Friday, August 19, 2011

Don't watch Diary of a Badman, or you'll go to Hell



This helpful chappy provides his mobile phone number, should any of His Grace's readers feel inclined to contact him. He appears to have an issue with a YouTube phenomenon called 'Diary of a Badman'. His Grace has never seen it, so forms no judgement about it.

But His Grace is increasingly irritated by Muslim preachers who persist in telling the Ummah that the 'kuffar' (non-believers) are 'less than animals'. If he were to read and study Genesis - one of his sacred texts - he would discover that there is no exegetical possibility that any man comes beneath the animals in the hierarchy of creation: mankind is given dominion. This 'imam' clearly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. But at least he hasn't been imported from Pakistan and is teaching them in English. Perhaps it's time for the Mosque of England to start 'licensing' imams.

65 Comments:

Blogger AncientBriton said...

My mother-in-law used to say that Hell is on earth. These fanatics help to prove her point by wishing to subject everyone to their tyranny.
It is time we said loud, clear and often that Muhammad was not, as is claimed, the final prophet of God. The Bible clearly warns against false prophets. There can be none after Christ.
http://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2011/07/life-of-muhammed.html

19 August 2011 at 17:11  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

"Whatever one believes to be the root cause or causes of the radicalisation of young Muslims, we all need to work together as this disease is indiscriminate: it attacks Muslims and non-Muslims. Blaming the "other" is easy, but taking a long, hard, introspective look in the mirror, that's the way of the prophets."
(Aftab Ahmad Malik - Birmingham Post)

Not sure your proposed 'solution' will help but I do share your irritation at the ignorance of these guys.

19 August 2011 at 17:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

We're all going to hell (from his point of view) whereas non-human animals aren't. Perhaps that's what he means.

19 August 2011 at 17:36  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

The Prophet drew on the Judaic and Christian sacred texts for inspiration (sometimes excessively so—the Qur’an relates the story of Joseph and the Pharaoh seven times when once would do; it would seem the Prophet ran out of inspiration and reheated tried and trusted revelations) but I’m not aware of Genesis as such being a sacred Islamic text.

That said, the preacher’s assertion that non-Muslims are less than animals is correct. Qur’an 98:6 states, ‘The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.’ The ‘People of the Book’ are Jews and Christians, and the ‘unbelievers among the People of the Book’ are those Jews and Christians who refuse to acknowledge Allah as the one true god.

The Undercover Mosque documentary reported a DVD featuring a sermon where the word kafir was described as ‘a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt.’ Non-Muslims are regarded with contempt by Islam, a contempt it would argue they deserve for rejecting Allah.

19 August 2011 at 18:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

I'd be interested if that nauseating individual ever comes on blog.

I would ask him what makes him think God would have chosen a paedophile to be a prophet. I know that many of the brown skinned types are barking - but give God some credit...

19 August 2011 at 18:16  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Thanks to Johnny for the information from the Qur'an. Islam has clearly followed on from the old Jewish idea of a superior race and that salvation is not available to others. However, with regard to the demonization of other peoples, we must remember it wasn't so long ago that Catholics in N. Irleand were regarded as sub-human and only entitled to unskilled jobs and housed in un-sanitary sub-standard housing. The political process gerrymandered borders so that a majority of catholics in towns like Londonderry could only elect one councilor while a Protestant minority voted in 13 protestant councillors. What this guy is preaching was standard in N. Ireland until fairly recently and continues in some pockets even to the present day. By the way, this in no way is an attempt to justify the I.R.A. murderers.

19 August 2011 at 18:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Shacklefree (19 August 2011 18:42)

Very good analogy. A mass immigrant people that kept it's identiy for a few hundred years in a new land finally had a chance to grab the land they were on. At the same time, developing a collective paranoia which still exists today (qv 'Proddy Dog', posts passim).

The next step for Muslim's in this country will be 'homelands'. The Islamic Republic of West Yorkshire anyone ??

Tis history from these islands repeating itself...

19 August 2011 at 18:58  
Blogger Jimbo said...

Your Grace, as a Calvinist, you should appreciate what this guy is saying. He is partying like it's 1545. And if the Church you founded still preached like this, maybe the pews would still be full.

