Before the body of murdered Normandy priest Jaques Hamel is even cold, the anti Islamophobia backlash is in full swing as our rulers and other key opinion leaders insist that when 2 men in Muslim dress burst into a Catholic church, shout anti-Christian slogans and slit the throat of a Catholic minister of religion before the altar, it is nothing to do with Islam the religion of peace’.
Well they are wrong. Culpably and dangerously so. And we must tell them at every opportunity.
This sort of thing is not an isolated incident, it is part of a pattern, and it is entirely consistent with the core beliefs of Islam. Don’t take my word for this, get some facts.
Click these links here for news of Islamic mass murder of Christians in Pakistan in Libya, Egypt , Iraq and Nigeria. These were all unprovoked attacks carried out by Muslims, in the name of their religion, praising their deity and shouting the name of their prophet. And it was entirely consistent of them to do so, because the teaching and practice of Muhammad was to intimidate, threaten, invade, enslave, rob, rape and kill those who opposed him. Or whom he just fancied robbing or raping.
Let us be clear about one thing. Whenever Christians of any degree of orthodoxy (*) meet together for worship, they blaspheme Muhammad. This is inevitable, since Christians proclaim that the man Jesus of Nazareth is the Eternal Son of God, the Third Person of The Blessed Trinity. the Holy One, the Saviour and died on the cross and was raised again and ascended to Heaven. There is no form of religion having the most tenuous claim to call itself Christianity that does not affirm all of these doctrines. And this Jesus taught consistently that after Him, false prophets would arise and lead many astray. And then along comes Muhammad, denying every single one of the above core doctrines of Christianity, and raising armies whom he inspired to spread his message by the sword. As they have done ever since whenever they were not constrained by main force.
So, if Jesus was a true prophet, Muhammad was a major league false prophet, a lying impostor and a child of hell. This is the most basic logic. We Christians generally like to keep quiet about this, for fear of (A) causing offence, or (B) getting our throats slit. But it’s there. Muslims understand this if leftists, secularists and liberal Christians don’t.
To summarise, when I meet with my brother and sister Christians in church and declare aloud in our worship that Jesus is God and died for our sins, rose again, ascended to heaven and sat down at God’s right hand, I am calling Muhammad a liar because he denied all this. And he was a liar, a foul, wicked liar with a tongue set on fire by hell, where he now deservedly resides.
The point is, this ain’t going away folks. Muslims and Christians have at times and places agreed to live peaceably side by side, but whenever Islam has had the upper hand, it has done what it does. And it is struggling to get the upper hand in Europe. There is blood in the water and the sharks are homing in. They smell cowardice and defeatism. Our ancestors thought their civilisation was worth defending and realised that Islam wanted to take over Europe, so they fought those much misrepresented defensive conflicts, the Crusades. If they had not pushed back against Jihad (which preceded the First Crusade by some 400 years) Europe would have been Islamified centuries ago. Robert Spencer, who writes and speaks about this, lives in guarded secret location in fear of his life, and is barred from entering Britain. His views on the Crusades are well researched, well argued, and banned as politically incorrect. I think that speaks more eloquently that the dhimmi BBC. Time to read some history, although it may already be too late.
Baghdad church massacre (one of many)
(*) I am an ex-Catholic and disagree with many of their core beliefs because they diverge from Biblical teaching. However, much Catholic doctrine is biblical, for example the Triune nature of God and the atoning death of Jesus. There is no perfect church on earth, we all fail in differing degrees. Out of charity and solidarity in the face of the twin threats from militant secularism and Islam I am prepared to call Roman Catholics brother Christians unless proved otherwise
I recently posted on a friend’s Facebook page in a conversation about Justice. What do we mean by justice, or indeed fairness? Its a bit like ‘human rights’, and indeed breastfeeding or growing food without synthetic chemicals. Sounds great, very hard to speak against. I mean, who could possibly be against ‘fairness’? Demonstrably, only an unfair (therefore morally evil) person. But what do these words MEAN? Do people not realise that there are such things as con men? Calling something justice doesn’t make it just. Your idea of ‘fairness’ may look like theft to me. And maybe worse than theft.
