
Anonymous C.S.P.B said...

DanJ0 said..."Zygotes are two gametes fused together. ... This is technical language from biology and nothing to do with brainwashing.

Nor does it have anything to do with reality. It is the most naive and primitive description possible of a process so complicated as to dwarf in complexity all the works of man. That you seem to identify this ball and stick description with reality reveals the extent of your brainwashing.

27 June 2011 at 21:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

C.S.P.B: ""create"?"

Yes, create. Define. Enable. Is there something you're struggling with there?

"Both the human body and the human zygote materially encode persons with the same dignity."

Oh lordy, where do I start with that? I know: nowhere. It's essentially gobbledygook by the look of it.

27 June 2011 at 21:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Nor does it have anything to do with reality. It is the most naive and primitive description possible of a process so complicated as to dwarf in complexity all the works of man. That you seem to identify this ball and stick description with reality reveals the extent of your brainwashing."

With reality? They're descriptive terms. Open a textbook about human biology and they'll be there. No, really, open a textbook, I'm sure it'll help you. They're not abortion-apologist propaganda terms you know.

27 June 2011 at 21:27  
Anonymous C.S.P.B said...

DanJ0 said..."Yet we have many thousands of people having abortions but no trials for mass murder. How odd! There's something amiss with your 'fact'."

No. There's something amiss with the UK.

27 June 2011 at 21:27  
Blogger Philip Pennance said...

DanJ0 said... " They're descriptive terms

At such a primitive level that they are inadaquate for the purpose of making ethical judgements.

27 June 2011 at 21:32  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Tobyt the Jug (20:10). Thank you for trying. There would be no purpose in elaborating further. The passage about 'Honorary Recorder' and 'Custodian' can be omitted entirely if anyone prefers.

Perhaps you had also missed the final line: 'A midsummer night's dream'.

You may recall that 24th June is St John's Day. In the Book of Common Prayer the Collect for that day is

"Almighty God, by whose providence thy servant John Baptist was wonderfully born, and sent to prepare the way of thy Son our Saviour, by preaching of repentance; Make us so to follow his doctrine and holy life, that we may truly repent according to his preaching; and after his example constantly speak the truth, boldly rebuke vice, and patiently suffer for the truth's sake; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

For the Epistle: Isaiah 40. 1. The Gospel. St. Luke 1. 57.

Please do not expect me to expound on that here.

27 June 2011 at 21:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

C.S.P.B: "No. There's something amiss with the UK."

Yes, lots of things. Including with the use of abortion in my opinion; I think it is overused. But our abortion laws as they stand could be quite good if they were more rigorously interpreted. On the positive side though, we in the UK usually make ethical decisions collectively without direct recourse to religious thinking. That's a *big* positive.

27 June 2011 at 21:35  
Anonymous C.S.P.B said...

DanJ0 said..."Could it be, well, that it's merely an assertion from a religious viewpoint"

Speculation? Can you prove that I was not arguing, say, on entropic grounds?

27 June 2011 at 21:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Pennance: "DanJ0 said... " They're descriptive terms

At such a primitive level that they are inadaquate for the purpose of making ethical judgements."

Ethical judgements are made using values too. I think you're mixing up areas.

How are you getting along with the ethical dilemmas, Crux? Still caught like a rabbit in the headlights?

27 June 2011 at 21:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

C.S.P.B: "Speculation? Can you prove that I was not arguing, say, on entropic grounds?"

Can't be arsed playing silly forum-type games, sorry.

27 June 2011 at 21:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"A zygote is an ovum and a sperm ie. two biologocal cells. Would you explain to me how those two fused cells mentally experience their own life please? I'm intrigued."

C.S.P.B, can I ask this again please? I really am very intrigued!

27 June 2011 at 21:41  
Anonymous C.S.P.B said...

DanJ0 said..."It's essentially gobbledygook by the look of it.

I was merely reminding you that scientific models are essentially (non isomorphic) encodings of some subset of reality into a mathematical structure. I hope that clarifies.

27 June 2011 at 21:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, could you settle on a username please Crux? C.S.P.B, CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI, or Phillip Pennance? I can't see the point of variously swapping between them here other than for disingenuous and unethical reasons. Thanks.

27 June 2011 at 21:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

He of many names: "I was merely reminding you that scientific models are essentially (non isomorphic) encodings of some subset of reality into a mathematical structure. I hope that clarifies."