19 August 2011 at 19:14  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Yes, we should be preaching intolerance of sin and reminding people of the reality of Hell.

19 August 2011 at 19:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jimbo (19 August 2011 19:14) Reminds me of a 1920s NAZI meeting - thereafter the SA would rush out and kick seven shades out of you...

19 August 2011 at 19:23  
Blogger Oswin said...

No surprises there. Islam appears short on irony too, I gather.

Let's not intellectualise too much here, he is what he is: the enemy! We may agree with certain of his points; but what the hell, almost every evil being since the beginning of time had a good idea or two.

19 August 2011 at 19:43  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

I checked out "Diary of a Badman". You would need to have some serious issues to get too worked up over it.

19 August 2011 at 20:13  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Sam Vega (20:13)—Would the treatment of Egyptian Christians, as shown in this video, be sufficiently serious?

19 August 2011 at 20:25  
Blogger Preacher said...

Shacklefree @ 19.22.
I totally agree with your comment, about preaching the word & the warning to repent.
too much that passes as preaching nowdays does not present the full gospel and bring salvation. We must be bolder in our speech, clear & ready to proclaim the truth.
But we must always speak in love, with compassion for those that are perishing, not in pride or arrogance.

19 August 2011 at 20:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Rottenborough - your video seen.

I can see now why the bible promised us a showdown between good and evil. The Muslims and the rest no doubt. I'll leave it to communicants to work out which is which.

Preacher - Praise the lord and pass the ammunition...

19 August 2011 at 21:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, the iman's message is defensive. His words are those of a man who is fighting a losing battle. Rejoice!

19 August 2011 at 22:11  
Blogger Gary said...

As an American, I find Great Britain to be pitiful. Before you get "stroppy" (as you guys say), I find the US not much less pitiful.
You (assuming you are a taxpayer) are paying for this bozo's living expenses, his healthcare, and for his family (multiple wives/kids).
When are you (and we) going to wake up and show these idiots what "less than animals" do to third world zealots who come to our countries and make trouble?

19 August 2011 at 22:27  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ bluedog (22:11)—a man who is fighting a losing battle

Islam is winning the only battle that matters, as this Hudson New York article shows. It looks at France but it could be almost any Western European country. A few tasters:

Islamic mosques are being built more often in France than Roman Catholic churches, and there now are more practising Muslims in the country than practising Catholics.

As their numbers grow, Muslims in France are becoming far more assertive than ever before. A case in point: Muslim groups in France are now asking the Roman Catholic Church for permission to use its empty churches as a way to solve the traffic problems caused by thousands of Muslims who pray in the streets.

Reflecting on the retreat of Catholicism and the rise of Islam in France, Archbishop Giuseppe Bernardini, an Italian Franciscan who heads the Izmir archdiocese in Turkey, and who has lived in the Islamic world for more than 40 years, has recounted a conversation he once had with a Muslim leader, who told him: ‘Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you.’

19 August 2011 at 22:33  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thanks JR. Not so long ago the French were hyper-ventilating against Le Defi Amercain. Life was so simple then.

19 August 2011 at 22:46  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

JohnnyRottenborough

Would the treatment of Egyptian Christians, as shown in this video, be sufficiently serious?

19 August 2011 20:25

It would, but that has nothing to do with my post. "Diary of a Badman" is a set of videos made by a teenage Muslim would-be humorist. It is mildly critical of his faith and culture. My point was that the preacher in Cranmer's video was getting worked up about nothing. You seem to think I am being dismissive of something you hold dear, yet I am being mildly dismissive of the Imam.

19 August 2011 at 23:07  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

For graphic illustrations of the threat facing Western civilization follow this link
http://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-what-evil-has-she-done.html
Click on "street" to see a video of the threat to France raised by Johnny Rottenborough above.

19 August 2011 at 23:30  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Sam Vega (23:07)—To him, it’s humour. To non-Muslims living in majority Muslim countries, it’s humiliation. I have no Christian axe to grind. I’m just anti-Islam.

19 August 2011 at 23:36  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Johnny Rottenburgh

"Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you."

Now me, I'd like to know what
Archbishop Giuseppe Bernardini replied to this comment attributed toa Muslim leader.