For some people, including FAR too many professing Christians, it means a Big State and massive welfare payments. I copied this from the FB discussion in question today after receiving the criticism posted below, minus the name of the other protagonists. As you can see, the respondent believes I am morally evil for asserting that the State guarantee of free housing, clothing, social care and food (free medicine and free education go without saying in Britain) has in fact increased levels of fatherlessness, which is a very great social evil. My initial response is also posted.
I found a very good US based web site which I commend.
Whichever parameter you measure, children who are raised without a father (and in Britain and America today this is almost always due to divorce or birth outside marriage) is an ABSOLUTE DISASTER for the children and for the society they will grow up in. And we are being forced to pay for this epidemic, on pain of PRISON, through our taxes. And if you object to this, as my post did, you can expect to be called evil, heartless, stupid bigots by the virtue signalling left. Some of whom call themselves Christians.
Perhaps they are genuine believers, we all get things wrong. A wise man accepts correction, a fool boasts in his folly. As for me, I am a sinner who is hopefully saved by grace. I can prove from my bank statements over the last 30 years that I am passionately concerned with relieving poverty especially for widows and orphans. I have sponsored (i.e. given regular money to) 2 children in poverty in developing countries and much more. God commands charity to be directed towards the widow, the orphan and the disabled. But the automatic assumption that we are acting compassionately and doing good by giving ever increasing £billions of taxpayer pounds to give a safety net for men and women who fail in their responsibilities towards their offspring, each other and society (to say nothing of their Maker) is based on profoundly unexamined assumptions.
If we as a society are concerned about the welfare of children and to avoid their abuse, let alone to level up educational and economic outcomes which the Left claims to want, we should most urgently and diligently examine the great social evil that is epidemic State sponsored fatherlessness. But few even dare to raise the issue for fear of being shouted down by those who establish their own righteousness by demanding an ever bigger State.
Of course, many of our key opinion leaders are ardent fornicators and adulterers who reject their Maker’s reasonable restrictions on sexual activity. This explains a lot.
There was an agreement to suspend campaigning after this cruel and lawless murder, but the Remain side carried on campaigning, indeed intensified it. According to the polls, it may have worked. We shall see.
Deliciously over the top cartoon by Ben Garrison about the Brexit vote. Alas, it has been a nasty few months with lies and misrepresentation on both sides, but very much nastier since the cruel and lawless assassination of Mrs Jo Cox MP last Thursday. Campaigning was officially suspended by both sides over the crucial last weekend prior to the big vote on 23rd June, but then the Remain side carried on campaigning, weaponising Mrs Cox’s cruel murder by a lone psychopath to blame Remain/Brexit for ‘creating an atmosphere of hate’ which had caused her murder. Utterly deplorable. And these are the same people who, as Paul Joseph Watson of INFOWARS puts it, apologise for Islam after every single jihadist murder rampage.
So, this cartoon may be over the top, but it’s a lot fairer and in better taste than hereditary Labour MP Stephen Kinnock using Jo Cox’s memorial to smear everyone who has a problem with uncontrolled mass immigration with Mrs Cox’s blood, as he did yesterday in Parliament.
Over the last few days I have been involved in a discussion on the Premier Christian Radio web forum. I have made rather more posts than I wanted to, since what I originally posted came under various forms of attack to which I felt the need to respond. A lot of this came down to condemning me for condemning adultery, hypocrisy and other sins. Or rather, not so much me condemning these sins but pointing out that God condemns them. As ever on these occasions, I point out that I am a sinner also and that, thankfully (to put it mildly!) as the song says ‘There Is A Redeemer.’ through Whom we wretches can get clean of our sin and be reconciled to God, if we will only call sin sin and turn from it to Christ.
