Thursday, January 26, 2012

Is Rupert Matthews 'as mad as a box of snakes'?

Setting aside for the moment that His Grace thought the madness simile was made with comparative appeals to a hatter, the march hare or a box of frogs, it would appear that Conservative Campaign Headquarters (ie Baroness Warsi) is intent on making windows into men's UFO portals.

Essentially, Roger Helmer MEP (right) wishes to retire, which would usually leave Rupert Matthews (left) to succeed him, since Mr Matthews is next on the regional list system used in elections to the European Parliament. Those elections took place in 2008, when Mr Matthews was an approved candidate of the Conservative Party. Now, however, it appears that Mr Matthews has been unapproved, despite the Party affirming him for that election, and despite Mr Matthews having garnered sufficient support from the millions who voted Conservative.

On the Daily Mail's RightMinds, Simon Richards thinks there's something of a witch-hunt going on, because Mr Matthews is 'a strong Conservative, a man of principle, and, like the overwhelming majority of Conservative Party Members and voters, a convinced Eurosceptic. He also happens - horror of horrors - to be white, middle-aged, grammar school educated and a Christian'.

According to Michael Crick, Mr Matthews has some unconventional beliefs in the paranormal (UFOs, poltergeist, etc), and his company has published material challenging political correctness (featuring gollywogs). According to one (conveniently) unidentified MP, Mr Matthews is 'as mad as a box of snakes', though THIS LIST of published books suggests they are targeted at non-specialists and are of the 'easy-to-read' genre. People who buy such books are often interested in ancient mysteries and stories of ghosts and UFOs, as well as interesting bits of history, snippets of science and accounts of natural disasters.

His Grace does not know Rupert Matthews, but he would like to point out that a publisher is not obliged to agree with either the content or design of every book which is produced and printed under one's aegis. There is nothing in this publication record which merits barring him from office. And His Grace would also like to point out that it would be a dangerous precedent to bar a man from public office because of his alleged beliefs in certain wacky paranormal activity.

After all, Baroness Warsi is reported to believe that some illiterate Arab in the 7th century had a book dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel which was God's final testament for mankind. Others believe that God became a 1st-century Jewish carpenter and rose from the dead. Still others believe they can turn wafers into his flesh and wine into his blood - quite literally - and then consume it cannibalistically. And yet others believe that the head of an elephant can fit squarely onto the shoulders of a man, and the chimera can live and breathe in contravention of all the known laws of biological science.

Perhaps Baroness Warsi might like to produce a convenient list of which privately-held beliefs are permissible and which are prohibited before one may be an approved candidate for the Conservative Party. His Grace has long suspected the existence of an unofficial Conservative Test Act.


Blogger G. Tingey said...

Yes - and no.
1] All the "believers" in things for which there is no objective evidence at all, are, er loopy.
2] Then there's the further-out loopy, like poltergeists and UFO's, and actually taking either Bronze-Age goatherders' or Dark-Ages camelherders' myths SERIOUSLY, to the point ...
3] of really dangerously loopy .... of making other people's live hell, or even ending them.

Where does one draw the line?

I'd draw it between category [1] and [2] if we are talking about eleigibility for public office.

26 January 2012 at 10:49  
Blogger Scribe said...

"Rupert is one of the best MEPs we never had and an energetic patriot" - Dan Hannan MEP - taken from

That's high praise indeed, I say!

I met Rupert Matthews briefly a couple of years ago and he seemed like a thoroughly genuine and pleasant chap. I find his interest in the paranormal to be far less concerning than, say, the abuse of parliamentary expenses.

Well done to Roger Helmer for sticking up for democracy. Makes a nice change to hear about a couple of decent politicians!

26 January 2012 at 11:51  
Blogger Oswin said...

Interesting, aposite and amusing, Your Grace.

Moonpie: post 'Burns Supper' confusion; yours or mine?

I'm surprised that you give no credence to the possibility of UFO'S; but then again, I suppose not ... I really cannot imagine what it must be like, to be you.

26 January 2012 at 12:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Perhaps I am stepping out beyond my bounds here, but ... by stereotype the UK has many people who believe in Crystal Healing. If this stereotype is true, then I wonder how many people in government are walking around with crystals in their pocket? Is this qualitatively different from belief in the paranormal? Would the later be disqualifying but not the former?

btw, if a man identified himself to me as both a Christian and a believer in the 'paranormal' I would immediately assume that he was at best poorly taught. I would certainly investigate what the word 'Christian' meant to him.