Well, that's one way of describing it I suppose. So, could you apply that, whatever it is, to the question I asked you about your comment:

"A zygote is an ovum and a sperm ie. two biologocal cells. Would you explain to me how those two fused cells mentally experience their own life please? I'm intrigued."

I'm filled with anticipation!

27 June 2011 at 21:49  
Anonymous C.S.P.B said...

DanJ0 said..."It completely threw a staunch anti-abortionist Catholic from the other side of the Atlantic when I last did that, bless him."

I call Red Herring (+boasting).

27 June 2011 at 21:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I call it poking fun at someone religious playing games with monikers. What is it with some of you guys?

27 June 2011 at 21:56  
Anonymous Toby the Jug said...

Mr J

Thank you for replying. If I understand you it is a Christianity free from denominational differences you are hoping for. Has this ever been so since the first Apostles?

I am not an Anglican so can you advise me of the status of the '39 Articles' and the 'Book of Common Prayer' within the Church of England and the wider Anglican community? Do they carry any authority? And the Archbishop of Canterbury, as 'first among equals', does he have a role in upholding Christian doctrine?

27 June 2011 at 22:07  
Anonymous C.S.P.B said...

DanJ0 said.."Would you explain to me how those two fused cells mentally experience their own life please? I'm intrigued."

Your question contains a number of statements. First of all a zygote is no more two fused cells than a hydrogen molecule is merely two "fused" hydrogen atoms. You are obsessed with primitive ball and stick models of reality. Nor, did I say that a zygote mentally experiences its own life. It is you, not me, who is using consciousness as a condition for personhood. Perhaps, you should explain how a comatose Danj0 would experience his own life.

27 June 2011 at 22:08  
Anonymous C.S.P.B said...

In answer to my question as to whether there existed an ethically significant difference between a foetus and a child DanJ0 said " In the UK, viability is used to differentiate in terms of ethics between those things.

Dan: My question deals with ethics —not law. You are answering a different question.

27 June 2011 at 22:18  
Blogger The Last (Chance) Dodo said...

Petronious

Well said @ 19.56.

If only I could be as balanced as you in setting forth the Roman Catholic faith's position. Once filled with the Spirit of Christ our very nature is changed and we reach out in love to others.

You have shown this has nothing in common with Islam.

27 June 2011 at 22:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Crux: "Nor, did I say that a zygote mentally experiences its own life."

Nn reply to my comment: "This is not just about being awake or being in non-REM sleep, it's about being able to mentally experience one's own life." you said this: "A person in non-REM sleep, a person in a coma, an unborn child, and a zygote are all potentially able to mentally experience their own lives."

Are you saying that when you said "potentially able" you meant "will be able to in future once a certain stage of development is reached", or something else entirely?

Given that I was talking about gaining an ethical 'passport' at a certain stage of development at the time, I can't see how either interpretation helps you. You're welcome to retract of course.

27 June 2011 at 22:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Crux: "Dan: My question deals with ethics —not law. You are answering a different question."

I Am? Ethics are about behavioural rules, of which laws are a codified form. In the UK, viability matters because a viable foetus could be removed from the woman if the woman's life is threatened by her pregnancy. That is, the foetus can become an independent being. You may be able to see why those ethical dilemmas I posted are quite important to understanding one's moral reasoning in reality now.

If you have an aversion to the BBC site then I can ask a single question which is a real world issue: if the woman's life is threatened by her continued pregnancy and the foetus is not viable at that point then who 'gets it' if it comes down to it: the woman or the foetus? I'm thinking of, say, a course of chemotherapy to treat her cancer here. If both have a human right to life in its simplest form then how is the dilemma resolved?

27 June 2011 at 22:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Architecturally speaking, the building reminds me less of a uterus than of an arse without a crack.

27 June 2011 at 23:48  
Anonymous MrJ said...

(Mr) Toby the Jug (22:07)

While I thank you for the courtesy of your further reply, it seems to be superfluous.

Perhaps I have led too sheltered a life, but is not "a Christianity free from denominational differences" what is commonly hoped for, so that it is de trop to ask such a question.

If you were truly interested in the questions about Anglicanism you would have little difficulty in finding authoritative answers in print or on the internet.

btw When referring to the "canonical" books of the Bible, I include the so-called "Apocrypha" and the book of Tobit. I had thought you were using a name in reference to that, but it was only a typo.

27 June 2011 at 23:54  
Anonymous Toby the Jug said...

Mr J

I have read the referred to articles and understand they not provide a dogmatic definition of faith.