But were these qualifications enough to stop me getting blasted? You bet they weren’t. I suppose I ought to copy and paste or screen shot the posts in question, but I don’t feel like doing so as that might appear to be making sport of the other posters. Besides which, I’m blogging here about a more general point. And that point is-that when you, as a humble, penitent and unworthy follower of Jesus, post stuff pointing your fellow sinners to the terrible danger of judgment they are in, and to the Remedy (Jesus Christ) you will get outrage, condemnation and several standard put-down responses.
The first of these is to accuse you of being ‘holier than thou’, of pointing the finger, of being a hypocrite (they LOVE that one!), a Pharisee, judgmental, condemnatory, and of course, if it is sexual sin under discussion, of being ‘obsessed with what people do in their bedrooms.’ In my experience, these stock responses are launched automatically, often using the same wording that one sees used elsewhere. Most likely from some kind of ‘atheist central’ circulating meme pool. I say atheist, but there are 2 kinds of people who usually lay into me, atheists and professing Christians whose ideas about what Christianity actually teaches appears to derive not from the teaching and example of Jesus and His Apostles, but from some ‘circulating meme pool’ of liberal pseudochristian thought which generally consists of using words like ‘love…inclusive…equality…tolerant (good) and literalist, fundamentalist, bigoted (bad)’ quite a lot. These people detest the concept that God is angry with us for our sins.
Do I get nasty in my responses? I’m afraid I often do, when faced with idiocy or lies its hard not to call it out for what it is, maybe with an insinuation about the motives of the accuser. I’m working on it. But I fear that whenever you, as a concerned Christian who wishes to direct his or her fellow sinners’ footsteps out of the broad path that leads to destruction into the narrow one that leads to life (Matthew 7:13-14) say anything authentic about sin and judgment, you will get such stinging attacks that it’s hard not to respond in kind.
And that’s another thing, you get condemned for citing the Bible as an authority. I can deal with the outright atheist denier who pours scorn on the authenticity of the Scriptures. This is at least a specific line of discussion which can be followed: there is abundant evidence that points to the reliability of the Scriptures, not least the many Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus hundreds and in some cases thousands of years later. If this person is a genuine skeptic, their open minded enquiries ought to lead them to Christian faith. But the kind of stuff I have been getting is such waffle and drivel, responding to it is like trying to nail a jellyfish to a post.
Another well tried technique is accusing you of having failed to answer a question when you in fact have answered it. Well, if you are shown to be wrong but don’t want to admit it, denial works. As does changing the subject. and personal abuse. And if you then point out that your opponent is using abuse, they will ether deny it, or say you are just as bad, or call you cry baby whining about martyrdom, etc.
And then there’s ‘interpretation‘. I remember getting into a hilarious scrape about this once, when in a discussion on divorce I quoted Malachi 2:16 ‘…for I hate divorce, says the LORD.’ Someone jumped in and accused me of misinterpreting this verse. What, so it really means ‘..don’t worry, be happy, for I have no problem with divorce and I’d hate anyone to be trapped in an unsatisfying marriage, tentatively suggests the ‘Lord’…’ Just as some folks say ‘you can interpret the Bible to make it say anything you want’ , one finds opponents on line playing the ‘interpretation’ card to destroy the plain and obvious meaning of any Scripture they want. When an opponent plays the ‘interpretation’ card, they are generally dissembling and distracting because they don’t like the plain meaning of the text in question. If you go to Genesis chapter 3 and the temptation of Christ account, you can see that Satan is a master and indeed the author of this strategy.
‘Did God really say….?’
Any on line ‘web warrior’ has to learn to take the rough with the smooth. We are probably much ruder to each other on line than we would be if we met in a public place, especially if we are using an on line nom de plume. I do use these at ties, but generally prefer to post under my own name. But how DO you respond to this sort of thing-rudeness, lying, misrepresentation, changing the subject, churning questions you already answered, attributing bad motives and bad character to you rather than address the issue under discussion? And what do you do about the person who always has to have the last word? Or who demands you address a big bundle of questions which will take you an hour (and maybe you have some cookery, work assignment or visiting to do which is every much a part of your Christian service as this)?