26 January 2012 at 13:15  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Cranny wrote that he 'thought the madness simile was made with comparative appeals to a hatter, the march hare or a box of frogs.'
It is also occasionally mad as a fish.

26 January 2012 at 13:51  
Blogger Oswin said...

carl: so a Christian cannot/does not believe in ghosts, for instance?

There's a fair few references within the Bible to demons, spirits and magic ... one is urged against such things, but their existence is far from denied.

26 January 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Being a stone rationalist, can Tingey tell us whether he is a phyletic gradualist or a puntuated equilibriumist. I think we're entitled to know whether he supports The Truth or the heresy.

26 January 2012 at 14:03  
Blogger Oswin said...

Corrigan: I love it when you talk dirty! ;o)

26 January 2012 at 14:17  
Blogger Albert said...


1] All the "believers" in things for which there is no objective evidence at all, are, er loopy.

And your objective evidence for this is what precisely?

26 January 2012 at 14:34  
Blogger Preacher said...

It's probably the Eurosceptic bit that has got Baroness Farsi to question his sanity. Anything else is acceptable.

26 January 2012 at 14:37  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

Anabaptist said...
"Cranny wrote that he 'thought the madness simile was made with comparative appeals to a hatter, the march hare or a box of frogs.'
It is also occasionally mad as a fish.

You leave fish alone!

26 January 2012 at 16:39  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

It ain't me, Dodo:

26 January 2012 at 16:43  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

Thank you for bringing this to my notice. Fishism is creeping into our culture!

Not good, not good.

26 January 2012 at 17:21  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

Do learn to spell, there's a good boy. Everytime you post you give development stage away. It's hard to take a 5 year old seriously.

26 January 2012 at 17:26  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

I want a white, Christian Englishman representing me. If he has hobbies, that's his concern, as long as it doesn't interfere with his ability to do the job he is paid for; ie, to represent my interests, as a white, Christian Englishman.

26 January 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger Roy said...

@ G. Tingey

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

In other words, faith, in the Biblical sense, is closely related to trust in a Creator (for whom their is evidence unless you assume the universe suddenly and for no reason created itself out of nothing) who cares about his creation.

Faith is not comparable to a belief in UFOs. It is conceivable that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and it is conceivable that aliens might one day visit us but even if they did and were friendly and trustworthy so I would not have faith in them like I do in the Creator.

26 January 2012 at 17:38  
Blogger Roy said...

john in cheshire said...

I want a white, Christian Englishman representing me. If he has hobbies, that's his concern, as long as it doesn't interfere with his ability to do the job he is paid for; ie, to represent my interests, as a white, Christian Englishman.

Although the vast majority of people in England and the UK as a whole are white there are large numbers of non-white people who were born in this country and are more loyal to it than are some white Guardian readers and BBC types. (Admittedly that might not be setting the bar very high). There is also a growing number of mixed race people which is positive sign of integration. There are also many fervent Christians among the non-white and mixed population.

However, while the values of politicians are important so is their competence. Given a choice between a good dentist who was an atheist and a mediocre one who was a Christian I would choose the atheist.

To choose a politician simply because he (or she?) is a Christian is foolish and potentially damaging to Christianity if it led to a lot of second rate politicians being elected.

Perhaps I should have written "third rate" instead of "second rate" because we have had to put up with second rate politicians for many years already.

26 January 2012 at 17:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace The Inspector knows the Rightminder Simon Richards personally through his membership of the Freedom Association. Simon is a first rate conservative the like of which rarely becomes selected as a prospective parliamentary candidate. And for good reason, he will not compromise his position in the slightest. He believes that what he stands for is what Britain wants and needs; the idea of watering down his message for grubbing votes would appal him. And for that, the Inspector commends his Daily Mail blog to His Grace’s communicants.

Indeed, we need to look to pressure groups like TFA for the genuine conservative. No longer will we find them at party level. Experience has shown that centralising the Conservative selection procedure has resulted in the career politician like Cameron emerging. And of course, ‘career’ and integrity are not easy bedfellows.

Incidentally, the Inspector felt like an impotent lone voice in the wilderness until he found the Freedom Association, or to be more accurate, the Freedom Association found him. Never looked back you know. We all thrive when with our own…

26 January 2012 at 18:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


... a Christian cannot/does not believe in ghosts, for instance?

He should not believe in ghosts because the dead are not free to roam the Earth. They are separated from the living and only divine power can bridge the gap. They have no more knowledge of us than we of them. Demons are real. But Jacob Marley walking the Earth in his chains as punishment? Not a chance.