Do we abandon dmocracy and its core values and forbid Islam in Britain? I've got a bit more faith in God on this one than you appear to have.

Living in capitalist, democratic and secular country with toleration for differences in belief, will present a challenge to Islam. Christianity, in large measure, has been undermined by it and Islam will follow suit given time.

Policies should be directed at Islamic communities which seek to break down barriers. For centuries we persecuted and isolated Jews. It made them stronger and maintained their sense of seperate identity as a chosen people, with revealed truth and destined to rule the world. They lived together, worked together and worshipped together.

Given the size of the Muslim population, their status as British or European citizens, ways of integration must be found. In particular attention needs to be given to Pakistani youth. There are more liberal versions of the Qu'ran that need to be positively presented to both Muslim and non Muslim.

I am not recommending multiculturism, just accepting we are too far down its path now to switch to an aggressive 'British and Christian to live here' approach. To openly mock their faith and insult their Prophet and holy text will harden Islamism. It will make the problem considerably worse and play into the hands of extremists.

How far does our principle of religious tolerance and the right to follow one's conscience extend? Is it only applicable to Christians and atheists?

20 August 2011 at 00:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The problem is not that immigrants are having too many children. The problem is that the indigenous population is having too few. They have become saturated with secularism and can't find reasons to share their time or money with children. They are too busy indulging their own desires to bother. Gonads Über Alles. This is the natural consequence.

carl

20 August 2011 at 01:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"How far does our principle of religious tolerance and the right to follow one's conscience extend? Is it only applicable to Christians and atheists?"

And that's the point.

20 August 2011 at 06:46  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Thwe whole thing's murderous lying nonsesne - but then we ARE talking about religon, aren't we?

Ther is no "Hell" same as there is no "Heaven" and no "god" either.

However, I agree that the guy in the vidoe is a demented nutter.

20 August 2011 at 08:18  
Blogger len said...

Islam is a bit of an enigma and I am surprised at the amount of people who follow it without questioning its authenticity.(I suppose in fairness that accusation could be directed at all religions.)
If your religion cannot stand up to scrutiny then IMO it cannot be worth following.
Islam is based on the revelations given to a single man.Mohammed himself doubted where these revelations came from.

Islam takes its authority from the Tanakh and the Bible......but it then denies the truth contained with each of these.


No wonder Muslims are confused!.

20 August 2011 at 08:31  
Blogger Mary Whitehouse said...

My own hell is believing there is a heaven, where due to the shared God of Islam, Christianity and Judaism I will be witnessing live sex shows in the form of the Islamists having their way with so many virgins. I thought Jesus wanted me for a sunbeam, now it appears I'm the lighting crew to a porn video.

20 August 2011 at 08:34  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Gary, what is truly pitiful is the once great NASA has been relegated to a Muslim outreach organisation and AGW advocate. Man made global warming might cause alien invasion anyone?

20 August 2011 at 09:32  
Blogger len said...

There is no 'shared God'between Islam and Christianity.
The God of Abraham ,Isaac, and Jacob is definitely not the 'Allah' of the Muslims.

20 August 2011 at 09:40  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ The Way of the Dodo (00:21)—Do we abandon democracy and its core values and forbid Islam in Britain?

Would it be undemocratic to defend democracy against a religion that has no time for it?

I’ve got a bit more faith in God on this one than you appear to have.

Bully for you, but a God who hasn’t put himself out to protect Christians in lands that have become Muslim isn’t likely to bother about Britain. On the other hand, force has proved mightily effective in repulsing Islam; God helps those who help themselves.

Living in capitalist, democratic and secular country with toleration for differences in belief, will present a challenge to Islam.

An intolerant religion like Islam doesn’t see tolerance as a challenge but as a minor annoyance to be steamrollered.

ways of integration must be found

I’m indebted to Christopher Caldwell for this one: a European Islam will emerge—by dint of Europe becoming Muslim.

There are more liberal versions of the Qur’an

That’s news to me.

20 August 2011 at 11:01  
Blogger len said...

If we(Christians ) do not make a stand for Biblical Truth and have a love of the truth God will send us a strong delusion that we may believe the lie.

The compliance with watering down, diluting Biblical Truth is the long winding road to deception which is rampant in these last days and will eventually lead to a 'multi faith' prostitute Church.