For me, I have been through quite a set of struggles around these issues in the 10 years or so I have been posting Christian comment on various web fora, including here. I am not saying I have cracked this, or that my style or content or even my heart is perfect. But here are some of the principles and tentative practical conclusions I have reached to date.
Principle 1) Christian disciples are under an obligation from Our Lord to communicate the Gospel to a lost world. The good news about Jesus is meaningless if divorced from the bad news about sin and judgment, as we read in Matthew 1:21 ‘You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins’. Salvation from sin is the central theme of the Gospel, so we cannot possibly present the Gospel of Christ without warning our fellow sinners about God’s entirely appropriate wrath. This always causes offence.
Principle 2) If we preach Christ faithfully, we will get blasted for it, as the Prophets and Apostles did. This isn’t cryptic, it is mentioned repeatedly in the Prophets, Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles and Revelation. The relevant key texts are John 15 and Matthew chapters 10 and 24. Here, Jesus plainly tells his followers that men will hate them and speak all manner of evil against them . There are many, many other texts in Old and New Testaments telling us to expect ill treatment. There is a handy compendium of Bible verses here about why the world, including the false church, hates authentic Christians.
Principle 3) We must not get upset and lash out. Guilty, I have often taken the abuse personally and given as bad as I got if not worse. This is a failure on my part, and as Paul said (Romans 7) only proves me to be a sinner. With God’s help, I am working on it.
Principle 4) 1 Peter 3:15 ‘Always be prepared to give a defence to anyone who questions you about the hope that is in you, yet do it with meekness and respectfulness.‘ I find this very helpful when I want to either (A) run away, or (B) respond to dishonest, rude, inappropriate, misleading responses with a curt or flippant comment before flouncing away. Something which I’m sorry to say I have often done.
Principle 4) Paul wrote that he tried to be all things to all men so that by all means he might save some. If Paul were here today, he would use the web. The devil and all enemies of truth and righteousness certainly use every inch of the web, day and night. Faithful followers of Christ must use the web too, according to our lights, gifts and opportunities.
Principle 5) Know when to back off, and do so without a bad conscience even as you hear their triumphalist abuse ringing in your ears and imagine the putrid, smarmy discussion they have about what a coward and loser you are and how they beat you after you’ve gone. Don’t worry. Jesus and the Apostles got this all the time. When their hearers rejected their message, moved on to the next place. Correct an opponent once or twice, but do not go on casting your pearls before swine Matthew 7:6, if the message is refused, shake the dust from your feet and move on (Matthew 10:24, Luke 9:5). There might be someone in the next on line village who is seeking, while you wear yourself out trying to get a reprobate to admit their errors, someone who might actually be waiting for the message is going hungry. This too is Satan’s purpose in entangling on line Christians in interminable arguments that are going nowhere.
Principle 6) Always be willing to consider that you might be mistaken. We all fail, and at the heart of any worthwhile Christian profession is the humble and penitential admission that we are sinners, failures, losers. We proclaim Christ, not ourselves, and we must do so correctly and gently or we are misrepresenting Christ. Let’s leave that to the devil and his dupes. For every hour we spend on line debating and arguing, we should probably spend a commensurate amount of time in Bible study and prayer, always being willing to admit we are mistaken or have a wrong emphasis on some point. The Holy Spirit will lead the humble seeker into all the truth (John 14:26). A wise man will thank you for correction, but fools despise wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 1:7, 9:8, 23:9). Fools hate to be corrected, don’t be a fool.