26 January 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger David B said...


I'd rather have Maryam Namazie representing me.

David B

26 January 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Why ?

26 January 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...


You need to pop down to the thread "Chris Bryant on the ‘silliness’ of the Roman Catholic Church". A certain homosexual atheist is questioning your integrity and sexual continence. Absolutely disgraceful behaviour and going on behind your back too.

26 January 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Unfortunately there is not enough steam in the Inspector’s lap-thing contraption to get there. It’s now 255, and the Inspector only managed up to around 220. It’s that hound DanJ0 no doubt. Do put up a good fight on the Inspector’s absence old bird. He’ll forgive DanJ0 on integrity; not something you’d associate DanJ0 with, still getting to know each other one would expect, but “Sexual Continence” – what horror ! Is nothing sacred....

26 January 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger Albert said...

Annoyingly, I don't seem to be able to view the second page of comments (on a thread of 200+ comments). Does anyone know why?

26 January 2012 at 20:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert. Top right of screen, will say ‘next’, click on it...

26 January 2012 at 20:52  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...


I had the same problem untilMarie putme straight.

Fill in the comment box in some way just a letter - and post it. You'll go to the up to date posts. Ihen, if you want to go back, tick the email notification box.

Inspector - you been there yet? You should.

26 January 2012 at 21:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Can’t get past 200. Do cut and paste evil posted, as rage builds in Inspector Towers

26 January 2012 at 21:56  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...


Just follow the advice I've given Albert above. Make any comment and post and then you're through to the updated comments. If you want to rmain on the thread tick the email notification box. It's a pain and something must be doing wrong with the thread.

I will copy and post if you don't get through but suspect our host will venture out his urn to chastise us. You know what he can be like.

26 January 2012 at 22:14  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...


"Testing 123"! Surely you could have said something like:

Who's talking about me behind my back, what?

26 January 2012 at 22:32  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

Well, Inspector that told the little oike!

26 January 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

On a more serious note, I've thought about whether to rise to this and decided not to let it go.

Cranmer said ...

"Still others believe they can turn wafers into his (Jesus') flesh and wine into his blood - quite literally - and then consume it cannibalistically."

A simplistic caricature of the greatest gift given to us by Christ - His actual bodily presence.


26 January 2012 at 22:51  
Blogger Oswin said...

carl @ 18:40 :

All slightly Tingiesque, as was the second paragraph of your original comment.

Anyhows, on this one, I'm pretty sure I'm in company with many millions of Christians, and others beside, who think you have it quite wrong.

26 January 2012 at 22:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The Inspector has seen him off for tonight. As his late grandmother from Wexford (...not that far from Kilkenny...) would put it: “That nasty quare fella will be nursin’ a bruised arse for a couple of days now”

26 January 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


All slightly Tingiesque

Ouch. That was harsh. Cruel. Vicious even. I mean .. sure weblogs are a contact sport, but some things are just beyond the pale.


27 January 2012 at 00:19  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...

Surely you don't believe in ghosts and things that go bump in the night? Be very 'Celtic Church' of you, if you do.

Q: Why do ghosts and demons get along so well?

A: Because demons are a ghosts best friend.

27 January 2012 at 01:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "A simplistic caricature of the greatest gift given to us by Christ - His actual bodily presence."

Is it true that it tastes of pork?

27 January 2012 at 05:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned. Matt 12:36-37

The man born blind rejoices in his darkness and says "Where is this light? I see no evidence of it."


27 January 2012 at 06:08  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Corrigan1 is plainly someoene who magpie-like picks up words without understanding.
Evolution USUally proceeds slowly, BUT can proceed quickly IF a "new" situation arises.
Outliers usually don't survive, but if environmental conditons chamge, then the outliers may becaom more favoured to survive... se the classic case of the Peppered Moth.

Objective evidence has never, so far, been wrong, all one expects is that this stae of things will continue.
If you disagree, please get off the computer nete PERMANENTLY, as the whols structure, for the basic 'phone system, and each individual computer-componenet up to the integrated whole is built on this permise.
Since you appear to think it is wrong I suggest you either give up using it immediately, or stop making such ignorant and stupid statements.

I'm not going on, because the serious delusional level in this particular discussion is really bad.
Of course there are no ghosts, nor angels nor devils (there are berers of good tidings and liars/slanderers, of course!) nor "gods" nor any of your strange vapoured imaginings.
The world and the universe is much bigger and much more interesting and FULLER than a few non-existent imaginings abour fairies.