Jesus says 'will I find faith'when he returns because He knows that Satan will release deceiving spirits in a last ditch attempt to derail God`s Church.

20 August 2011 at 11:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Bully for you, but a God who hasn’t put himself out to protect Christians in lands that have become Muslim isn’t likely to bother about Britain. On the other hand, force has proved mightily effective in repulsing Islam; God helps those who help themselves."

He does. In fact, he sometimes helps opposite sides to win in the same war! Apparently.

20 August 2011 at 11:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The question of whether we suppress Islam in the UK will be settled soon enough...

Anyone who thinks mass car bombings, assassinations and suicide missions are only confined to heavily muslim areas abroad should think again.

The really frightening truth is that the first generation of muslims here - the original immigrants who for years kept their heads down and were a credit to the nation will pass on. There will be liitle or no restraining influence from the second and subsequent generations, who maintain close relationships with their warring cousins.

And unlike the IRA campaigns here, don't expect telephone warnings, and the targets won't be property, it will be us...

20 August 2011 at 12:11  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

"Liberal" interpretations of "The REcital"?
Ask a Sufi.

In the meantime - youre all demented nutters, because big sky fairy, of any sort, doesn't exist.

20 August 2011 at 12:48  
Blogger Oswin said...

Greg: even if you are right, it's time to decide which ''demented nutters'' you intend to align with. Hey, when the time comes, you might even join-in a chorus or two of ''Onward Christian Soldiers'' - it's a good tune! :o)

20 August 2011 at 13:10  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Danj0 makes a relevant point “How far does our principle of religious tolerance and the right to follow one's conscience extend? Is it only applicable to Christians and atheists?" However, the important thing is not to confuse tolerance with forgiveness. Christianity is not tolerant – for example, it insists a man can have only one wife, that we should not steal or lie or have abortions etc. The fact that Christians and other people do these things and that Christianity offers forgiveness to the repentant sinner should not be seen as tolerance of the sin. In practical terms any society will have a problem with plurality. Should we as a nation accept that Muslims should be able to marry 4 women. I say no – I would be intolerant of a change in the law in that regard. Unfortunately, some laws of Christ such as the prohibition on divorce have been rejected in our society even by Christians. The word tolerance has been used to dilute Christianity and all our experimentation with the pluralist society has clearly failed. Jesus said “You cannot serve two master” and we cannot have a stable society based on two different philosophies – a society can only be stable when it follows a consistent ethic and previous statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury about Sharia law adds confusion not clarity. We previously had a Christian ethic in this country within which people of different beliefs could follow their own beliefs. Now that Christianity is being pushed to the margins we find muslims, secularists, homosexuals and others pushing a very aggressive agenda to get rid of Christianity from society and for example, abolish adoption agencies if they do not follow the secularist agenda. World-wide the U.N has been aggressive is denying aid to countries which do not facilitate abortion and artificial birth control. Experience has shown that freedom of belief has been more marked in societies where the underlying philosophy was Christian. I for one would certainly advocate Christian teaching as the basis of the laws in our society and I would agree that this is intolerant of other belief systems. I also think that we will have a more peaceful if we became more intolerant of some types of behaviour.

20 August 2011 at 15:13  
Blogger len said...

I would remind secularists that there are no 'forced conversions' in Christianity.I emphasise Christianity the ekklesia ,of Jesus Christ to avoid any mis- conceptions.

And if one opposes the ten commandments or God`s moral law could you point out which commandments you oppose and on what basis?.

20 August 2011 at 16:02  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

*Carl Jacobs 0:48

So we need to pump out more children as well. Tell me, won't that just make an over population problem even worse. What a ridiculous proposition! What is needed is a reduction in both ours and the global population. Start here by putting the brake on foreigners being allowed to live and breed in this country. Also stop using the Welfare system as a tool for irresponsible breeding.

If human population growth continues as it has, like a cancer, we will suck the planet dry of it's life giving properties.

20 August 2011 at 16:06  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Shacklefree

Secular laws based on Christian values and beliefs as the foundation of our society. Great if we achieve this.

Most religions, give or take, accept the "thou shalt nots" of the Ten Commandments but apply them differently. Even atheists who subscribe to the "selfish gene" hypothesis would too.