Tentative conclusions: A faithful follower of Christ who has access to the internet should, in my opinion, use it for Christ, both to positively proclaim the Good News about pardon from sin and adoption into God’s family (e.g. Romans 6:23) but also to oppose strongholds of lies. I’m sorry to have to spell out that this includes false teaching within the church, something Jude (see Jude verses 3 and 4 particularly where the Apostle goes out of his way to emphasise the deadly danger of false teaching within the church) and other Apostles warned about. You will get blasted over this, especially on sites frequented by liberal Christians and ESPECIALLY over the sexual revolutionary agenda including same sex so called marriage, but correcting false doctrine and unorthodox practice was key to the Apostles’ ministry, see the letter to the Galatians and 1st Corinthians plus the letters to the 7 churches of Revelation for a start. You’ll be called a ‘heresy hunter’ and accused of being obsessed with your own narrow interpretation of the Bible. Sorry but it can’t be helped. Ask yourself which is worse- a divided (visible) church or a church united in error? Ideally the church should be united in truth, but as far as I can tell this has never happened. Read 1 and 2 Corinthians on this sorry matter. Did I mention that we have an Enemy who sows division? Jesus did, for example in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30).
Web activism will mean various things for each of us, for we all have different gifts and opportunities (See 1 Corinthians 12). In my opinion, this will include general sharing of good things (Philippians 4:8) criticism of bad things, correction of error and proclaiming of the Christian message of ‘God and sinners reconciled’. In other words, preaching the Gospel of repentance for the remission of sins and tearing down strongholds that set themselves against the truth (2 Corinthians 10: 3-5). I’m afraid this will get us into trouble with the world and sometimes leave us hurt, maybe badly, especially when we fail, as we will.
SO, in summary, yes we should engage the culture through the web, although some people will hate us for it. The devil means for their abuse, mocking, misrepresentation and slander to put us off so that we stop sharing the good news. Don’t let him win. There are rich rewards on offer for the one who is faithful in well doing and endures to the end. See for example Mathew 5:12, Luke 6:23. Romans 2:7, Galatians 6:9 and many others.
Definitely worth a read. We have been deceived.
You have to laugh (see Psalm 2) or else you’d cry. The latest bit of evo-prop is to do with idle speculation about how ‘evolution’ produced lesbianism. The research was done in the imagination of the researcher and arrived at politically and culturally approved conclusions regardless of evidence, thus being absolutely faithful to Uncle Charley’s original ‘..I have no difficulty in imagining...’ method.
>>>Women’s sexuality is far more fluid than mens – and this may be a result of evolutionary design, (evolutionary design?!?!?!-a contradiction in terms SH) according to a new theory.
Evolutionary psychologist Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa proposes that sexual fluidity arose in women as a mechanism for ‘reducing conflict and tension among co-wives in polygynous marriages’.
Being sexually fluid would have allowed women to have sex with their co-wives while still successfully reproducing with their husband, the theory suggests, and thus has reproductive benefits.<<<<
I paste >>>>>>.”…… according to a new theory, this nature of female sexuality might have been necessitated by evolutionary factors. This new theory does not condemn the fact that from the society’s point of view, females are more agreeable on accepting their sexual bend.
According to Dr. Dawn Michael of The Happy Spouse and writer of ‘My Husband Won’t Have Sex With Me’, he believes women have the ability of getting attracted to other human being mentally in a much easier manner as compared to men.
He added that a female displaying affection for another woman openly has our society’s approval, which makes the movement from affection to sexual connection easier for women. However, the underlying question is that from where do females get these instincts. The answer lies in evolution.
In an article, recently published in Biological Reviews, Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa asserts that the evolution of flexibility in women’s sexuality occurred to let them indulge in sexual activities with their co-wives in polygynous marriages. This was considered to be important for alleviating disagreement and stress among wives that is natural in such marriages, along with maintaining heterosexual relationships with their husband for successful reproduction. Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health was used by Kanazawa to support the findings.
This theory further discloses the fact that wives were likely to have a more contended polygynous marriage if they were inclined towards lesbian interactions, with improved chances of having a child.”<<<<
Well, that obviously does it for the author. Another addition to the ‘mountains of overwhelming evidence’ that supports the all embracing science of evolution. Or some idle speculation, as you will.