Go read Carl Sagan on the subject

27 January 2012 at 08:39  
Blogger Preacher said...

Do you mean to tell me that the computer was built by intelligent design, by an unknown person in an unknown country?.
Well I suppose it could be true, considering that compared to the rest of the World/Universe it IS pretty basic, are you SURE it didn't evolve?. LOL!

27 January 2012 at 09:47  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...


You're potentially one of the single greatest arguments against intelligent design. But then even evolution make mistakes, that's the point.

27 January 2012 at 11:16  
Blogger Preacher said...

Don't tell me that YOU believe in evolution too!.

27 January 2012 at 11:19  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

I suggest that prospective conservative candidates should be asked to indicate if they believe in the right for Muslim men to have 4 wives and whether they would oppose such legislation if it came before parliament.

27 January 2012 at 11:39  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Tingey says "Evolution USUally proceeds slowly, BUT can proceed quickly IF a "new" situation arises." Again it is just an unsubstantiated statement with no evidence. He quotes the case of the peppered moth i.e. black versions being more numerous in the dirty smoke stained areas whereas the white one survived in the countryside with less pollution. Interestingly when polluted areas get cleaned up the white moth again becomes more numerous. Could it be that peppered moths have genes for both versions and in some, the white gene is switched on and in others the black gene. If so, then we could understand changes occurring as a result of natural selection but this does not involve a new species being created. Is is from examples of micro-evolution (within species) that Tingey etc. extrapolate and tell us that parrots and earthworms had a common ancestor. Quite a leap of logic.

27 January 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger Dodo the Renatus Dude said...


Creative design, creative design ... I see no contradiction between science, religion and faith.

As I've said, before one of the mechanism of evolution is "mistakes", mutations if you will, and our Tingey surely provides ample evidence of this?

27 January 2012 at 12:28  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Dodo wrote:
'Q: Why do ghosts and demons get along so well?

A: Because demons are a ghosts best friend.

Shouldn't that have been ghouls?

27 January 2012 at 12:36  
Blogger Albert said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 January 2012 at 13:14  
Blogger Albert said...

Tingey, I asked you for objective evidence that the following statement was true:

1] All the "believers" in things for which there is no objective evidence at all, are, er loopy.

You haven't provided any objective evidence for it. So at the moment, you appear to be loopy on your own terms. You have, at most, shown that objective points to the truth (well obviously). But that doesn't mean that someone is loopy who believes in something without objective evidence, neither incidentally, does it mean that someone in possession for objective evidence for something will always be right.

Here's a statement that I am sure you believe is false:

When there are no observers (including detection devices, hidden cameras etc.), the toys come out of the toy cupboard and dance around the room, only to return to their original places before an observer returns.

Now there is no objective evidence for that, so on your terms someone who believes it is false (you, I assume) is loopy. But surely, the truth is, someone who doesn't believe it is false, is loopy.

So, we have no evidence in support of your proposition and we have evidence against it. Therefore, on its own terms, a person who believes it, is loopy.

27 January 2012 at 13:18  
Blogger Albert said...

To clarify: when I say "No objective evidence for that", I mean "no objective evidence to support your belief that it is false. Sorry, I am watching something else, while doing this.

27 January 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Thanks Dodo, I've just got there. Not that there's much to see!

27 January 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...


27 January 2012 at 14:06  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

The science of genetics has moved quite far in the last few years.

One of the most important factors is the fact that there aren't as many genes as we thought there ought to be. It was discovered that, despite the utterly immense range of proteins that can be produced, there isn't simply one gene per protein. Sometimes a gene can produce several different proteins.

You see, we are not controlled by our genes at all (like Dawkins says); they are simply a reference file for our cells to produce proteins that they are prompted to produce by their surroundings (as a reaction to changes in environment, prompting by hormones or response to receptor agonism). The rate altering step to gene expression isn't the production of the gene, but what the body does to the mRNA. It can alter the rate of protein production or it can snip bits off to create completely different proteins. Thus, our ability to react to the environment is quite wide.

Now this seems like a pointless argument, until I state that changes in gene expression can be passed on to children. Diet (fatness/malnutrition) is an example in which the state of the mother can affect the child in order to prepare him for the dietary state he will be in when he's born. Essentially it's a form of deliberately adaptive evolution.

It shows that the blind hammer of mutation, which is too blunt to provide all the variation of life we see, is only part of the sculpting process of life. It still needs the sharp chisel of altered genetic expression.

