Monday, October 10, 2011

Cairo: 23 homosexuals slaughtered by Egyptian Army


Yesterday's march for gay rights in Cairo attracted 10,000 homosexuals, demonstrating against the intolerant anti-gay government and the army's perceived reluctance to protect the gay community. As they progressed, the homosexuals were repeatedly struck by projectiles thrown from the balconies of nearby homes and even from the upper floors of the state television building itself, witnesses said, and by the time the army arrived the gays were seething. Their homes are routinely ransacked and gay clubs are subject to nightly attacks. Some have been burned to the ground. Witnesses say the army opened fire with live ammunition and that one soldier ploughed an armoured personnel carrier into a group of peaceful protesters holding rainbow flags and singing ‘I am what I am’ and ‘Born this way’, crushing at least five of them. The bloody scenes prompted fears that Egypt is drawing ever closer to a sustained anti-gay conflict that cannot be controlled.

O, hang on. His Grace is mistaken.

He apologises.

The correct story is that 23 Coptic Christians have been killed by the Egyptian army.

That will come as something of a relief to International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell, and, indeed, to the whole of HM Government, for, to them, the life of a homosexual is of infinitely more worth than the life of a Christian. It is now Government policy to reduce aid to those countries which persecute homosexuals. Quite why they have singled out homosexuals is unknown to His Grace, for, to the Christian mind, all human beings are of equal worth, and the oppression of any minority group is an offence against justice. Over at RightMinds, Melanie Phillips observes:
All this makes even more striking the British Government’s initiative in singling out the persecution of gay people as the reason for cutting aid to repressive countries. For, of course, it is not just gay people who are being brutally persecuted throughout the Third World.

Christians, Animists and other faiths are being butchered and ethnically cleansed in Africa; women are systematically oppressed in Islamic countries. Yet the Government does not suspend aid on their account.

It is hard not to conclude that what we have here is the ironic collision of two politically correct doctrines — international aid and gay rights. And gay rights have won.
It is a bizarre foreign policy which rails against anti-lesbian laws but doesn’t give a fig for anti-Christian repression. Why would the British Government see fit to impose aid 'fines' upon Uganda and Ghana for their hard-line anti-gay measures, but goes on pouring millions of (borrowed) pounds into those countries which arrest, imprison, torture and execute Christians?

Andrew Mitchell has already cut aid to Malawi by £19 million after two gay men were sentenced to 14 years hard labour. Tiwonge Chimbalanga, 26, and Steven Monjeza, 20, received the sentence when they got engaged.

Fine.

So why do we not cut aid to Zimbabwe (presently £69million) for Mugabe’s systematic persecution of Christians?

Is it because A-list celebrities like Elton John and Madonna raised their voices in protest over Malawi, while Zimbabwe has no-one but the ‘ignorantArchbishop of Canterbury and the ‘fundamentalistArchbishop of York?

Seriously, is our foreign policy driven by celebrity? Are gays worth more than a Christians?

If we are truly pursuing equality in international development, why link aid to gay rights and not to religious liberty? Why penalise those regimes which hang gay teenagers but permit those who behead Christians to continue with impunity? Aid to Pakistan is presently set at £203million, yet they have blasphemy laws which are every bit as offensive as Malawi’s anti-lesbian laws. We are effectively subsidising the torture and systematic slaughter of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Has the United Kingdom really exchanged the eternal Gospel of Salvation for the ephemeral creed of political correctness? Have we supplanted the Good News of Christ with universal gay rights? Are we really bribing developing nations to embrace gay equality at the expense of the true moral life and the Christian ethic? Foreign aid is an expression of love. Love is unintelligible except as a participation in the life of the one who reveals himself to us. It comes after faith and hope, but it is the greatest and most transformational. Andrew Mitchell must learn that we are commanded to love our neighbour, and that our neighbour is not only the gay man or woman in Malawi, but also the persecuted Christians in Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan... and Egypt.

114 Comments:

Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

So what are you saying then.

Coptic Christians are superior to Homosexuals.

Here was I thinking that all were equal and under the Lord.

You really are a hateful bigot.

10 October 2011 at 10:24  
Blogger C.Law said...

Don't forget to mention the persecution of Christians (and Muslims and Tibetans and - well fill in the many more blanks who disagree with the CCP) by the Chinese government.

Ah... but maybe not: the West needs that Chinese money!

Why do you insist on expecting integrity from political leaders? Not that it wouldn't make the world a better place if they were to show some.

10 October 2011 at 10:39  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Derek T Northcote who is unable to comprehend the english language blurted.

"Quite why they have singled out homosexuals is unknown to His Grace, for, to the Christian mind, ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE OF EQUAL WORTH, and the oppression of any minority group is an offence against justice."

No speaky or looky de English.

Should His Grace have used words from 'Gary Bowen's: A Dictionary of Words for Masculine Women and feminine man'.

The cause of homosexuals under english law and international aid > whereas Christians are <. QED?

It's back to school for you, my lad!

Ernst

His Grace really attracts such numpties to his blog that it's scary!

10 October 2011 at 10:40  
Blogger Roy said...

@ Derek T Northcote


Don't be utterly ridiculous. Nowhere did Cranmer suggest that Coptic Christians are superior to homosexuals and you know perfectly well that he did not make that suggestion.

It is perfectly obvious that Cranmer is simply criticising the British government for its double standards. Your knee-jerk response shows that it is to curry favour with people like you that Cameron espouses those double standards.

10 October 2011 at 10:42  
Blogger Man With A Pen said...

Ah yes. We live within the joys of Cultural Marxism and the implimentation of Critical Theory and other Frankfurt School diktats. Yet real scandal is that Right wing (and I use that term very lightly) parties have caved into the Marxists on these matters and allowed the thought and speech police to bully everyone. Not a man among them! Cowards all.

10 October 2011 at 10:53  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

As usual RELIGION - all religion is the problem.

After all, the first time around, his grace was murdered for being the wrong sort of christian.
The hatred and loathing between the Sunni & Shia branches of islam is deep and really nasty.

Never mind islamic fundamentalists (who are behind the attacks on the Copts) who hate anyone at all who doesn't accept their particular form of brainwashing, this week.
Note - said muslim fundies expecially hate the Sufi and the Ahmahdi (sp?) sects - possibly even more than the copts.
And for the usual religious reasons: Heretics are wronger than unbelievers - they should know better. ( ? ! )
Um

10 October 2011 at 10:53  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Man with a pen said, not knowing whose blog he is posting on, perhaps? 10 October 2011 10:53

"Not a man among them! Cowards all."

Your comment should have terminated with.'Well said Cranmer, and bless you that you are not of that group!

Ernst Blofeld

10 October 2011 at 10:58  
Blogger David B said...

An interesting post, with some things I can agree with, and other things not.

It is, I think, wrong that standing against the oppression of women, and against the oppression of religious freedom, should be regarded less seriously than oppression of gay people, or indeed the oppression of heterosexual people who go against the cultural mores of their countries by, say, wanting to choose their own partners.

Whether aid - and its withholding - should be used as a weapon in standing up against oppressions of all these groups is a difficult question. The aid that might be hived off to the ruling classes is perhaps one thing, that that goes directly to making the lives of people, perhaps by providing wells, perhaps another.

But -

"Have we supplanted the Good News of Christ with universal gay rights? Are we really bribing developing nations to embrace gay equality at the expense of the true moral life and the Christian ethic? Foreign aid is an expression of love. Love is unintelligible except as a participation in the life of the one who reveals himself to us. It comes after faith and hope, but it is the greatest and most transformational."

The Good News of Christ is perhaps not so good, after all, when taking what purports to be his words as a whole, rather than cherry picking.

Yes, I know, there is always the lame excuse of context, but it is hard to see any sort of context in which Luke 14:26 could be viewed as good news.

'Foreign aid is an expression of love?' I'd prefer 'Foreign aid is an expression of compassion' myself - a human trait, which I hope is becoming more widespread outside our own particular groups or cultures as it becomes more apparent to more people that all humans are pretty closely related.

'Foreign aid is an expression of policy, regarding influence and trade'?

In practise this often seems to be the case, but it is not incompatible with it being an expression of compassion, too.

'Love is unintelligible except as a participation in the life of the one who reveals himself to us'

As I say, I prefer the word 'compassion', but in either event His Grace's words seem to me to be simply false. Is he saying that there was no love or compassion in the world before Christ?

Is he suggesting that many species of animals do not love their young? That they will sometimes defend them to the death seems to give the lie to that.

Furthermore, both love and compassion are intelligible within an evolutionary standpoint. It is the standpoint within which I find them intelligible, as a matter of fact.

I can anticipate criticism here, which I shall attempt to leave stillborn, that such an understanding of love or compassion is not to feel it.

But to feel love and compassion is no more incompatible with my way of making it intelligible than His Grace's presumed feelings of love and compassion are incompatible with his way of making it intelligible.

Making feelings intelligible is not to deny the feelings.

David B

10 October 2011 at 11:01  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Hi pop pickers. Now then, now then.

Straight into the charts at number 666 after it's 23rd re-release is G.ary.Tingey and his glitter band, as it happens, with 'As usual RELIGION - all religion is the problem'

Its being played, ad infinitum, on Clear Thinking Oasis FM, Goodness gracious,ooh oh ooh oh oo.

How's about that, then!

Ernst 'jimmy' Blofeld

10 October 2011 at 11:07  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace - for Foreign Aid read Foreign BRIBE. It has bugger all to do with aiding people who really need help which is why the government can play fast and loose with it.