But what about freedom of conscience? Are we to restrict that to Christian interpretations concerning the legality of abortion, contraception, divorce, marriage, homosexuality? And which Christian interpretation?

Once you accept people have a right to interpret Christian scripture for themselves and to live according to their own understanding of it, you are tolerating individualism. Having done so, you must then allow people the right to decide how to apply the 'truth' as they see it or even to reject scripture altogether.

That's the conundrum for the post-Christion secular West. We want it both ways. The stability than comes from accepting a common belief system but the right to live independent of undue restaint. Do we tolerate differences and,if so, how much before our society fragments?

Benign or malign dictorship? Or the democratic, liberal 'market place' with the potential for anarchy this brings?

20 August 2011 at 16:13  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
Having just posted 'The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth' you now say' How do we interpret scripture?.'

Bet you cannot see the irony of that statement?.

Better stop here or we will start to go round in one of these meaningless spirals.Perhaps you need to think about what you have said?

20 August 2011 at 16:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Shacklefree: "Now that Christianity is being pushed to the margins we find muslims, secularists, homosexuals and others pushing a very aggressive agenda to get rid of Christianity from society and for example, abolish adoption agencies if they do not follow the secularist agenda."

I guess I need to roll out my standard declaration. I'm in favour of a secular State, I'm gay, and I'm a liberal. As such, I have absolutely no intention of trying to get rid of Christianity from society. A secular State is not the same as a secular society.

Also, I think you'll find that Catholic adoption agencies abolish themselves. It's very simple: They must adhere to the law like the rest of us but some of them choose not to. Hey ho. They turn their own lights out by their undue discrimination.

20 August 2011 at 16:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Shacklefree: "I for one would certainly advocate Christian teaching as the basis of the laws in our society and I would agree that this is intolerant of other belief systems. I also think that we will have a more peaceful if we became more intolerant of some types of behaviour."

No doubt advocates of Sharia would argue exactly the same way. A pox on both those houses.

20 August 2011 at 16:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo ( 20 August 2011 16:13 )

"We want it both ways. The stability that comes from accepting a common belief system but the right to live independent of undue restaint."

It's the only way to be...

20 August 2011 at 16:42  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Danj0, Yes we have a conundrum. Freedom of conscience has to be fundamental and that applies to Muslims, Mormons, Christians and even Christian crackpots. However when it comes to the laws of a society we need unity and consistency as opposed to sectarianism and anarchy. Whichever philosophical system you go for, you are inevitably going to displease some. For example, I don’t believe in Communism but I could live with it if it allows people freedom of belief. I personally have a real dislike of Islam but I would not proscribe it and so long as Muslims operate within the law we have to accept their right to believe. I don’t however accept the right of people to interpret scripture for themselves – this was explicitly ruled out by Christ (Matthew 23: 2-3) and Peter in one of his letters (forgotten which one). None of us are perfect and if there is a God he would have given us guidance through the structures he set up so there is a need for discernment and obedience by both priests and people. There is a lot of room for individualism. For example, the teaching of the Church may speak about justice for the poor etc but there is legitimate leeway in deciding the best way to implement that. The conundrum of the post-Christian West is that we have stopped being Christian. As Chesterton remarked “Christianity hasn’t been tried and found wanting – it hasn’t been tried.” Personally, I think this reflects well on the way the Christian God deals with his people – instead of calling for the amputation of arms and legs from opposite sides he recognizes the difficulties we are in, supports us in our efforts and came among us to take the punishment for our sins because he knew we were unable to pay the price.

20 August 2011 at 16:58  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Danj0, I’m sorry to have offended you – that was not the intention but we have to be clear and this is something that Christianity of late has been a bit wishy washy about. You have argued your case and you are honest about your position. I like to do the same and one of the reasons for a blog being so good is that we are all anonymous and can express our opinions honestly. However, there are no hard feelings and I appreciate your contributions.

20 August 2011 at 17:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Danj0, I’m sorry to have offended you"

I'm not offended and it shouldn't really matter if I were. I'm just writing comments robustly like I normally do. :)

20 August 2011 at 17:56  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len said ...
"Dodo,
Having just posted 'The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth' you now say' How do we interpret scripture?.'
Bet you cannot see the irony of that statement?."