27 January 2012 at 15:17  
Blogger Oswin said...

carl @ 00:19 : well, it's like this you see, I'm always wary of those who profess absolute certainty, whomever they be, and regardless of subject; but especially so, where the subject is, for want of a better word, of an ephemeral nature.

Dodo @ 01:55 : yes, I do believe in 'ghosts'. Circumstances have proved themselves to my satisfaction.

However, I willingly accept the probability that only one of the following pertain: a, I am correct; b, I am delusional, or c, I misinterpreted the evidence.

In my defence, if of the latter two; then my immediate family, and several friends and neighbours too, were similarly guilty.

We not only lived in a haunted house, but those doing the 'haunting' were as aware of us, as we were aware of them!

I'm afraid it's too convoluted and lengthy a story to relate here.

I don't ask you, or anyone else to believe me; it would be an unreasonable expectation.

27 January 2012 at 18:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps. Allow the Inspector to enlighten you ghost disbelievers. In there is a pub 'The Plough’. As a young man in late 70s upto the mid 80s, he spent Sunday lunchtime session with old school friends there. Excellent setting and excellent beer, Whitbread ‘eggy’ PA, if anyone remembers that pint...

27 January 2012 at 19:00  
Blogger Preacher said...

Well I DO believe there are ghosts, but I don't believe they are the spirits of 'dear' departed friends & relatives as mediums believe. although I think that many mediums wrongly feel they are bringing comfort to bereaved families.
An interesting insight is provided in a book written by an ex medium called Raphael Gasson, entitled: The Challenging Counterfeit.
I presume it's still available.

I had some interesting experiences with 'christian' mediums at various New Age festivals when I was invited by some different christian colleges & organisations to share the gospel with both the stallholders & the public.
Trust me when I say that they are in deep deception about the Lord, & although sincere, they lead others into the same errors.

Talk about raising the departed: WV; cherie! No sign of Tone though, but then he only manifests if the price is right. ROFL.

27 January 2012 at 19:56  
Blogger Albert said...


He should not believe in ghosts because the dead are not free to roam the Earth. They are separated from the living and only divine power can bridge the gap.

That's a non sequitur isn't it? Anyway, how do you interpret 1 Sam.28?

27 January 2012 at 20:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


That's a non sequitor isn't it?

When a man dies, his spirit is separated from his body, and he goes to await the resurrection on the Last Day. He may go to 'paradise' or he may go to hell but he isn't free. He waits. So how would a 'medium' get access to these souls? Does he coerce God in some way? Does he employ bribery or trickery or guile? It is God who holds the keys to death and hell. Only He can provide the bridge between the living and the dead. Man cannot raise the dead, but God can.

Those who have died are as severed from us as we are from them. They do not watch us from up above. They know nothing of our affairs. They do not haunt the halls of the living. They have departed to the place God has reserved for them. And there they stay. So, no, I do not see a non sequitor here.

As for the appearance of Samuel's spirit, it could have been a demon, or it could have been a vision. But it also could have been a divine act of judgment on Saul through the actual appearance of Samuel's spirit. I have no problem with God forcing the issue for His own purposes. The dead and the living can intersect but only at the behest of God.

In general, I think people who play with the paranormal are playing with their own fantasies. But I also know that demons are real. Some of this stuff is deadly serious. Much of it however stems from a desire to find a soft metaphysic - one not associated with judgment. It proceeds from a desire to believe in something after death, but not something that makes moral demands. As people depart from God, they can come to believe all sorts of cultic stuff.

As Chesterton said:

When people cease to believe in God, they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything.


27 January 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I'm always wary of those who profess absolute certainty, whomever they be, and regardless of subject; but especially so, where the subject is, for want of a better word, of an ephemeral nature.

Man being limited and finite is incapable of making statements with absolute certainty on his own authority. Only God is absolutely certain. Man can only know things with absolute certainty if God reveals them to man. So let me ask you. Do you know with absolute certainty that the tomb of Christ is empty?


27 January 2012 at 22:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ghosts – what happens when the angel of death comes for a soul and is denied by that soul...

27 January 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger Oswin said...

carl : all I hear is that YOU know, and others do not; as I say, all very Tingiesque. As for your question of 22:51, I'm afraid I do not understand your question; you'll have to help me out. As for your lead-up; isn't that what I said to you?

God knows, I don't; and neither do you.