This is why I object so strongly to this disgusting practice, funded by taxpayers, being ringfenced in the name of humanitarian aid.

10 October 2011 at 11:16  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

I would also like to point to a second area of double standards and hypocrisy in this. The UK govt is reducing aid to countries that don't do things the way that the believe they should. In effect they are trying to impose their own moral code and law upon countries like Malawi. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong in how it treats homosexuals, it is still the law of Malawi and they as a country have the right to set their own laws.
But, if we switch to the idea of prisoners getting the vote, for example, David Cameron was up in arms (or at least appeared to be) over this imposition of law from Brussels and the EU, an organisation that we have far more links with (not to mention legally-binding treaties) than we have with Malawi. I cry "Shenanigans!" on this one.

@G.Tingey - And of course that renowned atheist, Joseph Stalin, was a real pillar of the community wasn't he!

10 October 2011 at 11:34  
Blogger Man With A Pen said...

E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


"Your comment should have terminated with.'Well said Cranmer, and bless you that you are not of that group!"

I did not do so as I saw it as a given,but bless you for pointing it out. :0)

10 October 2011 at 11:54  
Blogger Atlas shrugged said...

Has the United Kingdom really exchanged the eternal Gospel of Salvation for the ephemeral creed of political correctness?

Yes, is the simple answer, however as usual your Grace and Ms Phillips asks other more difficult to answer questions as to WHY the United Kingdom has embraced so called political correctness well above all other?

Please be absolutely assured that this has nothing to do with either democracy, or the will of the people in any way shape or form, still less the homosexual community as a whole.

My answer is my usual one.

Political Correctness as well as ALL other government policies, with only a very few almost irrelevant exceptions, are the invention of the ESTABLISHMENT, as is the destruction of Christianity, and ultimately all other established religions as we have become accustomed to knowing them.

However as youself and others continue to refuse to work out, or find out who exactly represents the establishment, you cannot possibly know who your enemy is, or where they are, and therefore have absolutely no chance of opposing them.

10 October 2011 at 12:13  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

"Quite why they have singled out homosexuals is unknown to His Grace"

It is probably because many of the cabinet have dabbled in homosexuality at public school, yet remain strangers to Christianity.

Maybe the fact that they care about the plight of gays should be seen as a "glass half full" situation. Whoever generates concern for one unfortunate at least has the potential for extending and even universalising it.

But don't hold your breath....

10 October 2011 at 12:37  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

In my experience bigots usually have more than one target for their bigotry and are quite happy when their opponents try and assert the claims of one set of victims over another. Killing, torturing and oppressing human beings is wrong.

Perhaps if people concentrate on the case in hand (i.e the Coptic Christians) they might have a little more success than attcking those who stand up for other just causes.

10 October 2011 at 12:41  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Youthpasta

The law you are complaining about comes from the European Convention on Human Rights not the EU, which every European country apart from Belarus has signed up to. The Court which administers the convention is based in Strasbourg not Brussels. I appreciate that Cameron and our Home Secretary may have some difficulty in understanding how courts work and where laws come from - but you do not need to repeat their mistake

10 October 2011 at 12:47  
Blogger Michael Wenham said...

Interesting comment from Marieme Jamme from Senegal on "Start the Week" this morning about our view of Africa today. Speaking about our view of it being full of corruption and failure - whereas in reality there's a lot of good news from the continent - she partly blamed the BBC for giving "negative narratives" (fed by the NGOs). Shuyun Sun agreed in relation to the Western media's cover of China. There is, it seems, a narrative, a world view, which we are adopting fed largely by an intellectual/political elite who dominate the news outlets. If "it isn't the will of the people in any way shape or form" (@Atlas S), then it needs some brave people to change the narrative.

10 October 2011 at 13:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Our weblog host will be happy to learn that it is nothing personal. A politician cares no more for an Egyptian homosexual than he does for an Egyptian Copt. Such people serve only as surrogates that allow the politician to display support for domestic constituencies that he desires to appease. A Coptic Christian doesn't rank very high because the very measure of the modern politician doesn't feel the need to appease Christians in general or Coptic Christians in particular.

carl

10 October 2011 at 13:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

G. Tingey

As usual RELIGION - all religion is the problem.

I suppose it would be futile to point out to you that of the four Great Mass Murderers of the 20th Century (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) three were out-and-out atheists, and the fourth considered Religion to be nothing more that a useful tool of the Party. You will probably tell me that "Communism is a RELIGION!" (See how I anticipated your use of caps to make the point seem stronger?) You have performed a neat equivalence partition where EVIL maps one to one with religion, and the presence of evil implies the cause of religion. In which case, I wonder why you don't advocate its active SUPPRESSION by force. Like Mao, and Lenin, and Robespierre before you.

carl

10 October 2011 at 13:16  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Carl Jacobs

I suppose it would be futile to point out to you that the US and many other states have secular constitutions that separate the state and religion - and that such a model is also capable of delivering freedom of speech and religion. Or that totalitarians and some religous believers have a shared belief in absolute ideals to the exclusion of others.

10 October 2011 at 13:37  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Oh dearie me.

Carl Jacobs has trooted out the usual lie ( - though I am prepared to accept total ignorance on his part as an excuse) about Hitler, Stalin , Mao etc.

Dead wrong.

Hitler remained a "good" catholic all his life. For reference, I suggest you start HERE:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
and the subsets
http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm
and
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Then there are the murderous communists.
Erm, communism ticks ALL the boxes for being a religion, sorry.

Does it persecute competeing religions? TICK
Does it have "unalterable" and "holy" books? TICK
Does it have sects and schisms, where the heretics are persecuted worse than the unbelievers? TICK
Does it (sometimes) have fits about evolution? TICK
Does it try to fit Humanity into its own unnatural "box" with penalites, often dreadful for non-compliance? TICK
AND, important:
Does it make specific predictions about the world which, in spite of being demonstrably wrong, the "true believers" still cling to, against all contrary evidence? TICK

Oh, and communism follows this quote, as well:
"A temple was worth a dozen barracks; a militia-man carrying a gun could control a small unarmed crowd only for as long as he was present; however, a single priest could put a policeman inside the head of every one of their flock, forever."

Uggggg ....

10 October 2011 at 14:06  
Blogger David B said...

@Carl Jacobs, who said

"I suppose it would be futile to point out to you that of the four Great Mass Murderers of the 20th Century (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) three were out-and-out atheists, and the fourth considered Religion to be nothing more that a useful tool of the Party"

It would be futile to point it out to me, on the grounds that unlike the theocracies, who committed their atrocities, great and small, in the name of their religion, or in some cases their differences in doctrine from their persecuted co-religionists.

The communists committed their atrocities in the name of communism, of Marx, of Engels, of Mao...but not in the name of atheism.

Hitler - an anti-Darwinist, BTW - had a much more ambivalent relationship with religion than you suggest, and made many statements which are not consistent with each other. Taken over-all he does not seem to have been an atheist.

David B

10 October 2011 at 14:16  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Photographs and videos of the violence and its aftermath are here; some of the images are disturbing.

10 October 2011 at 14:22  
Blogger Ivan said...

God bless you Cranmer for standing with oppressed Christians throughout the world.

10 October 2011 at 15:25  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Ivan

Perhaps we should remember the words of Pastor Niemoller (who incidentally was initially a supporter of the Nazis) and not be too choosy about which of the oppressed we chose to stand for.

10 October 2011 at 15:58  
Blogger Bigland said...

G. Tingey: "Erm, communism ticks ALL the boxes for being a religion, sorry."

Those would be "G. Tingey's boxes for being a religion", I gather.

As for poor old Hitler, no one seems to want him on their team, do they. I bet it was like that for him at school. It's probably what turned him bad - not RE, but PE.

10 October 2011 at 16:01  
Blogger William said...

TBNGU @15:58

No, I think we should ignore your disruptive, Marxist inclinations and join Ivan in asking God to bless HG in his efforts to highlight the persecuted church.

10 October 2011 at 16:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

Your Grace, forgive me, but Tingey is a towering toss-pot, and in need of a sound thrashing (again!)

I have no objection to the airing of his opinions, but his person is intolerable.

10 October 2011 at 16:29  
Blogger peggy38 said...

Why does nobody care about the plight of oppressed Christians in places like the Middle East?

Because we Western Christians don't care about them either. We don't care enough about them to raise holy hell and come out on the streets demanding that something be done.

We have stood by quietly for too long while the ME has been slowly and surely ethnically cleansed of Christians who used to form majorities in many countries.

Just recently, I joined the cause to save the life of Pastor Nadarkhani to the resounding disinterest of every one of my Facebook friends most of who profess to be Christians. In other words, for every one Christian who gives a damn, there may be tens more who could care less.

If we Christians flooded the streets the way that other minority groups do to defend their brothers and sisters, we would probably see our governments doing more as well.

Dems just the facts as I see them through a lens of disgust at the apathy I've been witnessing for far too long. Sadly, if the plight of a man who faces execution just because of his faith is not enough to arouse Christians from that apathy, then nothing will.

10 October 2011 at 16:38  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

One quarter of the Egyptian Parliament should be elected on a constituency basis, one quarter elected on a proportional basis, forty-five per cent (an equal number of men and women) nominated by the General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, and five per cent (an equal number of men and women) nominated by the Coptic Patriarch.

