Monday, October 09, 2006

The Pen, the Sword and the Pontiff

There is no doubt about the stupidity of the bleeding heart left wing liberal journalists with their mealy-mouthed criticisms of the Regensberg address. One such writer is Madeline Bunting, and her critical article (which showed that this journalist loves to project her own stupidity onto others)against the Regensberg address. This article has been answered by Lee Harris who soundly refutes the nonsense written by Bunting. Lee Harris addresses the following comment:
An elderly Catholic nun has already been killed in Somalia, perhaps in retaliation for the pope's remarks; churches have been attacked in the West Bank. How is this papal stupidity going to play out in countries such as Nigeria, where the tensions between Catholics and Muslims frequently flare into riots and deaths? Or other countries such as Pakistan, where tiny Catholic communities are already beleaguered?" In answer to this rather sarcastic statement about the acumen of Pope Benedict XVI, it seems that Madeline Bunting has made are rather sweeping assumption, one that is challenged by Harris: "Papal stupidity" is strong language. But a few paragraphs before this harsh phrase, Madeleine Bunting has prepared us for it by arguing that "even the most cursory knowledge of dialogue with Islam teaches...that reverence for the Prophet is non-negotiable. What unites all Muslims is a passionate devotion and commitment to protecting the honor of Mohammed." A Pope who did not know that "reverence for the Prophet is non-negotiable" must, therefore, be guilty of egregious stupidity.
The assumption? "reverence for the prophet (mhrih) is non negotiable". It is a statement like that which makes me think that Muslims have raised this sex-pervert, child-molester, thief, murderer, and slave trader to the position of deity. I began to suspect that this was the case when the mindless mobs began their riots over a bunch of cartoons that were good for a laugh and more than likely represented Osama Bin Laden or Nasrallah, than anything resembling Mohammed the child molester.
I will not address the points raised by Harris, because they are all good points, but I disagree when she uses Michael Servetus the arch heretic as an example of someone speaking truth - unfortunately Michael Servetus did not speak the truth and he received a just punishment for the time because of his refusal to recant his heresy. One has to keep in mind that what was uppermost was not so much the fear of criticism but the fear of the heresy spreading and not being able to combat the lie.
What is wrong in Islam, is that people do not have freedom of expression. Anyone who does not toe the line is considered an apostate, and the punishment in the countries where Sharia is practised is death. The majority of the mob who took to the streets cannot even read, and they had no real idea about what was stated. They are never given the opportunity to examine the violent aspects of Islam, and to decide for themselves that the violence must be removed. They have become like mindless idiots as they take to the streets in obedience to their masters, the radical mullahs. We are not even aware of exactly what they were told during the Friday sermons to cause such a ruckus and riots. The mullahs have the ability to stir up the mob and when the mob is stirred up then anything can happen. They only need a slight pretext before they send the mob into a new overdrive.
This is why not only do I agree with Lee Harris, but I have added my own thoughts to a well written article. I believe that there are other issues that Madelaine Bunting has failed to address. I suspect that she has not addressed those issues because the outcome of trying to be honest about Islam for a change goes against the grain of left wing politics.
It is the bleeding hearts, who act as willing fodder for the bull that comes out of the mouths of the alleged moderate Islamic spokesmen that is the real problem here. These are the people who are totally incapable of doing their own independent analysis of what was stated in the Regensberg address, the resulting riots, and for that matter any reporting that comes from the Middle East that concerns the Gaza Strip, Iraq and Afghanistan. These bleeding hearts listen to their masters, take it down word for word, but they do not have the brains to check out whether what they are being told holds the truth. Instead you will get comments such as that of Bunting that shows a journalist who is very self-opiniated but who shows no ability at all when it comes to self-examination, introspection and critical analysis.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Pope Benedict do not make any further apology