That homosexualism is a deviance from normal behaviour is pretty obvious. The Biblical explanation for it is the same as for fornication and adultery-we humans (all of us, including me) are messed up sexually and in every other way as a result of the Fall. This is not very affirming, in fact, it points to our need to repent and come to the Saviour for new direction and a fresh start. Unwelcome. Just as with a diagnosis of disease requiring radical surgery, denial or searching for inadequate remedies like homeopathy won’t help.
Those who won’t accept this need to search for other explanations. Evolutionism is a very flexible theory, it was designed to be unfalsifiable, does not rest on a sound evidential basis, and can explain everything. To the gullible.
New biological features in evolutionary theory cannot arise because they would be convenient. They can only arise because new genetic material creates itself through mutations. We know that this does not happen. So called ‘Evolutionary psychologists’ are simply making stuff up.
In just over a month on 23rd June, my country will have what I am convinced will be her FINAL chance to extricate herself from the coils of the EUrosnake. If we listen to the misinformation and downright lies of the BBC, mainstream politicians, one worlders, socialists, corporatists, Islamists, wishful thinkers, cowards and fools and vote Remain, we will be making our last journey down her throat. The reason I am so sure of that can be seen in the recent election of a Muslim human rights lawyer as London Mayor. True, the Tories put up a very poor candidate in Zac Goldsmith (super rich and out of touch) but the key thing is that around half of London’s population are now first or second generation immigrants, so would inevitably have voted for a brown man (*). When you add the benefit claimants who will always vote Labour, and conservative Christians who would find it hard to support David Cameron’s wretched liberal masquerading as conservative party (of whom I am one) you see the result was a foregone conclusion. For the record, if I had a vote in the London mayoral election I would have voted third party or spoiled my ballot paper.
The really big issue about this vote is immigration. I will post a lot more about this later, but basically allowing for undetected illegals and white flight (to Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc) we are absorbing almost a million mostly unskilled, many Muslim, immigrants a year. The more come, the more want to come, and they will all vote Labour and Remain, so the electorate is really being jerrymandered. This was what the hard line international communists like Peter Mandelson (**) always wanted and planned for. So if we don’t vote Leave now, we won’t get another chance.
(*) PS any readers whose offence taking mechanisms are triggered by what I’ve already posted, can shout off to their safe space, no need to read any further. Try listening to Stefan instead, as he mourns the imminent and irrevocable demise of the rights and prosperity our ancestors bequeathed us due to our moral and intellectual torpor and fear of being called ‘racist’.
(**) If you doubt this, do a bit of research, starting with Peter Hitchens’ ‘The Cameron Delusion’. Mandelson was one of many paid up communist party members who changed their affiliation but not their beliefs and pursued their goals through the Labour party. Tony Blair’s inner circle was full of hard line Marxists.
Philosopher and atheist Stefan Molyneux understands, if relatively few white European professing Christians do, that mass immigration of the kind we have been unwillingly enduring over the last 20 years or so will be the certain end of our civilisation as we know it. There are a lot of lies being told about this. Between now and the vote I will be posting about a few of them. This does all fit in with the ideas explored in my novel Darwin’s Adders: A Chronicle of Pagan Britain. One of the plot ideas in the novel is an unholy alliance between socialists and Muslims against Christian civilisation. How curious that atheists like Molyneux are beginning to see this but main stream Christians either can’t or won’t.
Researching the French wars of religion, and reflecting on their complex causes, I also reflect on other wars of the same eras like the hundred years war and wars of the roses- in which both sides were nominally Catholic.
The following came to me…if the statement ‘Since some wars are caused by religion, so we should get rid of religion to end wars.’ is true, then by the same token ‘Some deaths are caused by drowning, so we should ban water to end death.’ is equally valid.
My researches so far tend me to the view that while religion may sometimes be an excuse for war, the real causes are greed, lust, envy, hatred and indeed a lack of true religion.