No legislation could be introduced unless sponsored by at least one MP from each of those four categories, nor could it be enacted without the approval of all four of the General Guide, the Patriarch, and the first and second-placed candidates in a direct Presidential election, termed the President and the Vice-President but enjoying exactly equal powers. Why not?

On social justice issues, the Muslim Brotherhood is not what it was, having changed direction to recant the public ownership and the wealth redistribution for which it used to campaign, and to support Mubarak's land reform reversals. But it could easily be talked into changing back, especially since it is by no means clear how convinced the party at large has ever been about these revisions at the top. Remind you of anyone?

If Iran, Syria, the Palestinians, and the Lebanese coalition including Hezbollah are anything to go by, then the Copts are very well-placed to strike an excellent deal, in stark contrast to our beloved Israel, Turkey and Mubarak.

And the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by British intelligence in order to agitate against independence, has always enjoyed excellent Foreign Office connections. So Commonwealth membership beckons, especially for a country which even still has a currency called the pound.

This is Britain's moment. Otherwise, such are the historic ties and the widespread proficiency in English, that we should expect each our cities to contain several, and each of our large towns to contain one, of those Coptic churches. One tenth of the Egyptian population would have decamped to the most obvious alternative country from their point of view.

As with the Arabs inside Israel's 1948 borders, why did we not do for them what we later did for the East African Asians, but a generation earlier, when we were still just about in a position to back it up?

10 October 2011 at 16:47  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

peggy38 - George Bush and Tony Blair probably did not know that there were Christian communities in the Middle East, and no doubt imagine even now that they are made up only of very recent converts served by missionaries who have arrived since the “liberation” of Iraq.

Their neoconservative puppet-masters relied on that, and the corresponding popular, ignorance in order to use those communities as bait for the jihadis whom they knew would pour into Iraq if the Ba’ath regime were removed, the easier to kill them.

Although at an academic level Evangelicalism is returning to its more cerebral roots within the Great Tradition, at any popular level the existence of Christian communities going all the way back to the Day of Pentecost remains almost unknown.

The forms that they take make them as unmentionable as the Sub-Apostolic Fathers, with their matter-of-fact presentation of all things “Romish” as the context presupposed by the New Testament text, even by those who are aware of them.

And that ridiculous, utterly anti-intellectual nineteenth-century aberration, Dispensationalism, remains staggeringly influential.

10 October 2011 at 16:50  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Peggy 38

I think you would find rather more flooding the streets to complain if we stopped dividing the oppressed up into different subcategories. You perhaps forget that the crime Pastor Nadarkhani was accused of was one of apostasy (i.e. giving up a religion) and that is something rather a lot of atheists and agnostics do. You cannot go to University or become a lawyer in Iran if you do not belong to one of 4 religous groups - of which Christianity is one of the 4 (and Bahaism isn't).

Agnostics and atheists do support Pastor Nadarkhani - look at the New Humanist blog if you don't believe me. It is perhaps worth noting that Amnesty International specifically does not allow members to chose which form of oppression they are allowed to campaign against - perhaps the reason for this is that they are all pretty unpleasant when you are on the receiving end.

William

I'm not a Marxist - or even inclined that way - unless you wish to categorise all left wing disbelievers as such. As an agnostic might I suggest writing a few letters and/or joining a relevant campaign might have slightly more effect (in this world at least) than blessing Cranmer.

10 October 2011 at 17:17  
Blogger albion said...

Carl Jacobs writes:

"A politician cares no more for an Egyptian homosexual than he does for an Egyptian Copt. Such people serve only as surrogates that allow the politician to display support for domestic constituencies that he desires to appease. A Coptic Christian doesn't rank very high because the very measure of the modern politician doesn't feel the need to appease Christians in general or Coptic Christians in particular."

I agree with you, sir, and with your posts on the Kiwi blog "anglican Down Under" in reply to "Father" Ron Smith, a man who never seems to follow any argument through logically. Keep wintessing to the truth, because I think the revisionists on that site are trying to wear down Peter Carrell from his hold on orthodoxy.

I would add that in modern Britain not only does the suffering of Arab or Asian Christians matter nothing to post- and anti-Christian politicians, but appeasing Muslims is of the first importance. Fear of the seething and ever-ready to be offended Dar ul Islam, not least the home-grown version, as well as fear of British gays, keeps these spineless men and women silent.

Albion

10 October 2011 at 17:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I think Gnostic is the closest at 10 October 2011 11:16 with this. This is realpolitik and there's no point playing the victim card. The aid money is to used to gain influence, not help people. The Middle East has oil, Africa has natural resources.

10 October 2011 at 18:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

TBNGU

I suppose it would be futile to point out to you that the US and many other states have secular constitutions that separate the state and religion

It wouldn't even be necessary since I am an American. I am therefore quite familiar with the US Constitution. Heck, I've read the Federalist Papers and everything. Which means I know that:

1. The First Amendment was intended to prevent the re-creation of the Church of England in America. It was never intended to isolate religion from the public square. The same men who wrote the national constitution had no trouble with established churches in the states.

2. The Founding Fathers would have laughed to scorn the idea that irreligion was equivalent to religion. The central problem of limited government is inculcating virtue in the citizenry. Only a virtuous population allows limited government work, but the the nature of limited government means that the population must restrain its own passions voluntarily. What is the mechanism that produces that voluntary restraint? Religion. It is no coincidence that the West is dissolving into hedonism as its relgious commitments die. There is also no escaping the consequences this development will have on the viability of limited government over time.

Beyond that, I have no idea what your comment had to do with my original post.

carl

10 October 2011 at 18:15  
Blogger albion said...

Rubbish. Egypt doesn't have oil, only terrorists. Africa has nothing. Cameron wants gay votes.

10 October 2011 at 18:16  
Blogger albion said...

My comment was in reply to DanJo.

Egypt is dissolving into chaos, such is the bitter fruit of the Arab "Spring".

10 October 2011 at 18:19  
Blogger William said...

"As an agnostic might I suggest writing a few letters and/or joining a relevant campaign might have slightly more effect (in this world at least) than blessing Cranmer."

Of course you may, though I am at a loss to know how you came to this conclusion on the basis of agnosticism.

As a Christian I will always ask God to bless the work of the persecuted church and of those who seek to highlight their plight. Particularly as God probably has more at his disposal than writing a few letters and/or joining a relevant campaign.

10 October 2011 at 18:25  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

/

10 October 2011 at 18:41  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

G. Tingey, refers us to quotes by Hitler where he claims to be a christian. You can choose to belief Hitler if you like but if you want the authentic version read the Cathechism. You probably don't believe in hell but I suggest that Hitler is facing that reality even now and paying for the way he misrepresented Christianity. You would do well to consider your consistent misrepresentaion in this blog because if hell does exist, you really don't want to go there.

10 October 2011 at 18:47  
Blogger Emlyn Uwch Cych said...

And this from the Maldives. I wonder whether we still send aid money there? If he'd been a gay Catholic, perhaps there'd've been condemnation from DFID?

Indian teacher arrested after religious hymns found on school laptop (http://minivannews.com/society/indian-teacher-arrested-after-religious-hymns-found-on-school-laptop-26793)

Indian teacher Shijo Kokkattu was arrested last week on Raa Atoll for possession of Catholic imagery and a Bible.

A Raafainu School teacher had contacted police after finding what appeared to be Christian hymn videos on a school computer, which 30 year-old Kokkattu had allegedly transferred from his personal flash drive by accident.

Foreign media and school sources reported that religious songs and pictures had been transferred onto the desktop of a school laptop, which Kokkattu had used.

10 October 2011 at 19:05  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Apologies to my Christian compatriots, I should have also said read the Bible too. Yes, a glaring ommission - mea culpa but let's not forget that even back in 1922 Hitler was articulating a deviant type of Christianity which G Tinsey would like to think represents the teaching of Christ. By the time we get to the gas chambers Hitler's heresy had blossomed into apostasy and megalomania. The Church has had heretics ever since it began. The fact that G Tinsey uses a heretic like Hitler to discredit Christianity reveals the partisan nature of his arguments.

10 October 2011 at 19:09  
Blogger peggy38 said...

tory boys never grow up,

I never at any point said most of what you seem to think I said. I do not categorize the oppressed. Neither was I saying that anyone else should. And I don't know where you got the impression that I was criticizing or excluding non-believers. ???

My only point was to note that Christians need to get off their arses or shut up complaining that nobody cares. That is all. All the rest of it is something that you read into it.

10 October 2011 at 20:05  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Carl Jacobs

"1. The First Amendment was intended to prevent the re-creation of the Church of England in America."

This is the point - you can keep the Church separate from the State - something that we have yet to achieve in the UK. I have never said that those with religous views shouldn't have some role in a democratic state - they just don't have a monopoly.

William

"Of course you may, though I am at a loss to know how you came to this conclusion on the basis of agnosticism."

Even though I may have some doubt as to whether or not there is a God - that doesn't mean that if he does exist that I would subcribe the same level of powers and abilities to him as you do ( and I notice that even believers have differing views in this regard as well). Just because something may have created a reaction before Big Bang - it does follow logically that the something concerned is the all powerful God that you envisage.

As to whether it is better to pray or doing something more concrete - you are entitled to your view, but I wouldn't advise applying it to all your activities. Crossing the road by prayer rather than looking left and right etc. is not to be advised.