28 January 2012 at 01:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Technically the scripture reveals with certainty and I know with sufficiency. It is a certain truth that the tomb of Christ is empty, and I know this with sufficiency. If this is the distinction that you are making, then I agree. My wording was sloppy. I can know with sufficiency and not certainty. Remember however that lack of certainty does not imply doubt. It implies lack of complete knowledge. If you are denying a sufficient understanding, then we do not agree.

I know these things with sufficiency because Scripture reveals them and I can understand scripture with sufficiency. It cannot be any other way. Man has no independent source of knowledge for matters related to death.


28 January 2012 at 04:52  
Blogger len said...

'After all, Baroness Warsi is reported to believe that some illiterate Arab in the 7th century had a book dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel which was God's final testament for mankind'.

Satan has been known to appear as an 'Angel of Light'and might have even told lies on occasion,so it was possible he would have called himself 'Gabriel' and handed out a lot of mis- information to oppose Christ.
There are many anti-Christ`s, those who OPPOSE and those who place themselves INSTEAD OF Christ.And of course the NEW AGE religions ( a mixture of everything ) when they believe they actually ARE Christ.

If you look at the main religions of the World (in depth)this fact(that man has corrupted religion for his own ends) will become glaringly apparent.

However Christ remains true to Himself and rewards all who find him ( through the maze of man made religions.)

28 January 2012 at 08:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "I know these things with sufficiency because Scripture reveals them and I can understand scripture with sufficiency."

Isn't that a bit like saying I cannot be certain that the golden tablets that Joseph Smith found exist because I didn't see them myself but I trust Joseph Smith completely and if he says so then it must be true?

28 January 2012 at 08:57  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

len ruled ...

"Satan has been known to appear as an 'Angel of Light'and might have even told lies on occasion,so it was possible he would have called himself 'Gabriel' and handed out a lot of mis- information to oppose Christ."

Might have? You can be most sure he has! And that is one of the reasons a Church is needed to sift through all the garbage of individual 'revelations'. Or, will you carry on doing single-handedly and giving us your prouncements on who is and who is not saved?

28 January 2012 at 11:34  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


No, it's like saying that a GPS satellite in a theoretical sense provides a perfect measurement of the distance between itself and the GPS receiver, but I can only interpret that measurement to some degree of error. The residual error prevents me from computing a perfection position. However it is small enough so that I can still determine my position with sufficiency. A pilot that is flying from NYC to London will not know the position of his aircraft with certainty. He may only know the position of his aircraft to within 15 feet. That is more than sufficient however for the pilot to safely complete the trip.


28 January 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger Oswin said...

carl @ 04:52 : that's fair enough, thank you; although I'm still wary of a ''sufficient understanding'' -not now in the personal sense of YOUR understanding, but of the probability of past interferences with 'scripture'.

I don't agree with the belief that what exists now, must, by God's supposed Stamp, be the exact truth. What was given, might not be what has been receieved.

I trust in God, I don't necessarily trust in mans' interpretation thereof. Seemingly something of a non sequitur perhaps; but we do what we can, with what we have, and hope/work for the best.

Thus, to my mind, 'absolutes' are potentially presumptuous and, oftentimes dangerous.

28 January 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger len said...

Have you found a Bible yet?.

If so start trying to find some of the Catholic 'individual interpretations 'of various Popes in it.

28 January 2012 at 16:56  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...


Its all about reading it with humility and not believing you are singularly competent to fathom it on your own.

Any reconsideration or retraction of your judgement on Nicodemus?

28 January 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, (sigh) I do not read the Bible on my own I take Jesus at His Word!.
Point 1, All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.(2 Timothy 3:16)

Point 2,But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.(John 14:26

Point 3, As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.(1 John 2:27)

Recipe , Take points 1, 2, and 3, remove all the ingredients given by 'religious experts'(especially if the do not line up with what God has quite clearly stated, and you will have arrived at something far more digestible.)

29 January 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo that tedious dude. Do you get the same feeling as the Inspector. Len has turned his Bible into some sort of terrorist manual to exact pain and suffering from the rest of us...

29 January 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger len said...

God`s Word sharper than a two edged sword Inspector?.

You will need it to cut through all those 'traditions' that you hold in such high esteem!.

29 January 2012 at 14:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. The gospels should be ‘good news’. How come they’re not when you spout them ??? Even you must admit there’s something wrong when you seem to alienate so many...

29 January 2012 at 15:13  
Blogger len said...

The gospel is the 'good news'.

At last we agree on something!.