I am a Catholic and I am proud to belong to the Roman Catholic Church. I am proud that my spiritual leader is a man with such a great intellect as Pope Benedict XVI, the German, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger. This is a man who has a very keen intellect, and last week he gave a speech at the university where he had been a professor for several years before he was called to serve elsewhere.
The speech itself concerned the issues of rational discussion and reason, and Ratzinger, with his understanding of philosophy approached his speech in a way that not only criticized the growing secularization of the west, but he mentioned a little known work of a dialogue between a medieval Christian Emperor and an Iranian, at a time when Constantinople was under siege. The remark concluded that Mohammed brought nothing but violence to religion. The remark iteself was a preface to a call for rational dialogue.
However, in typical fashion, the Jihadis got on their high horses. They met in their mosques, both in the day and at night (I could get carried away with the point about night and darkness), and the imams began their tireless task of whipping up the mob into violent protests. It did not take long for some rather disturbing news to reach the world. An elderly nun, who is a nurse, was shot four times in the back. Her bodyguard was also murdered. May she rest in the arms of the Lord, and may she be declared a martyr at the earliest possible moment. Churches belonging to the Orthodox were torched in Gaza - they only needed the flimsiest of excuses to do this deed. They demanded an apology from Benedict, and he gave an apology of sorts, regretting that such violence had been stirred up. The apology has not been good enough for the purveyors of such hatred.
The black sheet brigade took to the streets in Pakistan, showing the world how they love being enslaved to a group of violent misogynists. They carried placards that decried the alleged words of Benedict. In London, an infamous shit stirrer by the name of Choudray made threats against the life of the Pope, demanding that he be executed. The same call came from the imam in Somalia, who has issued a fatwah along the same lines as the one against Salman Rushdie. In the USA, the organization known as CAIR, the apologists for the jihadi terrorists denounced what it perceived as sleights against Muslims in the USA and as usual was silent concerning the demands to kill Benedict. The Mujahdeen in Iraq have posted their own vile threats on a website, claiming that they will overrun Rome.
To add insult to injury to Catholics, these psychopaths have blasphemed Jesus Christ. They have shown that they do not respect the religion of any other culture. They see themselves as being superior to all others. They claim that the comment that was made defamed Islam, yet their actions, their threats, and their tantrums have shown to the world that Islam is not a religion of peace, and that it is true. Nothing good has come out of Islam. We know them by their fruits, and from Mohammed there has been: violence, adultery, bigamy, rape, murder, child molestation, torture, and enslavement. Everything that has the stamp of Mohammed has the stamp of Hatred, and the author of Hatred is Satan.
Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney has spoken out in defence of Benedict. He has also taken to task two of Australia's Muslim spokesmen. Both of the men in question are known for their own intemperate remarks. They are known for their threats against others. They only thing in their favour is that Australian Muslims this time around have remained low key.
We are in the midst of World War 3, and we have been there since at least September 11, 2001. Let us not kid ourselves that Muslims everywhere are involved in this Jihad. Take a good look at those involved in the violence. Most of them wear white, and white in Islam is the colour worn by the Jihadi. The western leaders have been so stupid with their acceptance of Dhimmitude. They are being played as fools bythe Muslims who flatter them with attention. The Muslims will strike them as soon as look at some of them. We hear the litany of complaints about oppression and the like, but the complaints are wearing thin. The countries where there is the most oppression happen to be countries run by Islamic regimes.
The way was opened for dialogue but these violent jihadis have deliberately slammed the gate shut. They want to continue to play the blame game, and they want to deflect their own guilt onto others. If any of them had a genuine bone in their bodies, then they should have welcomed the opportunity to respond to the remarks of a Medieval emperor, and instead of whipping up violent protests they should have been willing to engage in dialogue.
I do not believe that Benedict ows these sandmonkeys and dogs any further apology at all. They owe Benedict an apology instead. They need to grow up and show some maturity, accept some responsibility for their own actions, and learn to be tolerant towards others.
We cannot dialogue with animals, well actually we can dialogue with the four legged variety, since they can communicate very effectively with their owners. On the other hand these human animals do not allow dialogue and reason to exist. As for their claims about civilization in Islam, well everything is made up. They have not made any scientific advances. They did not invent gunpowder, and they knew nothing of either astrology or astronomy.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Somali clashes after call for holy war - World - smh.com.au

Somali clashes after call for holy war - World - smh.com.au First, we hear of the situation in Lebanon where Israel is once again on the verge of war with her neighbours. Now we hear of the call to war by Somali Islamists who are intent upon overthrowing the legitimate government of Somalia. The Somalian government lacks a strong military presence and so it is being helped by Eretria. The Eretrian troops have been moving across the border, and they have donned the Somali government uniforms. The call to war that was made by Osama Bin Laden is now being followed up by Islamist terrorists around the world. This is not a holy war. It is an UNHOLY war.