10 October 2011 at 20:06  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Shacklefree repented most humbly @ around evensong 10 October 2011 19:09

"Apologies to my Christian compatriots (Ernst accepts your apologies lad,' ego te absolvo' , he was about to take you up on that. Divine providence, nick of time?) . I should have also said read the Bible too (No lad, it should have read "but if you want the authentic version read The Holy Bible." Other books such as you have quoted, merely give 'your' obligations as a FOLLOWER of THAT creed!). Yes, a glaring ommission (Startling and Astonishing but you are after all..) - mea culpa (but hopefully after Ernst has chided you lad, et lux in tenebris lucet et ex umbra in solem"

ex animo, iuvenis!

Ernst 'the merciful' Blofeld

10 October 2011 at 20:11  
Blogger William said...

TBNGU said

"Even though I may have some doubt as to whether or not there is a God - that doesn't mean that if he does exist that I would subcribe the same level of powers and abilities to him as you do ( and I notice that even believers have differing views in this regard as well). Just because something may have created a reaction before Big Bang - it does follow logically that the something concerned is the all powerful God that you envisage."

The God I believe in has conquered death through love. That's powerful enough for me.

10 October 2011 at 20:56  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

@TBNGU - Ok, maybe I used a bad example. There are many more examples out there of European Law that the UK govt complains about that fits with my point.

10 October 2011 at 21:52  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

tory boys never grow up, the four recognised religions in Iran are Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zorastrianism. Armenians, Assyrians, Zorastrians and Jews have reserved seats in Parliament.

Unlike in Lebanon, in Jordan and on the Palestinian Authority (plus the Christian festivals as public holidays in Syria), there is nothing like that in Egypt. But there should be, and the present state of flux there creates the possibility, if Britain uses her leverage with the Muslim Brotherhood, always on excellent terms with the FCO, and now with every political reason to do a deal with the Copts. After all, what does Egypt want to become? Israel?

Grow up, indeed.

As for the Nadarkhani case, his would have been the first execution of a Christian for apostasising from Islam since 1993, and even then it was unusual. The additional charge of working for what it is, after all, a declared enemy state of Iran's, rings perfectly true against the Church of Sarah Palin and the United Congregations of Michele Bachmann. No wonder that the Holy See and others have stayed so quiet.

Still, if one is against capital punishment, as I am, then one is against capital punishment.

10 October 2011 at 23:38  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Shacklefree

Don't pay too much attention to Ernsty and his advice.

Understanding the Bible and how to apply the revelation of Christ, requires careful discernment. The history of weird sects and cults testifies to this. All claim inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

The Roman Catholic Cathecism is a wonderful source of enlightenment and a great tool for appreciating the message of salvation contained in Holy Scripture.

11 October 2011 at 00:38  
Blogger DP111 said...

BBC says it is sectarian violence between Christians and Muslims.

11 October 2011 at 01:44  
Blogger Ivan said...

peggy38 has it right, all too many Christians do not care about the plight of their fellow Christians in the Third World and in particular the Islamic part of it. The Copts are in an impossible situation. It appears that much of the violence against them is orchestrated from within the Army, thus they have nowhere to turn to for protection.

11 October 2011 at 02:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo, the source of much giggles emitting from old Ernsty, you wily bird!

"Other books such as you have quoted, merely give 'your' obligations as a FOLLOWER of THAT creed!"

"The Roman Catholic Cathecism is a wonderful source of enlightenment and a great tool for appreciating the message of salvation contained in Holy Scripture."

"Cathecism - an elementary book containing a summary of the principles of the Christian religion, ESPECIALLY AS MAINTAINED BY A PARTICULAR CHURCH, in the form of questions and answers.

"Understanding the Bible and how to apply the revelation of Christ, requires careful discernment. " Indeed, indeed!

"The history of weird sects and cults testifies to this. All claim inspiration from the Holy Spirit "
Why, some go further, even claiming that they have a divinely commissioned succession of personage of sorts, mysterious sacraments that are especially charming if spoken in Latin and unbelieveably, a special chair, that magically makes what that person seated says..errm.. infallible..'requires careful discernment.' Verily, Verily!

******Memo to Ernst*******.

Scour Ebay (Ad Placement), Gumtree (Ad Placement), everywhere without ceasing, just Get That Chair!

What a kind dickie bird you are, for confirming Ernst's words. Thanks!

Adversus solem ne loquitor, my old bird 'Or Don't waste your time arguing the obvious, when confronted by an important, irrefutable fact or = STOP, the hole you are digging is getting deeper!

Shacklefree

A word to the wise;

You cannot pay too much attention to Ernsty and his advice. It's always priceless (Something so valuable it can never be sold for any price) but given without fee or merit. Grace itself!

"Lubbly jubbly!"

Ernsty

11 October 2011 at 02:47  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This recent killing of Copts is only the tip of the iceberg. Egypt's Christians have been murdered, dispossessed, robbed and raped for decades with little attention from the media, the UN and the self-described human rights orgs.

These murders and the ongoing persecution can be stopped literally overnight if the US were to abruptly cut off the aid and military assistance which keeps Egypt and its army puffing along. By morning, Egyptian army officers will be protecting Christians with their lives, shining their shoes and rebuilding their churches with their own hands. Just a suggestion.

11 October 2011 at 04:13  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Uh, oh. David Lindsey is back here as a reincarnation of old Dr Frankenstein. Stealing bits and pieces from the disinterred corpses from his own blog's rants, cutting and pasting, glueing and sewing, all just to create howlers for our cheap entertainment...

Tory Boys will have to learn about him on his own, as we all had to. A rite of passage for the young man. Me, I'm outta here.

11 October 2011 at 04:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David Lindsay

The additional charge of working for what it is, after all, a declared enemy state of Iran's, rings perfectly true

You actually believe this nonsense? Your stuff about representation in Iran and Britain using it's "leverage" with the Muslim Brotherhood so Egypt won't turn out like Israel is mildly amusing in a tin-foil hat kind of way, but this is just slander of an honorable man.

carl

11 October 2011 at 05:20  
Blogger Methusalem said...

Of course, everyone carrying The Holy Ghost is superior to his/her surrounding. By being superior, true Christians don't have the need to hate or oppress others. In fact, they become servants to the less-fortunate underprivileged.

What is sad about Egypt is that the Americans have been financing and heavily arming the Egyptian army since 1979, and now the demonic Islamists are ready to take over this priceless present.

11 October 2011 at 05:47  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Just saw and read Derek T Northcote's rude comment. Gosh. What a common little pimple. He even used the "b" word...and on His Grace, the cad. I wonder what happened to him...best not to ask.

I note that G.Tingey has kept to only one word in full caps. A verifiable miracle he won't even recognize, being such a doubting Thomas. He relieved himself on religion right at the start of his post, but rather shortly and almost as a formality. Then, he went on to share actually interesting information. Either another miracle, or he ran into Oswin and the well-deserved disciplinary cuffing he got from him calmed him down a little.

And before finally turning in for the night, always trust the folks from Strategic Air Command to calmly, without the hysterics the rest of us are prone to, zero-in on an iminent threat. This little gem from Carl bears repeating and remembering:

The Founding Fathers [of the United States] would have laughed to scorn the idea that irreligion was equivalent to religion. The central problem of limited government is inculcating virtue in the citizenry. Only a virtuous population allows limited government work, but the the nature of limited government means that the population must restrain its own passions voluntarily. What is the mechanism that produces that voluntary restraint? Religion. It is no coincidence that the West is dissolving into hedonism as its relgious commitments die. There is also no escaping the consequences this development will have on the viability of limited government over time." Sweet dreams, everyone.

11 October 2011 at 06:19  
Blogger len said...

Let us face facts!.
Christians are in this World but not' of' this World.If Christians were 'of 'this World the World would love us.But Christians belong to another World another Kingdom.... not ruled by the god of this World....but the true God the God of Abraham, Isaac , and Jacob.
All the religions ruled by the 'god of this World' are at war with those who belong to Christ and the hate of those ruled by the god of this World knows no bounds.
Incidentally for those who do not realise who the' god of this World 'is he of course is the master deceiver,the opposer,the resister of all God`s purposes Satan himself.

"If the world hates you, remember that they hated Me first. The world would love you as one of its own if you belonged to it, but you are no longer part of the world. I chose you to come out of the world, so it hates you." John 15:18-19

11 October 2011 at 07:44  
Blogger len said...

Of course the' religions' of this World are easily identified by the fact that they all have a person as its head claiming to have a 'divine revelation' a divine authority. (by religions I include all the `isms) This is why it is said there are many anti/ against/instead of/ Christ`s.
The head of the Body(the true Church) has one one head Christ Himself.

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

(Of Course |Peter NEVER referred to himself as the' foundation stone' but always referred to Christ as the Head and the Foundation. It is a mark of a false religion to claim the authority of Christ for itself!.

11 October 2011 at 07:59  
Blogger Ivan said...

IIRC the Coptic Pope disallowed pilgrimages to Jerusalem as long as it was under Israeli "occupation". Has his dhimmi stance availed the Copts anything? It had merely put off the day of reckoning. The problems that Christians face with Muslims is intrinsic to political Islam itself. As a fascistic ideology it is in constant need of manufactured enemies both internal and external.

11 October 2011 at 08:41  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

It is an utter disgrace that our supposed Christian Government does nothing to try to stop this slaughter. It is as though anything remotely Christian is now dirty and is to be looked down upon. Where Muslims are persecuted though, usually by other Muslims, there is plenty to say and lets not forget those paradigms of virtue, Homosexuals.