If you accept that you can do nothing to save yourself because Jesus has paid the price for you...that is good news!.

But...if you tell me that I HAVE to belong to the Catholic Church..I HAVE to bow to the authority of the Pope,that I have to do umpteen things to get saved and remain saved then Salvation becomes what I do and not what Christ HAS done.This puts all the pressure on me!.Salvation cannot be me doing a bit and Christ doing a bit.Paul states this quite clearly in the Gospel(Galatians I believe)

This 'Gospel'where I am working for my salvation is no longer' good news' but becomes' bad news' because I know I cannot possibly become 'good enough to get saved.So I either have to become a hypocrite and pretend I am perfect or just give up.

29 January 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len If you accept that you can do nothing to save yourself because Jesus has paid the price for you...that is good news!.

Yes, Yes, Yes and no, you don’t have to be a Catholic....

29 January 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

len the Chief Priest

If your ingrediants are as you say, and they are very selective and non-contexualised quotes you use, then how come the Holy Spirit reveals different 'truths' to so many different readers of the Bible?

Paul in Timothy actually refers to the instructions he has given previously and, just to remind you, the New Testament hadn't been written! He is teaching them.

Jesus, in the passage from John you've quoted, is addressing the Apostles at the Last Supper and is preparing them for lies ahead.

And the final quote comes from a letter of instruction too. Indeed, John refers to its recepients as "little children". It's a letter of reassurance and encouragement. You really should read it.

You do take almighty liberties with the Word of God!

This man is really deluded about the Catholic Church and its teachings!

He also overlooks too the part individuals have to play and continually play in joining and staying one with Christ. That we have to accept saving Grace and, in so doing, strive to abide by the commandments of God and the message of Jesus.

In short, he appears to exclude all human participation in the process of salvation. Has he actually read scripture???

29 January 2012 at 23:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The Inspector is pleased that Len has found Christ. The Inspector also notes that there are different paths to our redeemers door, as you must expect when a complicated thinking and flawed animal like man is involved. What is so astonishing about the man is not his disapproval of organised religion, but his vociferous objection to Roman Catholicism. He is mute when it comes to the beliefs Protestantism encompasses. He MUST have differences with those mainstreams, but steadfastly refuses to air them.

One can’t help imagining that if he was to meet Jesus in the street, our Lord would say to him, “You’re doing it all wrong Len. Spread my word to people who haven’t heard it, and lay off those who have and are trying to do their best by it”.

30 January 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...


Let's hope it is Christ who has found him.

He would appear to have "issues". I'll say no more, except that if you were Satan what Church would you direct your main assault on?

31 January 2012 at 01:01  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: really, Len doesn't have ''issues'' any more than do you, or the rest of us for that matter. Which, in your case, ain't saying much, old duck, but we'll pass on that one. ;o)

For myself, I rather subscribe to the Inspector's final sentence.

31 January 2012 at 16:30  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...


Of course we all have "issues". However, I will always respond to what I consider to be unwarranted attacks on Catholicism and the Church.

At times len behaves like a guerilla, making the odd side-swipe and darting for cover. He fundamentally misrepresents the Church's history and its teachings and he is not alone on this blog in doing so.

And I agree with the Inspector's last sentence. The problem nowadays is discerning the legitimacy of the Christian message being spread.

31 January 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo : Len ain't big on any organised religion, regardless of their origin and nature.

However, you do seem to bring the worst out in him; quite an achievement really, as he's always seemed a pretty decent bloke to me.

There again, I'm always scrupulously fair, even-handed and polite; and have thus avoided the sort of conflict that you, it has to be said, often draw unto yourself.

Yeah, I just said all that last bit so I might imagine the look on your face, and the accompanying 'harrumphs' and 'snorts'! :o)

1 February 2012 at 01:29  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...


Quite the opposite, actually and no 'harrumphs' and 'snorts' from me.

As I've said before, I'm not on here to 'win friends' or even 'to influence people'. Let's be honest, most people have pretty fixed ideas and beliefs who post on this blog.

1 February 2012 at 13:23  
Blogger len said...


Dodo puts forward views that are so against the Gospel that they must be countered.

I believe he also brings Catholics into disrepute by his remarks.

The Gospel is under constant attack and I believe its time to stand up for the truth and if that means making a few' enemies'then quite frankly let it be so.

A friend of the World is an enemy of God and I would much rather have God as a friend than 'the World.'

There are two World systems that reject God because they believe they can get along without Him , they are science and believe it or not the other is religion.