In many places I find them confusing and ambiguously phrased and open to different interpretation and judgement. Is that the intention? Hence my specific question about the Archbishop of Canterbury given Article XX1 on General Councils.

I was also interested in your reference to 'canonical' books of the Bible as I understand some of those you've cited are not regarded as 'canonical' by Anglicans - or are you able to choose?

28 June 2011 at 01:14  
Anonymous MrJ said...

(Mr) Toby the Jug (01:14) You will understand I am no theologian, clergyman, seminarist or spokesman for the Church of England, and any reply I offer to your questions has no authority of that kind. I have mentioned elsewhere Lessing on The Education of the Human Race (17 June 14:00 comment on June 17 9:51).

1) Article XXI. "Of the authority of General Councils". As I read it, that is a statement of fact supported by undisputed documentary evidence, given what I (perhaps mistakenly) regard as the principle of "Sitz in Leben".

2) On canonical books, if you have not yet been able to find the information for yourself, you could try "Why Did the 1611 KJV Include the Apocrypha" on a website "Missionary Baptist Resource Centre".

I hope that will help you in the course of bona fide inquiry about the Anglican Church, but I would ask you to be good enough not to put further such inquiries to me.

28 June 2011 at 09:50  
Anonymous MrJ said...

(typo) Sitz im Leben

28 June 2011 at 10:50  
Anonymous Toby the Jug said...

Mr J

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I will pursue the lines of inquiry you recommend.

28 June 2011 at 11:51  
Anonymous C.S.P.B. said...

Danj0: You appear to believe that a foetus is a human being in development, but not "a" human life until a certain stage of development at which point it receives a "passport" (issued by the British Medical Association or other body whose members are often either ignorant, or in open violation, of ethical principles). Life and death decisions are based not on ethics, but rather on ill defined and scientifically meaningless criteria such as "foetal viability" —a sophism designed to appease consciences. How does one know if a foetus viable? Anencephalics are not considered by you as "a" human life, merely "human life" (with about the same ethical status of tissue). They lack the necessary "visa" to enter your world. You claim that "ethics are [sic] about behavioural rules, of which laws are a codified form." Yet, ethics deals with intentions and character, not just behaviour. There are laws that are questionable from an ethical standpoint. Ethics covers many behaviours (for example, many forms of lying, and in general many "sins") that cannot be subject to legal rules. This desire to limit the domain of ethics is often an attempt, perhaps unconscious, to avoid personal examination.

28 June 2011 at 13:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"[...] whose members are often either ignorant, or in open violation, of ethical principles)."

Which ethical principles? Or do you simply mean your specific religious ones?

"How does one know if a foetus viable?"

Exactly? We don't I expect. However, we know that at X weeks of development a foetus doesn't survive and at Y weeks a foetus usually does survive. Between X an Y, a couple of weeks in elapsed time, a foetus at the low end has a small chance of survival and the survival rate steadily increases.

"This desire to limit the domain of ethics is often an attempt, perhaps unconscious, to avoid personal examination."

Well, that's a slippery thing to say here. Not least, I have to point out, because you have steadfastly refused to entertain real world ethical dilemmas here despite repeated requests. Now, why is that? A conscious attempt to avoid personal and public examination perhaps? Because they're hard and an answer might show how you actually reason when you're out of your brainwashed religious paradigm?

28 June 2011 at 17:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Anencephalics are not considered by you as "a" human life, merely "human life" (with about the same ethical status of tissue)."

That is a common anti-abortion tactic of misrepresenting opponents. An anencephalic, indeed developing human life all the way back to zygotes, is not merely a piece of tissue as far as ethics are concerned for me. I'm simply arguing they do not have fundamental human rights like you and me which nominally have an equal claim on other people. In the case of anencephalics, we have an ironclad duty to treat them as human beings anyway if they're born. It would be extremely cruel to the parents not to, for one thing.

28 June 2011 at 17:13  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,
So now you are deciding who has rights and who does not?

The moral slide is very slippery once you let go of Christians morals, I expect you to pick up speed on the descend.
What next, the infirm,the disabled,those in their twilight years?, where do we stop?

Do tell.

28 June 2011 at 18:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Danjo, So now you are deciding who has rights and who does not?"

Dear god, you seem to round up the most stupid people in your coterie at times.

"The moral slide is very slippery once you let go of Christians morals, I expect you to pick up speed on the descend.
What next, the infirm,the disabled,those in their twilight years?, where do we stop? Do tell."

None of those things of course. No doubt as a devoted Christian you'll be burning people on bonfires simply for their beliefs if you get the chance again. That sort of rhetoric works both ways, you know.