The world is becoming upside down and inside out, up is down, black is white and right is wrong. In my view this is because we have turned away from Gods teachings, stopped incorporating the bible into our laws and culture and stepped into a decadent and dishonest world of Cultural Marxism . The terms Equality, Fairness and Tolerance now mean nothing of the sort.

I will never vote for any one of those Bastards in the Big three parties again and pray that the traitors that got us in the mess we are in over the last few decades, receive their Judgement one way or another.

Rant over!

11 October 2011 at 15:20  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

You are an endless source of good humour and gentle amusement. Refreshing, if mistaken. Have you been sniffing the glue you've been using to lay those floor tiles?

From Dodo the follower of the Apostolic Church established by Christ and invested with His authority and promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

11 October 2011 at 15:33  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len said ...

"Let us face facts!"

Ah, if only you would; if only you would!

11 October 2011 at 15:46  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo the non DIY er

Have you been sniffing the glue you've been using to lay those floor tiles?

Take it your DIY skills are from sources similar to Catechism. A Ceramic tile MUST be fixed with adhesive CEMENT, sniffing is of no benefit, being free from toxic chemicals with heavy poly mires content! You are therefore applying the wrong solution to the subject matter that was in Ernst's hands, bit like your theology, my cheeky fowl. Know your subject lad!or must Ernst correct you continually?

From Dodo the follower of the Apostolic Church established by Christ and invested with His authority and promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Relentless in something that was not established for Rome and was not invested or promised by any member of the blessed Godhead towards Rome! Hope that has answered your presumption, my ridiculously faithful tiberian dickie but 'Carry on deluded that man', as Sid James and the team would say. * giggles*

Ernsty the experienced DIY er.

or as Hylda Baker would say "He knows Ya know"..Bless her wonderful memories left us.

11 October 2011 at 17:11  
Blogger Oswin said...

Mature Cheese @ 15:20 :

''Rant'' seconded! :o)

11 October 2011 at 17:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

ps

Ernst previously mentioned "a special chair, that magically makes what that person seated says..errm.. infallible.."

How does it work. Is it like Joe 90, that the occupant wears special rose tinted glasses and is spin at ridiculous speeds. It halts and he now cannot stop telling the truth regarding things whilst seated, that are NOT stated in the Bible. Is it called the Contradictory Chair, peradventure?



Ernst

11 October 2011 at 17:23  
Blogger Oswin said...

Ernst:

You forgot to mention that said 'special chair' was manufactured post 1870; or is my defining it so, just a tad too dogmatic perhaps? (tee hee, a little 'First Vatican Council' joke there, just for Dodo)

Perhaps I ought to be a little more pious?

11 October 2011 at 18:28  
Blogger len said...

Christianity( in the form advocated by the Lord Jesus Christ) is totally at odds with'' this World system'.
Christianity is not 'of this World' it is entirely of another World.Christianity as practised by Jesus Christ is totally super- natural and could never have been devised by man.Christianity in its purest form is totally a work of God from start to finish,only a fool or a charlatan would think of adding to a complete, perfect, work of God.
Christians are hated by this World system,the disciples(except one) all suffered violent deaths,also Stephen, Paul, the list of martyrs is endless.Christianity is a threat to all who practise false religion whether this is administered through a corruption of scriptures or false revelations from 'prophets.The Bible is the final revelation of God to Mankind.
So all those who hold to the true faith will face persecution whether by the subtler forms of ridicule and restraint( through Political Correctness) or by outright death threats and actual executions.
Jesus Christ( aware of the threats which would be used against true believers) urged those who follow Him to overcome this World system and all it would throw at you.Our victory is in Him.
"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."(John 16:33)

Our victory(as Christians) is not in Popes, Pastors, denominations, theologies,but IN Christ Jesus and IF we are born again God has placed us in Him and that is the victory which overcomes the World.

11 October 2011 at 19:13  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

If it's not solvents then I think you should pop down to the local hospital for a brain scan, dear chap.

Papal infallibility states that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation.

Sorry to disappoint, the term 'ex cathedra' can mean "with official authority". In Catholic theology, the Latin phrase ex cathedra, means "from the chair", refers to a teaching by the pope that is considered to be made with the intention of invoking infallibility.

The "chair" referred to is not a literal chair, but refers metaphorically to the Pope's office, as the official teacher of Catholic doctrine.

The chair was the symbol of the teacher in the ancient world, and Bishops to this day have a cathedra, a seat, as a symbol of their teaching and governing authority.

Even Anglicans have Cathedrals!

So n omagic chair - just the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Far better, don't you think.

11 October 2011 at 19:58  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo the considerate kindly asked about old Ernst's marbles

"pulchre compos mentis", Is what Ernst's Harley Street consultant advised (the benefits of private health care, lad) after doing a full check up, however the right eye is degrading quicker than expected and his knees are getting more knobbly and prone to the odd lapses of going in different directions from t'other.

"Papal infallibility states that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation." Ah, a questionable RCC dogma is it not, how quaint but so unbiblical!

"Sorry to disappoint, the term 'ex cathedra' can mean "with official authority". In Catholic theology, the Latin phrase ex cathedra, means "from the chair", refers to a teaching by the pope that is considered to be made with the intention of invoking infallibility." a questionable RCC dogma, perhaps..just taking an educated guess/stab at it?

"The "chair" referred to is not a literal chair, but refers metaphorically to the Pope's office, as the official teacher of Catholic doctrine." An outright lie, you scoundrel!

A cathedra (Latin, "chair", from Greek, kathedra, "seat") or bishop's throne is the chair or throne of a bishop.
On January 17, 1666 the cathedra Petri was solemnly set above the altar of Saint Peter's Basilica in Vatican City or was that metaphorically speaking.

You appear to be confusing metaphors with a defined object you forget exists.

Pope Alexander VII knew such a chair existed that needed to be adored that he commissioned Bernini to build a monument to display this relic in a triumphant manner.
Bernini's gilded bronze throne, richly ornamented with bas-reliefs, encloses the relic, metaphorically speaking, you understand?.
Catholics even have feasts to celebrate the chair in metaphorical joy come the dates! That metaphorical chair but not literal chair?

St Peter's chair is a physical chair (throne, rome reckons) that he supposedly sat in whilst in Rome and spoke from.

Your metaphor is that it symbolises something because St Peter sat on it and had indwelling authority within himself
Is that a metaphorical chair, like the one called the Chair of St. Augustine that is made of Purbeck Marble or Bethesda marble and dates to sometime between the 6th and 12th centuries and resides at Canterbury Cathedral.
The person who is seated on the throne in the quire as Diocesan Bishop, in the chapter house as titular abbot, and in St. Augustine's chair is declared as Primate of All England! That metaphorical chair but not literal chair?

To be cont'd

12 October 2011 at 00:17  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Con'td

It's legal concept is that the chair literally represents the legitimate sedes or "seat" of power of the 'Vicarius Christi'. This was in direct confrontation to the legal position of the Primate and Patriarch of Constantinople claiming to be the sedes or "seat" of Christianity.
The Catholic Church's legal framework was pretty straightforward -- once the Vicarius Christi was upon the sedes (later "see") of Cathedra Petri, then whatever he said would be superior to anything claimed by Constantinople! Simples *squeak*

It is known that over the centuries, many chairs of St. Peter has been variously stolen, vandalized beyond repair, burnt and lost. However, like the false claims of apostolic succession contained in the brilliant forgery known as Liber Pontificalis, the chair of St. Peter claims an unbroken succession of Popes having physically sat on its seat.
Both legally and technically, if the chair of St. Peter was to be destroyed without the Catholic Church able to find a quick replacement to hide the fact, then the primary legitimate legal power of the Holy See- claimed to emanate from this sacred "relic" would immediately cease -- so too would be the case regarding any further statements that are Ex Cathedra.
No Chair = No power from the chair. Unthinkable and devistating
In spite of the Catholic Church openly admitting that the Chair of St. Peter is an outright fraud, the fraud remains on public display as arguably one of the most revered church relics.
See Catholic Encyclopedia, v, pp. 773-780, and ix, pp. 224-225, passim (throughout); also regarding the fraudulent Book of the Popes, see Annales Ecclesiastici, folio xi, and De Antiqua Ecclesiae Disciplina.) Can type it all out for you should you so wish, my fine fowl?

Ernst loves this tale from an historic book, here is the exerpt that could refer to almost any pope regarding their disregard for Christ.
"In the summer of 1508, Pope Julius II summoned Raphael (1483-1529) to Rome, and around the same time commissioned Michelangelo (1474-1564) to create an array of works for the Vatican. Michelangelo subsequently carved a marble statue of him, and Julius II examined it with a puzzled expression, asking,

"What is that under my arm?"
"A Bible, your Holiness," replied Michelangelo.

"What do I know of Bibles?" roared the Pope; "I am a warlord; give me a sword instead"

(Storia d'Italia, quoted in A History of the Popes)".

or

To be cont'd

12 October 2011 at 00:43  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Cont'd to a revealing conclusion!


It was Pope Leo X who made the most infamous and damaging statement about Christianity in the history of any Church. His declaration revealed to the world papal knowledge of the Vatican's false presentation of Jesus Christ and unashamedly exposed the wickedness it glorified and benefitted from, through the Roman Catholic religion.