2 February 2012 at 08:21  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Chief Priest len ruled ...

"Dodo puts forward views that are so against the Gospel that they must be countered."

I take it you're referring to your particular and unique (mis)understanding of the Gospel? No Incarnation; no Trinity; what next?

2 February 2012 at 15:01  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...


And 'science' does not reject God - nitwit! The scientific method is necessarily neutral but this does not mean all who support a rational approach to knowledge are the enemies of God. Same with 'religion' which is grounded in theology and attempys to further our understanding of God
based on Scripture and reason.

There is no contradiction between science, religion and faith. It just means one has to think about the world, God's revelation and one's faith. But then you exclusively "feel" and "experience" don't you?

In fact, you have your very on 'religion', though one has to question whether it is actually based on any reason, thought or, indeed, scripture.

2 February 2012 at 15:14  
Blogger Oswin said...

Len: I'm afraid I have to agree, in part, with Dodo here: not all scientists, and certainly not 'science' it self, is at variance with 'God' - although its applications frequently are.

Yes, I do agree, that 'religion' is often at fault ... and forgetting our individual 'Christian' differences for a moment, we all of us know the current greatest threat of all; to which our efforts ought to be directed.

As for Dodo being Dodo; well, it's been mentioned often enough before. Perhaps the Vatican will have a quiet word with him, one day. He might get to meet a real Jesuit a**a**in! :o)

2 February 2012 at 15:49  
Blogger len said...

I am afraid I will have to disagree with both of you!.

Ever since the fall(eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil)man has desired knowledge.(Our English word science is derived from the Latin word ' scientia' the Latin word meaning knowledge.
Are you seriously suggesting that 'science' has enabled us to get nearer to God, quite the reverse I would have thought?.Man uses science to disprove God.
The quest for knowledge apart from God is merely a desire for independence from God.

Religion has worked out methods(much like those at the Tower of Babel) to reach God ,'to be as God'which is the satanic short cut to 'be as God'.

It`s all about the desire of fallen men to be independent from God the root of which is pride.

2 February 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...


You are beyond the pale! Really, you are.

Man is a sentient creature and it is in his very nature to be curious and to seek to understand the world he lives in. Quite apart from that, in order to survive and advance man has had to advance in the knowledge.

Your reading now of Genesis, like your reading of most passages of scripture you cite, is flawed. It wasn't knowledge of his world that was forbidden Adam. It was the knowledge of good and evil which could only be obtained through outright disobedience of God. Understand?!

As for 'religion', what on earth are you talking about? I'm afraid you'll have to define the meaning of the word you're using.


A fine Society the 'Company'. The founder understood the need to fight!

2 February 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, As per usual your comment is practically undecipherable.

Still I will have a guess at what you are trying to say?.

Satan suggested to Eve that she could be 'as God'knowing good and evil.God knew evil by evil being something outside of Himself, something which opposed God.

Eve (and Adam) knew evil by direct experience, sin became their master, sin became part of them.

So to try to be' as God(whether by gaining knowledge through science or religion ( in the worst sense of the word) is to oppose God.It is a matter of wishing independence from God. Many who are opposed to God because of the desire to be independent of Him and not wishing to be 'held to account' by a higher being.This is a characteristic of the fallen, rebellious, nature.I don`t deny that some men of Science were also Christian but these are comparatively few(especially in this present age)

Knowledge is power is a common saying .

Religion( in the worst sense of the word )is man trying to' be good enough' to be accepted by God through his 'own works'through his own abilities.

3 February 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...


Sorry but it is you who are confused. You make the simple complex and the complex you just cannot fathom so make it up as you go along.

Again you've failed to define what you mean by the term 'religion'. Neither have you justified the view that the human endeavour, per se, to comprehend God's creation is an attempt to become like God.

You're obsessed with Nimrod!

4 February 2012 at 01:14  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Look up the words Nimrod, mother child,Babylon'. Also take a look at 'The two Babylons' by Alexander Hislop.

I am not going to' spoon feed 'you, do your own research(but avoid Catholic sites or you will just keep going round in circles not recommended for disorientated Ducks!.)

5 February 2012 at 12:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Chief Priest len

Been there, done that and bought the teeshirt! Its all a complete load of old tosh written by a demented Scotsman!

You really should consult more scholarly references. Even Ralph Woodrow says it is based on misconceptions, fabrications and grave factual errors.

That means its a pack of prejudicial lies, just in case the meaning escapes you.

5 February 2012 at 16:41  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older