28 June 2011 at 19:58  
Anonymous C.S.P.B. said...

DanJ0 said..."However, we know that at X weeks of development a foetus doesn't survive and at Y weeks a foetus usually does survive. Between X an Y, a couple of weeks in elapsed time, a foetus at the low end has a small chance of survival and the survival rate steadily increases."

There is no answer to the scientific question of whether an unborn child is viable —whatever that means. You claim that "we" know that at X weeks of development a foetus doesn't survive and at Y weeks a foetus usually does survive. This is simply not true. Survival very much depends on many other variables including the competency of the clinic. In reality, there is no scientific consensus as to what "viability" means. And, even if a point of viability existed, one can see no reason, philosophical or scientific, why an arbitrary instant of time should be important in determining the human rights and moral status of the unborn.

29 June 2011 at 01:14  
Anonymous C.S.P.B. said...

On 24 June 2011 20:56 DanJ0 said...
"I'd argue that aborting an anencephalic foetus is a morally acceptable act.:

28 June 2011 17:13 DanJ0 said... "In the case of anencephalics, we have an ironclad duty to treat them as human beings anyway if they're born."

Are not these statements inconsistent? Personhood does not depend on location. An anencephalic child is a person whether inside the womb or outside.

29 June 2011 at 02:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Are not these statements inconsistent? Personhood does not depend on location. An anencephalic child is a person whether inside the womb or outside."

No, they are not inconsistent: I don't think an anencephalic is a person in the way you and I are as it does not have a cerebrum. That is beyond a physical or mental disability not matter how severe. This is not a slippery slope no matterhow much the religious like to portray it so.

If the parents choose to go through the pregnancy to the birth then it has at least 'honorary' human being status to my way of thinking, although that may still allow the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment as we do with (say) human beings who are brain dead or in a permanent vegetative state. If the parents do not choose to go through the pregnancy to the birth then I think they should be supported with that.

29 June 2011 at 05:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"And, even if a point of viability existed, one can see no reason, philosophical or scientific, why an arbitrary instant of time should be important in determining the human rights and moral status of the unborn."

Not "one can see no [...]", you mean "I can see [...]" and that is almost certainly because you are religious. I ask you time and again to answer the ethical dilemmas I posted to see how you actually morally reason in real life. Your refusal is indicative, I think.

One of the differences I suspect between us is that I see human rights as constructs. They're constructed to regulate behaviour and are based on our values. They follow from our reasoning rather than being 'out there' from a god for us to find.

Human rights are hugely important to me. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is held to apply universally. In that respect, it is absolute even though it is not objective. I know the religious tend to struggle with that idea.

Ethics (I've been using the word in a particular way) are essentially about 'how we go on' in life. The fact that there are small areas of grey between the black and white of ethical rules is not a showstopper and ought not to be either. Other things have to come into play there I think.

You talk about the moral status of the unborn but that depends on one's moral framework. We need to be talking about ethics here since society does not have a shared and consistent moral framework. For instance, as an atheist I have no buy-in to your religious version; it is at best incorrect and at worst it leads to terrible moral decisions.

Also the 'unborn' covers future generations which have not been conceived. I'd argue that we have duties to future generations too, though they don't have human rights of course.

The conceived but unborn are not a single set to me, they're zygotes, blastocysts, foetuses at various stages of brain development, and 'nominally viable' in ethical status terms. You don't agree but, hey, I'm mostly with the status quo and you're not.

29 June 2011 at 06:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You know, I think I'll repost this again to highlight your refusal to answer or even acknowledge it:

"If the woman's life is threatened by her continued pregnancy and the foetus is not viable at that point then who 'gets it' if it comes down to it: the woman or the foetus? I'm thinking of, say, a course of chemotherapy to treat her cancer here. If both have a human right to life in its simplest form then how is the dilemma resolved?"

I invite any third party readers to infer stuff from that refusal.

29 June 2011 at 06:05  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,
Well, still no answer then.
If you are going to insult me please do a better job,I have had far better and wittier insults hurled at me!.Yours do not even come up to amusement level.

To turn the Womb, a place of life into a place of death is a triumph for the ability of Satan to corrupt the things of God don`t you think?.And to be able to get people to help and endorse the abortion process,Satan is certainly clever isn`t he?