At a lavish Good Friday banquet in the Vatican in 1514, and in the company of "seven intimates" (Annales Ecclesiastici, Caesar Baronius, Folio Antwerp, 1597, tome 14), Leo made an amazing announcement that the Church has since tried hard to invalidate.

Raising a chalice of wine into the air, Pope Leo toasted:

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors." Unimaginable that a successor of St Peter could speak such blasphemy.
Where was the Holy Spirit's guidance you claim to have for these successors and why was He not advising Leo X correctly. Does He lead us into wicknedness, error and sin?

On behalf of the Church, Cardinal Baronius officially defended Pope Leo X's declaration, saying it was "an invention of his corroded mind" (Annales Ecclesiastici, op. cit., tome iv), but in applauding the pope's tyrannical conduct supported the essence of his testimony on the grounds of the infallibility of the Church of Rome:

"Of his wicked miscarriages, we, having had before a careful deliberation with our brethren and the Holy Council, and many others, and although he was unworthy to hold the place of St Peter on Earth, Pope Leo the Great [440-461] originally determined that the dignity of Peter suffers no diminution even in an unworthy successor. [see Catholic Encyclopedia, i, pp. 289, 294, passim]

In regard to the keys, as Vicar of Christ he rendered himself to put forth this knowledge truly; and all do assent to it, so that none dissent who does not fall from the Church; the infamy of his testimonial and conduct is readily pardoned and forgotten." (Annales Ecclesiastici, ibid.) A classic lesson in how to forgive the unforgiveable!

"The Cambridge Modern History, a most judicious authority, says that,

"the world has rarely seen a more debased standard of morality than that which prevailed under the popes in the closing years of the Middle Ages"
(vol. 1, p. 673)."

"just the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Far better, don't you think." Oh, If only their lives and words proved it, you foolish deranged bird, whereas they are an Indictment:!!

Ernst 'playing with a full deck' Blofeld

ps

Ernst knows the address and telephone number of a brilliant Harley Street consultant, MRI scanner at the ready, just awaits your arrival!

12 October 2011 at 00:54  
Blogger len said...

Well said Ernst!.
There are of course many anti Christ`s. Hitler(for example) was one, Stalin another.
Anti Christ is a spirit which has possessed many people.
It is against Christ or instead of Christ "anti christos" in Greek.

The Popes title "Vicarious Christos" translated from Latin into Greek becomes "Anti Christos"

So when the Pope puts on the tiara every Pope says " I am the Anti Christ".

A Vicar General is defined in the 1994 Catholic Almanac on page 330 as "a priest or bishop appointed by the bishop of a diocese to serve as his deputy, with ordinary executive power, in the administration of the diocese." So a vicar serves in the place of (substituting for) the bishop, and assumes his power of office for certain duties.

So the Papal title of VICAR OF CHRIST which in Latin is VICARIUS CHRISTI, means a SUBSTITUTE FOR CHRIST, which is synonymous with Antichrist, i.e., assuming the power of God on earth! This blasphemous claim is made repeatedly by various Popes and is the very foundation of Roman Catholicism and it's Papacy.

Some Catholics may protest that the Pope represents, but does not substitute for Jesus Christ, to avoid the association.

Now, from the Webster Hand College Dictionary, the definition of the word represent:

1. portray; depict; describe.
2. play the role of; impersonate.
3. denote; symbolize; stand for.
4. speak and act for; *be a substitute for*.
5. set forth; assert.
6. be composed of; consist in.

Clearly then, Vicar of Christ (Vicarius Christi) and Antichrist have exactly the same meaning. The Pope substitutes himself in place of God on earth, and that is *exactly* the meaning of Antichrist.

12 October 2011 at 08:00  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oswin stated most truly 11 October 2011 18:28.

"Ernst:

"You forgot to mention that said 'special chair' was manufactured post 1870; or is my defining it so, just a tad too dogmatic perhaps? (tee hee, a little 'First Vatican Council' joke there, just for Dodo). Many thanks for the clarification of the supposed birth date (there are so many) given for metaphoric but not A literal 'sedes' and the giggle.

Perhaps I ought to be a little more pious?"

Well then, my fine lad, Oswin 'paulo extra pius' you shall be known as herewith after this meeting of 'Primum SPECTRE Council'. *chortles and guffaws*

Ernst 'the name giver' Blofeld

RCC Followers. Definition - the bringers of such giggles with their fable and pontifications..It's the church that keeps on giving, for all the WRONG reasons. GUFFAW!

12 October 2011 at 10:18  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

You really do let your vivid imagination run wild at times. Your imaginings about the 'magic' chair are ridiculous. Do some proper research. The term 'ex cathedra', as I've said, is representative of the office of the Pope. He does not get 'power' from sitting on a seat!

So far as individual Popes go, of course many have been sinners. We've discussed this before. Christ guarenteed the Church protection from error, not individual Popes from sin. It is only in matters of doctrine and dogma that Popes cannot err. And, as individuals they use this authority sparingly - only 3 times in the past 150 years, I believe.

Do yourself some credit. You are knowledgeable so please research this subject a bit more impartially before misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

If it's not solvents and your scan proved clear, maybe it's too much 'water of life'?

12 October 2011 at 11:48  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Having been butt-raped by Labour for 14 years we now find that Camoron is well on the way to making homosexuality compulsory.

The emphasis that is given to homosexuality is becoming quite sinister.

Now where did I leave the strawberry flavoured anal gel?

12 October 2011 at 11:51  
Blogger Oswin said...

Harry-ca-Nab : Please, we are gentle folk here!

Which reminds me, where has English Viking got to; anyone?

12 October 2011 at 16:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty
"You really do let your vivid imagination run wild at times. Your imaginings about the 'magic' chair are ridiculous. Do some proper research. The term 'ex cathedra', as I've said, is representative of the office of the Pope. He does not get 'power' from sitting on a seat!".

Ernst replies that 'You really do not ever let facts and history that are presented to you get in the way of that vivid imagination that runs wild and waxes lyrical abot such nonsense that has been declared forgeries by Rome itself. That they are still worshipped by RC's says just how strong that delusion can be. Who can fathom such stupidity, honestly'.

"Do yourself some credit. You are knowledgeable so please research this subject a bit more impartially before misrepresenting Catholic teaching."

"Ernst has and could be even more devastating but 'De Trop' Lad, 'De Trop'. Ernst goes easy on your mind as it is horrible to take in sometimes and considers the eyes of other communicants with long comments and facts unless absolutely necessary!

Never a response to facts, mere evasion!

What was that term for empty words...Ya-Ta-Ta Ya-Ta-Ta Ya-Ta-Ta!

Ernst, my evasive tiberian fowl

ps

Oswin inquired

"Which reminds me, where has English Viking got to; anyone?"

Reckon the lad has gone off to join the order of jesuits on a temporary basis, to track down Dodo and OoIG and wring the odd neck. The lad can bear a grudge, can he not?

What a book and film that would be, Dan Brown may be interested in a draft copy? ;o) Wonder who EV would like to play him. Viggo Mortensen as a guess from Ernst. Dodo would have to be Rowan Atkinson, Mel Gibson is not available for some unknown reason *chuckle* o the irony.

12 October 2011 at 16:38  
Blogger Oswin said...

Ernst @ 10:18:

Was that 'paulo' or 'polo' ''extra pious'' - the one with the hole?

As you say, ''(there are so many)'' and I half expected Dodo to inteject with some petrine supremacy malarkey, but he seems to have opted for a somewhat esoteric exposition upon the papal 'sofa' - one of those Ignatius Loyola meets Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen ''Changing Rooms'' moments?

12 October 2011 at 16:42  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oswin, dear chap.

'paulo extra fortes' would be the term. Mind you, stick an ST in front and we have a new range of peppermints for the religiously inclined

Would be a sell out for pilgrims but no miraculous properties can be associated with it ingedients can they ? but when has that stopped RC's from purchasing said goods. Huzzah!

Gideon, I think we have a cunning business plan and product to help regarding that budget deficit and growth problem!

Flash Ernsty, the entrepreneur.

This time next year Oswin we could be millionaires. Sound familiar?

12 October 2011 at 18:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oswin lad

"but he seems to have opted for a somewhat esoteric exposition upon the papal 'sofa' - one of those Ignatius Loyola meets Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen ''Changing Rooms'' moments?"

Did you really have to use that sofa analogy as it brought back to Ernst's mind that Scoundrel Blair and his 'Fool Britannia' or something like that. Get out of Ernst's head, you past forgotten thought!

Ugh.

Ernst

Ps It was Hilarious though!

12 October 2011 at 18:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Should read ' it's ingredients '

Aaaahh. An Eye, an Eye, Ernst's kingdom for a good eye.

Desperate Ernst

12 October 2011 at 18:33  
Blogger len said...

Dodo
Has the Popes 'Magic Chair'anything do do with Simon Magus who was reported to have been in Rome and some confused him with another Simon?.

12 October 2011 at 19:56  
Blogger len said...

Simon Magus, after his rejection by Peter, began to fashion his own "Christian" church -- a church of which HE was head -- a church designed to completely overthrow the True Church of God. His idea was to blend together Babylonian teaching with some of the teachings of Christ -- especially to take the name of Christ -- and thus create ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH! But a church with Babylonianism as its basis.