Read the post again and I think you'll see I made no such comment. What I was considering was not Truth itself but who can legitimately claim to have understood it.

As you know, I believe Christ's words were directed to His Apostolic Church and should not be taken as licence to make up one's own theology.

I wrote:
"Once you accept people have a right to interpret Christian scripture for themselves and to live according to their own understanding of it, you are tolerating individualism. Having done so, you must then allow people the right to decide how to apply the 'truth' as they see it or even to reject scripture altogether."

Many claim knowledge from the Holy Spirit. God cannot contradict Himself so some must be wrong as they offer different messages.

I know where I look for guidance in understanding and applying scripture.

20 August 2011 at 22:22  
Blogger The Worker said...

The antichrist comes into our homes every night. Entertainment and advertising, driven more and more by the love of money, stirs our sinful nature sanctioning wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Our capacity to exercise prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, with faith, hope, and charity in our hearts, is assailed daily.

Can the Church compete with this instrument of communication?

20 August 2011 at 23:41  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
just cannot get it.

Catholicism makes up its own dogmas and ignores scripture when it wants to.Just a small example the second commandment (there are too many others to mention here)and you talk about truth?

I don`t know in all honesty how you cannot see how unbalanced your arguments are.Or else to see that your faith is a complete sham would be to much for you to handle?.

21 August 2011 at 00:45  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len
just cannot get it.

Who gives you, other assorted ministers, self proclaimed prophets and individually inspired individuals the authority to speak on behalf of God? How do you know your inspiration is authentic and comes from the Holy Spirit?

(Again, your example is absurd based, at best, on ignorance.)

21 August 2011 at 01:32  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
As with most of your statements the reverse is true.
Firstly what is the 'Church'?.

The 'church' is the body of Christ. Paul wrote to the Christians at Ephesus the following:

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1: 22, 23).

The fact that Jesus is the head to the church expresses the intimacy between Jesus and his church. The statement also articulates the idea of Jesus' authority. In the physical analogy, the body looks to the head for direction. The body without the head is out of control. Thus it is in the spiritual sense. Denominationalism is simply bodies without Jesus as their head, they are doing what they want to do and are not submitting to Jesus' authority and headship (Matt. 28: 18).


“When Christianity was transformed into a legal institution, it could no more be expected that communion, or fellowship with God and Christ would be the center of the ecclesia. The center of faith was transferred. It was taken from God and Christ, a spiritual union with Christ as head of the ecclesia, to the legal government of the Pope. The spiritual ecclesia was replaced by the earthly institutional church whose center was the Pope. In this church, the fellowship of Christians was no longer in the body of Christ that has life-giving union with him, and Christ was no longer the head of the body, his Church. With the establishment of the institutionalized Church, the worship of God in spirit and truth died out and was replaced by ritual and formal worship. The words at 1 John 2:27 could no longer be applied to Christians, for John had said, “and as for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to be teaching you. The anointing from him is teaching you about all these things.” (Kokichi Kurosaki)

21 August 2011 at 07:59  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Ien
I suggest you get medical help, if you really are that deluded.

21 August 2011 at 09:21  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Len, I think the Protestant position on divorce and predestination indicates that it is Protestantism that ignores scripture. If you add in the "interpretation" of the words of Jesus about his body and blood it is clear that there has been a lot of interpretation since the Reformation. Simply reiterating the old statements is a bit like atheists saying "Trust me, there is no God". There are lot's of places in the Bible where the Catholic interpretation is the most obviious from the words and which do not need to be re-interpreted for the people. Remember that after the Reformation Martin Luther suddenly discovered that giving people authority to interpret scripture let to a plethora of different doctrines such that he had to give the 'authentic ecplanation' to correct the errors. That's why he was called the Protestant Pope. Even in this blog we get different Christians offering different doctrines. Unity is not easy to achieve and clearly has not been a mark of Protestantism ever since it started. The current disagreements within Anglicanism make the same point.

21 August 2011 at 12:59  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

You've actually reaffirmed the Roman Catholic postion!

"Denominationalism is simply bodies without Jesus as their head, they are doing what they want to do and are not submitting to Jesus' authority and headship (Matt. 28: 18)."