All your 'intellectualising 'the death process is totally unconvincing to me but it has obviously taken you in.
To rip a 'foetus 'to pieces or to burn it alive is not an intellectual process but an act of murder.Sorry is that too emotional for you.?
To keep restating error will never make it truth, but I give you full marks for persistence.
What is your interest (which seems to be quite emotional) with the Abortion industry?, don`t have to answer of course.
Anyway try to do better with the insults you might be able to bring them up to a level which will be able to amuse me!.

Hope this helps.

29 June 2011 at 07:48  
Blogger len said...

I might add that I think the Women /girls who have been lured into the Abortion Industries 'soft sell' of their 'procedures'are as much victims as those who are' aborted'.

This is after all a 'multi million pound industry' with good reason to 'justify' their existence for financial reasons.

29 June 2011 at 08:19  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Len: "Danjo, Well, still no answer then."

An answer to what exactly? Look, I know you like to try to echo what I do, presumably seeing the success of it each time, but you have to set it in context as it simply doesn't work everywhere. You simply end up looking like a parrot, saying the words but not understanding what they mean. But squawk away, you numpty, it's mildly amusing to see you do it.

"All your 'intellectualising 'the death process is totally unconvincing to me but it has obviously taken you in."

You're devotedly religious, what do you expect? If you trash that underlying paradigm then you will free yourself to look at the issue properly.

"To rip a 'foetus 'to pieces or to burn it alive is not an intellectual process but an act of murder.Sorry is that too emotional for you.?"

Not at all. An act of murder? Well, the legislature disagrees with you thank goodness. There's a parallel I have already drawn with ethical vegetarians: they can show pictures, appeal to emotion, and so on but society does not consider meat as murder. With your dimness you'll probably be thinking I'm equating meat with foetuses there ... well, think again, it's a statement about claiming off-piste stuff is murder (i.e. unlawful or immoral killing) based on 'specialist' moral thinking.

"To keep restating error will never make it truth, but I give you full marks for persistence."

Yet I am supporting the status quo, by and large, and you are asserting an off-piste view. You don't think your comment is a bit silly on that basis?

"What is your interest (which seems to be quite emotional) with the Abortion industry?, don`t have to answer of course."

I have no more interest in the abortion industry than I do in stem cell research or proposals about assisted dying or gene therapy or vegetarianism. They're simply ethical issues of interest worthy of discussing.

I'm a little confused by your thinking that I have an emotional interest. I'd have thought I would be seen an unduly unemotional here given what I say about the ethical status of zygotes which you seem to consider as infants. You tie yourself in terrible conceptual knots over most things so perhaps you are just getting confused again resulting in what people sometimes call projection? I say zygotes are not infants yet you equate them with human babies. Who is the emotional one there?

29 June 2011 at 08:23  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

"This being the case, why did the Pope lure Ireland into the EU's rotten heart? Why lead Poland into mortal sin?


YG: Poland to vote on historic bill banning all abortions after massive grassroots campaign

29 June 2011 at 17:01  
Blogger len said...

' There can be no fellowship between darkness and light'.Indeed they are poles apart.
This is becoming more and more apparent, the gulf is widening between the saved and the unsaved, two Kingdoms, one of the dead, spiritually dead, and one alive in Christ.
Can we be really surprised that those in the Kingdom of darkness advocate death for the helpless in the womb.?

29 June 2011 at 18:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's only a matter of time.

29 June 2011 at 18:24  
Blogger len said...

Jesus said,(Revelation 22:13)

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

2 July 2011 at 12:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Whenever there is decay of righteousness O! Bharatha And a rise of unrighteousness then I manifest Myself!" Bhagavad Gita (Chapter IV-7)

It's only a matter of time before the Kalki Avatar comes to sort out the Kali yuga.

2 July 2011 at 22:10  
Blogger len said...

Not quite sure what that`s all about , sounds like something BITB might have said.

All false religions can be traced back to Babylon and Nimrod.Nimrod, and his wife, Semiramis, were the
prototypes for all gods and goddesses
that permeated all subsequent cultures and
societies.

3 July 2011 at 09:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Not quite sure what that`s all about , sounds like something BITB might have said."

Welcome to my world of listening to the religious of any type and their resorting to the own religious texts to make their points.

3 July 2011 at 09:48  
Blogger Rick Warden said...

I'd like to thank you for your informative article which I referenced in my own article:

EUterus and the Rebirth of a Global Dictatorship

http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/06/euterus-and-birth-of-global.html

The shape of the structure is similar to Babylonian foundation cylinders and, fittingly, it is believed the Babylonians also practiced child sacrifice.

4 July 2011 at 15:05  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older