Harnack, a church historian, states that Simon Magus "proclaimed a doctrine in which the Jewish faith was strangely and grotesquely mixed with BABYLONIAN myths, together with some Greek additions. The mysterious worship . . . in consequence of the widened horizon and the deepening religious feeling, finally the wild SYNCRETISM [that is, blending together of religious beliefs], whose aim WAS A UNIVERSAL RELIGION, all contributed to gain adherents for Simon" (Vol. 1, p. 244).

12 October 2011 at 20:00  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len said ...

"Harnack, a church historian ...

Bit of an exaggeration calling him that! You really are confused!

This wouldn't be the same Adolf von Harnack who rejected the historicity of the gospel of John in favor of the synoptic gospels and who questioned its worth and canonisity; who criticized the Apostles' Creed, who promoted the Social Gospel; and denied the miracles of Jesus?

Wonder if he accepted the virgin birth and the resurrection?

You have some weird fellow travellers!

12 October 2011 at 21:02  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A good read for Dodo to start from would be The Book of the Popes. It is an official papal work, written and kept in the Vatican, and within it's introduction claims to "preserve for posterity the holy lives and wonderful doings of the heads of the Church Universal" (Catholic Encyclopedia, ix, p. 224).
However, if a patient reader cares to glance at the synopsis of each pope as given, they will see that the Church knows nothing whatever about the pontiffs of the first six or seven centuries, and not one of them is a clearly defined figure of history.

The summations of popes within these pages are decorated with the official 'halo of sanctity', but a Bollandist (Belgian Jesuit group)) priest, Father Delehaye, a leading CATHOLIC investigator for this kind of literature, said "there is no evidence whatever that the papal genealogies are based upon earlier sources" (from The Legends of the Saints, Father Delehaye, 1907 English ed., quoted and expanded upon in The Popes and Their Church, Dr Joseph McCabe, C. A. Watts & Co., London, 2nd ed. revised, 1924, p. 13). Fabricated!

Simply put from much investigative literature, especially RC sources themselves, there were NO Christian popes for many centuries; they were merely the Mithraic fathers of Rome, and,
"the chief of the [Mithraic] fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patrum' translated "Fathers' Father" (Catholic Encyclopedia, x, pp. 402-404).

Some even called themselves after the Zoroastrian god, an excellent example being Pope Hormisdas (514-523), whose name is Persian for Ahura Mazda (Ahura Mazda is described as the highest deity of worship in Zoroastrianism, along with being the first and most frequently invoked deity in the Yasna. Ahura Mazda is the creator and upholder of Arta (truth). Ahura Mazda is an omniscient, but not an omnipotent god, however Ahura Mazda would eventually destroy evil).
Christianity is ALWAYS exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty as revealed by Christ and His Apostles.
So what a generous Holy Spirit, to share the glory with a pope named after a false god! Thought Our God is a Jealous God and there shall be no others before Him? An oversight of Omniscience and His Word, perhaps?

Of him, the Church said "his name presents an interesting problem" and added this curious comment:

"St Hormisdas owes his canonization to an unofficial tradition" (??? What on earth does this mean, Dodo. Got wise old Ernst stumped!).

(The Popes: A Concise Biographical History, Burns & Oates, Publishers to the Holy See, London, 1964, p. 81).

His "considerable numbers of recalcitrant bishops" were devotees of Ahura Mazda, supporting Mithraic doctrine (ibid.).

We need to understand that many ancient popes, who in modern times have been presented as dignified gentlemen isolated from every taint of mundane interest, never existed. The Church has admitted that its papal biographies (Book of the Popes and the Liberian Catalogue) are not candid digests of pious men of considerable erudition but are untruthful fabrications: "Historical criticism has for a long time dealt with this ancient text in an exhaustive way ... especially in recent decades" (i.e., late 1800s-early 1900s) (Catholic Encyclopedia, v, pp. 773-780; also ix, pp. 224-225, passim) and established it "historically untenable" (ibid., passim).

Ernst 'you could not make this stuff up unless it's whilst making RCC forgeries' Blofeld

12 October 2011 at 21:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo

ps

It appears therefore that you have some strange lineage of succession from St Peter in Rome's unbroken succession, as disclosed from reading 'your own RC sources'? QED. Scientifically speaking Ernst has proved the logic of his argument and NOT QED Quite Easily Done as Ernst jesting but both could equally apply. No boasting is implied from old Ernst, simply facts digested and laid out!

Ernst 'you have my genuine sympathies, so be repentant, lose your pride and turn to Christ Only' Blofeld

12 October 2011 at 21:30  
Blogger len said...

It was NOT Simon Peter who went to Rome to become Apostle to the Gentiles, but the SIMON in Rome was SIMON MAGUS!

That Peter the Apostle was not with Simon Magus in Rome is made plain by the Encyclopedia Biblica, col. 4554.

"The attempt has been made to meet this by pointing out that church fathers mention the presence of SIMON in Rome while at the same time NOT speaking of controversies between him and PETER. This is indeed true of Justin [one of the earliest witnesses -- 152 A.D.] who knows nothing of any presence of Peter in Rome at all, as also of Irenaeus."

Not only did Justin feel that Peter was NOT in Rome at the time, but his deliberate silence shows he didn't want to perpetrate such fiction. After all, Justin lived very early in the history of the church, and the legend of the Apostle Peter’s being in Rome HADN’T GOT STARTED YET! Continuing with the Encyclopedia Biblica about Justin’s reference to SIMON MAGUS: "One part of this tradition -- that about Simon’s presence in Rome -- he [Justin] found himself able to accept [in fact he held it to be confirmed by the statue, which he brought into connection with Simon]; the other -- that about Peter’ s presence in Rome -- he was unable to accept" (col. 4555).

Of course Justin was unable to accept the latter teaching. The fact is, Simon Peter was NOT in Rome. It was another Simon who went there -- SIMON MAGUS, the one bringing "Christianity" to them in the guise of the old Babylonian mystery religions. Simon came to Rome with the grand idea of stablishing a UNIVERSAL RELIGION in the NAME of Christianity! And what is remarkable, he did just that!

12 October 2011 at 21:56  
Blogger len said...

At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, the Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By Paying attention to God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome! PAPAL SUCCESSION IS NOT FROM SIMON PETER!

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

len said ...

"It was NOT Simon Peter who went to Rome to become Apostle to the Gentiles, but the SIMON in Rome was SIMON MAGUS!"

Er, evidence please for this assertion. Been time travelling have we?

More weirdness. Was he an early Jesuit by any chance?

13 October 2011 at 00:18  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

Naughty man.

Please don't quote selectively from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here is the opening statements to St Peter's time in Rome. Thereafter, evidence is presented to support it.

"It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom.

The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter

St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands."


Maybe this was all written by Jesuits - what do you think?

13 October 2011 at 00:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo not knowing what evidence is blurted out

"Thereafter, evidence is presented to support it." Well, Ernst is waiting!

"Maybe this was all written by Jesuits - what do you think?" Non Sequitur as in 'It does not follow', EVER in your case!

Ernst, 'why are we waiting, why are we waiting' Blofeld

Walter, May I call you Mr Mitty?

13 October 2011 at 02:49  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom." It is not!

There is nothing substantial that he did, It is merely implied, whereas we know that Paul was taken to Rome from Book of Acts, he wrote letters from there and had visitors who took his letters to the churches in Asia minor whilst held under house arrest!
We have the fact that Paul did not wish merely to stop over at Rome-junction on his way to Spain, but had a long-settled purpose to visit the great world's capital as part of his legitimate Gentile missionary field. We find him saying (Acts 19:21), "After I have been there (Jerusalem) I must also see Rome." He must have regarded it as belonging to his jurisdiction, and assigned to him by the highest authority. For the Lord had appeared to him and given him an express command to go thither. (Acts 23:11)"As thou has testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome". Commanded by Christ himself, dickie bird!

Remember the words of a certain prophet, named Agabus.
Acts 21:11
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

When we examine the evidence of Peter's visit, it divides itself neatly into two classes, which may be called the romantic and the ecclesiastic account. To the former we owe the story of Peter's early visit to Rome, his contest there with the magician Simon Magus, and his twenty-five years' episcopate. The first beginnings of this legend are found in Justin Martyr in the second century, who mentions the visit of Simon to Rome and the erection there of a statue to him. The discovery in 1572 of the probable statue with its inscription, which Justin mistranslated, shows it to have been erected in honour of a Sabine god. Then in the Clementine romance the account was given of the contest between Simon Magus and the Apostle. Simon Magus proposed to fly in the Emperor's presence, and in answer to Peter's prayers he falls to the ground. Eusebius, who wrote in the fourth century, adds the gathered surmises, and the statement of the twenty-five years' episcopate. This last theory requires Peter to have gone to Rome after his miraculous release from imprisonment, and to have returned after the Council of Jerusalem. Of such a journey and return there is no evidence. All that Scripture says is that Peter "departed and went into another place." None of the great ecclesiastical historians of today accept the story in Eusebius as a verified or established historical fact. It has all the elements, in origin and growth, which mark the development of the myth, and may be dismissed as unhistorical.

When we take up the historical evidence, that of the first two or three centuries is circumstantial and scanty. But that is all we have. There is no record of it, where we should have a right to require it, viz., in Holy Scripture. In excuse for its absence, Cardinal Gibbons says, "For the same reason we might deny that Saint Paul was beheaded in Rome, that Saint John died in Ephesus. As, however, no article of the Christian faith depends on these last-mentioned events, no reason exists why they should be matters of scriptural record. But being essential to the dogma of the Roman supremacy, and our being members of Christ's Church, it is fatally significant that scriptural proof of Peter's visit is lacking.