Jesus entrusted His Church on earth to the Apostles. Why else did He speak His words to Peter and the Apostles? He explicitly commissioned Peter to lead His Church and to feed His people. The scripture is clear and uncomplicated on this.

21 August 2011 at 14:02  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Len said, "Catholicism makes up its own dogmas and ignores scripture when it wants to.Just a small example the second commandment". What does this mean? How does the Catholic church offend against the second commandment? With regard to making up dogmas willy nilly as you seem to suggest, how do you interpret the words of scripture "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it. I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven ...?

21 August 2011 at 15:07  
Blogger len said...

Who is the 'rock' on which Jesus Christ would build HIS Church.? There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?

21 August 2011 at 17:34  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
(sigh)
Catholicism is a denomination.

Because there is a direct connection between the redemption of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, it is extremely dangerous to confuse the work of the Holy Spirit as Vicar of Christ with the position or work of any man.

In the face of these awesome truths concerning the role and ministry of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ, it is horrendous to learn that the Vatican proclaims,

“The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (Catechism, paragraph 937).

Persuading men and women that Christ the Lord left a mortal man to be His vicar on earth attempts to gainsay the very purpose of Christ Jesus.

21 August 2011 at 17:49  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

Roman Catholicism is a "denomination" only because the Christian Church is divided. You follow your own "denomination", a "religion" with its "leaders" that you often quote, and pseudo-history.

You're not seriously suggesting Christ didn't refer to Peter by name and gave him special authority to lead a visible Church? This flies in the face of common sense and a plain English understanding of scripture. Please!

So far as the paragraph from the Cathecism you refer to, here are the preceeding and proceeding clauses:

935 To proclaim the faith and to plant his reign, Christ sends his apostles and their successors. He gives them a share in his own mission. From him they receive the power to act in his person.

936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth" (CIC, can. 331).

937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" (CD 2).

938 The Bishops, established by the Holy Spirit, succeed the apostles. They are "the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches" (LG 23).

Perfectly acceptable once seen as part of a coherent theology and based on Christ's commission.

The Pope is "the Servant of the Servants".

I'm afraid you'll have to begin by dismantling Apostolic succession and this means challenging the Church of England and the Eastern Orthodox Churches too.

21 August 2011 at 19:40  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Len, There’s no problem with Jesus being the rock, the cornerstone etc. but the quotation from Matthew comes after Simon has defined who Jesus is. “You are the Christ, the son of the living God” to which Jesus replied that flesh and blood had not revealed that to Simon and because of this he changes his name and states that you are Peter meaning rock. You may get into distinctions about feminine and masculine nouns but remember Peter was Simon up to this point and so renaming Simon to Peter surely has some connection with the idea of rock on which Jesus would build his church. The early history of the Church shows that the seat of Peter was given high honour among the early Christians. I defer to your greater linguistic knowledge but I think you are stretching the point very far in the actual context of the conversation.
You make a large point about institutional Churches being inevitably false but it was how God worked through the Jewish people in Old Testament times and Jesus insisted that the Jews had to follow the teaching Scribes and Pharisees even though they were whitewashed sepulchres. His insisted on an institutional approach in this example by saying because they occupied the chair of Moses. Your approach comes close to the Gnostic idea that only the true Gnostics could achieve salvation – the rest of humanity were doomed even before they were born. Catholicism rejected this notion but Mohammed resurrected it, the Albigenses too and Protestantism also resurrected it at the Reformation. You sound as if you are one of the elect few who can be saved while the rest of us are doomed.

21 August 2011 at 20:51  
Blogger Gavin said...

I have to say I am somewhat confused by Len's interpretation of scripture at 17:34 - is this a commonly held interpretation (by certain Reformed churches), or a personal interpretation?
What I mean is that Christ's words "You are Peter, and upon this rock..." do not immediately make sense in modern English in the first place, until one knows that 'Peter' means 'rock' (or something very similar) in Greek. It's only when you know this fact, that you can see the connection AT ALL.
But if the words "You are Peter" mean one thing, and the words "and upon this rock" refer to something else entirely, then the sentence literally makes no sense. Why would Christ specifically rename Simon as Peter, and then in the same sentence, use (almost) the same word to talk about something different? Wouldn't that have confused the apostles? Would Christ have deliberately done that? On one occasion, the disciples didn't understand a parable, and we read that He took them aside and explained it for them. Surely He would have explained to Peter that he wasn't referring to him as "this rock", knowing that otherwise, Peter would go on to make a huge mistake with enormous historical consequences, based on his misunderstanding?