To be cont'd

13 October 2011 at 03:17  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Concluded

Not only is this wanting, but there are no contemporaneous witnesses to a fact so essential, and upon which it is claimed the whole structure of the Christian Church depends. Nor in the apologists, or defenders of the Church, in the second century, where, if it were a matter of importance, it would surely find a place, is it to be found.

The next bit of evidence offered is in Saint Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, at the close of the first century. In it the name of Peter has been restored in chapter five by conjecture, the syllable "os" being all that can, in the manuscript, be discerned. He refers, filling this out as Peter, to Peter and Paul as combatants "who have been nearest to us," who suffered martyrdom. This is obviously very indefinite, and, upon an issue upon which men's salvation is said to depend, of little worth. Ignatius, who wrote about 105, said in a letter to the Roman Christians: 'I do not charge you like Peter and Paul, who are Apostles." This does not state that they were ever at Rome, for Ignatius might in his humility only be saying that he, their successor in the see of Antioch, could not address them with the apostolic authority of his predecessors. The earliest explicit statement in extant authors that we have of Peter's visit to Rome, is found in Irenaeus, in his work on heresies. It is supposed to be written after his consecration as Bishop of Lyons, in 170 AD. He speaks of that most famous Church, "founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul."

In a rhetorical phrase, Tertullian, makes the earliest mention of the Apostle's martyrdom at Rome. Fermillian makes an allusion to the two Apostles as founders of the Roman Church. These writers do not claim to have had access to any original sources of information, and were probably following statements previously made. When we come to Eusebius in the fourth century, we find him quoting from writings which are not extant, from Papias, Dionysius, a Roman presbyter Caius, and Origen, the latter being the first to state, if that is the right translation of his words, that Peter was crucified with his head downwards. For the reasons that this evidence is late, and second hand, and also cannot be verified, we should be justified in rejecting it. For this is not like an ordinary historical question. It is one on which most important issues depend - an issue more important than life or death. Nothing less is at stake than whether we are in the church that Christ founded or not. Romans deny that anybody outside Rome are in Christ's Church, and consequently that we have no covenanted pledge of salvation. In denying this to non roman catholics, on the ground of the special endowment of the Roman see, the burden of proof is on them to prove it was so endowed.

Why Ernst goes on about it when nudged into action.

Hope this helps you comprehend why old Ernst giggles at your supposed evidence , lad!

Ernst 'will wait patiently for further evidence' Blofeld, but not too long Bird eh, as Ernst is aged of many years.

Nighty night bird.

13 October 2011 at 03:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

Len : 21:26:

Oooer! You've sure opened a can of worms there Len! :o) I wonder if anyone will take you up on it?

Simon the Magician, Gnostic Master and all round free-fall levitator extraordinaire, is a deeply fascinating character!


Dodo @ 00:18

Even jesting that Simon Magus was a Jesuit, is akin to accusing Merlin of being Paul Daniels! :o)

13 October 2011 at 15:33  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin said ...

"Dodo @ 00:18
Even jesting that Simon Magus was a Jesuit, is akin to accusing Merlin of being Paul Daniels! :o)


True - who can compare with this man's amazing skill and power? To have conned all the early church, Apostles, disciples and the Church Fathers, demonstates he was the supreme master of manipulation, illusion and slight of hand. Unless he actually had demonic powers!

Then to have set up a satanic, pagan system that entraps souls. Amazing! And the most astonishing thing is no one noticed - not until Martin Luther that is some 1500 years later. Stunning! And only now 2000 years is the real history coming to light.

Mental note:
Write to the Vatican advising they burn the Chair of Peter just in case a spell has been put on it by the dastardly followers of Magnus.

13 October 2011 at 16:18  
Blogger Oswin said...

Ernst @ 16:38:

Would that be Rowan Atkinson himself, or as Mr.Bean?

PS. How about 'Polo Religio' - sucked for one's very own halo? It can't fail!

Hey, how about stringing them together as a rosary; or as 'Worry Mints' for the atheist market? ;o)

13 October 2011 at 16:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo:

I'll leave it to Len for the 'who conned the early Church' routine; but as for the papal perch, I think you're pretty safe on that score. Simon Magus' flying-hours didn't allow time for 'upholstery' as a hobby.

13 October 2011 at 16:39  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo further :

Are you getting your chairs a trifle mixed here? I've just noticed that you have ''Magnus'' (Magnusson?) interfering with St. Peter's chair. Surely not the infamous black-leather swivel-job?!? Could this be THE major theological breakthrough of the last two thousand years? 'Dodo the Destroyer' re-seats Christianity! :o)

13 October 2011 at 16:54  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 October 2011 at 22:28  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin

Ummmm ... Darth Dodo has a certain ring to it.

May the Force be with you.

14 October 2011 at 00:40  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oswin made Ernst guffaw out loud 13 October 2011 16:27

2Hey, how about stringing them together as a rosary; or as 'Worry Mints' for the atheist market? ;o)" Too good to hurry, indeed!

Oswin

As Ernst the Name Giver, I bequeath upon thee and to thy
offspring that show same abilities the title 'Sir Oswin of Northumberland, Master of Mirth'

Ernst 'touching Oswin on both shoulders with his cutlass' Blofeld

ps

"Ummmm ... Darth Dodo has a certain ring to it. "
Ernst cannot confer this title. It is the Jurisdiction of The Emperor to do so, ONLY. The journey is simple but long and Ernst is advised that any road will do as all roads lead there, except the Straight and Narrow!

14 October 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger Oswin said...

Ernst: such an honour! Now, where did I leave my pigs-bladder...scurries around to the accompanying jingling of small bells...

Dodo: 'Darth Dodo' it is!

At least the asthmatic breathing will serve warning, before your 'lightsaber' strikes! Hm, I'm not at all sure that access to such advanced weaponry is a good idea; best, after all, to stick (gerrit?) with your faithful old stiletto.

14 October 2011 at 16:51  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin

True; there is a certain advantage to hiding silently in the shadows and coming unannounced on one's unprepared targets. On reflection, the quick and simple administration of a small blade is better than use of a noisy, bright sword.

15 October 2011 at 12:43  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: yep, in my mind's eye you are John Ballard, the Jesuit assassin intent on murdering our dearly beloved, Queen Elizabeth: Daniel Craig stalking Cate Blanchett within the darkened palace halls and passageways!

Naturally, anyone daft enough to want to kill gorgeous Cate, let alone our Liz, quite deserved all he got; Ballard's demise being so awful, that it shocked even the most hardened witnesses of many a 'hanged, drawn and quartered' execution.

Ah, the smell of burning entrails in the morning! :o)

15 October 2011 at 16:52  
Blogger len said...

Dodo`s giving away all his trade secrets again. His preference for lurking in the shadows and slipping a blade between ones shoulder blades.


The man really is a Jesuit!.

16 October 2011 at 11:44  
Blogger Oswin said...

Len: Perhaps not; I reckon our Dodo may be reappraising the wisdom of pig-sticking Cate Blanchett? :o)

16 October 2011 at 17:03  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin

Poor old Ballard was manpulated by the dastardly duo Walsingham and Maude.

I would never be so naive - and sentiment and attraction never gets in the way of the Order's business.

I'm awaiting further instructions but I've got my eyes set on len. If he continues maligning the church he may just find his days are numbered. His ISP address is being located as we speak.

16 October 2011 at 17:39  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo is locating Len's provider?

"His ISP address is being located as we speak." * Chortles out loud*

Ernst knows, as he has the same address.

I.nspired S.pirit P.rovider @ ISP Heaven.God.GraceOnly.Com
( .com, as he has purchased your sinful soul if you accept His free gift and it is 'profit-able' to go to Him and be changed)
We are both trying to get you connected on this line but you love i.ndefensible s.uccessional p.opes @vaticanus.rome.goodgrief/ even though the line offers a terrible, unreliable source of communication and you can be permanently disconnected if caught wandering onto unauthorised sites!.

Looks like you are suffering when there is no need to, bird.

Hop over to the Tree of Life and perch on a branch!

Ernst, my poor suffering blogger

16 October 2011 at 22:06  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty

Ignorant Stupid Protestor, more like.

len/ernsty@ISP.Gehenna.4eternity.com

17 October 2011 at 00:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo retorted

"Ignorant Stupid Protestor, more like.

len/ernsty@ISP.Gehenna.4eternity.com"

Ira deorum as spoken by Juno, Indeed!

Veritas vos liberabit. My Bird.

Ernst

17 October 2011 at 01:04  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 17:39:

I don't know about being ''manpulated'' but he was most certainly castrated; perhaps it's the same thing? ;o)

Ballard just wasn't ahead of the game, is all. You can't blame Walsingham & Co for subverting his intent. I'd say a most spectacular piece of petard hoisting all round.

Safer, Dodo, to stick with Opus Dei; better a little self-mortification of the flesh, than to be 'manpulated' with a rusty bread-knife!

17 October 2011 at 03:06  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin

Ballard was a bit of a dullard and let himself be falsely encouraged. The name of the game was evidence against Mary Queen of Scotland.

Opus Dei isn't exciting enough for me. I prefer the cloak and dagger and, besides, I haven't near enough self discipline for that fine organisation.

That remind me I have an appointment I must keep ....

19 October 2011 at 19:40  
Blogger Oswin said...

:o)

22 October 2011 at 03:29  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older