21 August 2011 at 23:41  
Blogger srizals said...

But Umar was a non-Muslim too before he became Muslim. The Quraish, the Turks, the Syrians, the Palestinians and etc.

So did Cat Steven. Many Muslims came from non-Muslims and so?

22 August 2011 at 15:18  
Blogger len said...

God gave a revelation to Peter of the exact identity and Nature of Jesus Christ.God confirmed Jesus.
This was the' rock' the foundation of the Church, the true identity of Jesus Christ .The solid rock on which we stand is the God given revelation as to the identity of Jesus Christ, this is what Peter had!.

Jesus asked the disciples "Who do you say I AM".
Peter answered correctly because he was given a revelation by God.

Unbelievers can only know the true identity of Christ if God gives them a revelation.

Head knowledge( a mental assent) is not the same as a God given revelation, people will soon 'fall away' unless they have a revelation of the truth of the Gospel.

24 August 2011 at 18:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1.
MUHAMMAD (PBUH) PROPHESISED IN THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY:
Almighty God speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
The Christians say that this prophecy refers to Jesus (pbuh) because Jesus (pbuh) was like Moses (pbuh). Moses (pbuh) was a Jew, as well as Jesus (pbuh) was a Jew. Moses (pbuh) was a Prophet and Jesus (pbuh) was also a Prophet.

If these two are the only criteria for this prophecy to be fulfilled, then all the Prophets of the Bible who came after
Moses (pbuh) such as Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist, etc. (pbut) will
fulfill this prophecy since all were Jews as well as prophets.

However, it is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is like Moses (pbuh):


i)

Both had a father and a mother, while Jesus (pbuh) was born miraculously without any male intervention.

[Mathew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 and also Al-Qur'an 3:42-47]
ii)
Both were married and had children. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not marry nor had children.

iii)
Both died natural deaths. Jesus (pbuh) has been raised up alive. (4:157-158)


Muhammad (pbuh) is from among the brethren of Moses (pbuh). Arabs are brethren of Jews. Abraham (pbuh) had two sons: Ishmail and Isaac (pbut). The Arabs are the descendants of Ishmail (pbuh) and the Jews are the descendants of Isaac (pbuh).

Words in the mouth:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered and whatever revelations he received from Almighty God he repeated them verbatim.

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

[Deuteronomy 18:18]


iv)
Both besides being Prophets were also kings i.e. they could inflict capital punishment. Jesus (pbuh) said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36).

v)
Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime but Jesus (pbuh) was rejected by his
people. John chapter 1 verse 11 states, "He came unto his own, but his own received him not."

iv)
Both brought new laws and new regulations for their people. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not bring any new laws. (Mathew 5:17-18).

2.
It is Mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 18:19


"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not harken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."


3.
Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:


It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."

When Archangel Gabrail commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying Iqra - "Read", he replied, "I am not learned".

24 February 2012 at 19:27  
Blogger Hirwan Saini said...

@quote len said...
"Islam is a bit of an enigma and I am surprised at the amount of people who follow it without questioning its authenticity.(I suppose in fairness that accusation could be directed at all religions.)
If your religion cannot stand up to scrutiny then IMO it cannot be worth following.
Islam is based on the revelations given to a single man.Mohammed himself doubted where these revelations came from.

Islam takes its authority from the Tanakh and the Bible......but it then denies the truth contained with each of these."
No wonder Muslims are confused!.

Confused??? hahahahhaha??? what about other prophet, they too get the revelation for themselves mind you. Dont you think Jesus get the revelation from God too by himself? Dont tell me Jesus is God by the form of a man, thats really contradicting. To think a mere mortal, could get caught by betrayal by his own peer. If he was a God, dont you think he can save the himself? or show his true "God Power" to punish those unbeliever? i think you are the one who is confuse, dont relate us we your theory of "islam is confuse."

12 June 2012 at 15:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older