Saturday, July 22, 2006

All-out Israeli invasion looms

All-out Israeli invasion looms - World - theage.com.au There is nothing new under the sun, and the continuing hostilities between the Arab nations and Israel is evidence of the truth of the Scriptures. The murderous Hezbollah are funded by Syria and Iran - in the ancient Middle East these two nations were known as Aram and Persia respectively. The towns of Tyre and Sidon have previously been under attack, but now the attacks are being carried out with modern weapons. Yes, it is true that the prophet Isaiah spoke against what is now modern Syria. The Arameans had attacked the Kingdom of Judah and they were defeated. So it would seem that the ancient hostility and the desire for power over the Middle East continues unabated amongst a group of savages. Yet, there is a twist in the modern story of hostility, muder and mayhem. The leaders of the world seem content to sit back and allow the current leader of Iran finance Hezbollah and Hamas in their guerilla war against modern Israel. The leader of modern Persia wants to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. The left wing elements of the mainstream media are happy to pepetuate the notion that Israel alone is at fault for the present hostility. However, history proves that this is not true, and that the murder and mayhem is very much tied up with Mohammed's desire to dominate the world with his man made Islam. The Islamics want to establish the world wide caliphate. The left wing element do not believe that this is the aim of radical Islam. The bleeding hearts refuse to accept that Islam is not a religion of peace - they cannot cope with any opinion that is in direct opposition to their own starry eyed view of Islam. Little do they know that their attitude is placing their own freedom in jeopardy. The desire to establish the world-wide caliphate is not about religion or the One True God. It is about the desire to place the whole of the world into a form of slavery. It will mean the end of Christianity, Judaism. Buddhism and Hiduism. All will be forced to be under Sharia law. The Sharia is not the same as laws of ancient Israel but it is an adaptation of the precepts.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Relections on the Crucifixion

It is that time of year again, when we stop and reflect upon the events of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion. As a Catholic, and one who goes to daily Mass, I reflect upon these events nearly every day. When we celebrate the Eucharist, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we are in effect remembering what took place in the Upper Room, and then what took place on Calvary (Golgotha), followed by the Resurrection. It is so wrong of those Baptist fundamentalists who insist that we sacrifice Jesus over and over again at a Catholic Mass when in fact we remember and present the sacrifice again to the Father, so that He will not forget what Jesus did on our behalf. What does the Crucifixion and Resurrection mean to me? Jesus Christ was born as a man so that He could experience all of man's experiences, even though He is God. He was tempted, just as we are tempted, but as the Perfect One, He did not give into that temptation. In other words, He had enmity for Satan, and He refused to follow the way of Satan. He showed us the way because He was able to resist temptation. Jesus is the innocent man of the Scriptures, for there is reference for everything that took place in the writings of the prophets (David was also a prophet in his psalms). The men who plotted against Jesus were truly wicked, and if we were to know anything about their lifestyle, I feel certain that we would recoil over their crimes that they thought were hidden from full view. Some of these crimes are in fact documented, for there is some references to the lack of respect for one's parents, as well as other hints at wrong doing. The mere fact that they were trying to catch Jesus out by their tricks is evidence enough of the wickedness of their hearts. The Gospels mention that Caiaphas, as the High Priest also acted as a prophet when he said that one man must die to save many. Caiaphas was thinking only of the situation with the Roman soldiers. He thought that the attention that was given to Jesus would bring the weight of Rome down upon the Jews. He was thinking in terms of earthly power, yet his words do ring true when they are considered in a more spiritual way. Jesus died so that we could live through the granting of God's grace. One man, Jesus died, so that we would be saved from the chains of sin that bind us to Satan. To this day, the Jews have not accepted that Jesus is the Christ, and their lack of acceptance is due to the fact that they have not spiritually understood the nature of Messiah. At the time of Jesus, the Jews expected the Messiah to be a king who would lead them into battle against the Romans. Herod Agrippa, the one who tried to murder the infant Jesus, understood the Messiah in the same way. That is why Herod was afraid of a baby who was born to be king. He knew that he had usurped the throne from the rightful heirs of king David, and that the child was to be a member of David's royal family. He was afraid of losing his power. In the same way, Caiaphas and the other plotters were also afraid of losing power. This leads me to want to look more closely at the role of Judas Iscariot. This role is under scrutiny at the moment becuase of the news of the discovery of the missing Gnostic gospel of Judas. The manuscript mentions that Jesus was alleged to have passed on secret knowledge to Judas. Of course this is impossible because Judas committed suicide. (I will cover the subject in another post). Judas was the one because of the nature of his heart, rather than being the one who was chosen from birth to be the Betrayer. We only have a few hints about Judas Iscariot and it is enough to know that he was held in contempt by the other apostles.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Vassula and The Notification: Vassula Ryden Notification Irrelevant

Vassula and The Notification: Vassula Ryden Notification Irrelevant I was introduced to TLIG in the 1990s and I found something in what was written that helped in a spiritual sense. Then came the 1995 notification, and all of the suspicion that went with such a notification. I saw Vassula when she came to Sydney, at Chatswood. I remained impressed over what I had seen, which was in fact quite spiritually uplifting. Nothing special happened to me. Why do I believe that the hand of God is involved? Well it is the way in which these messages are written. They are like a love song, a love poem to a bride. When I purchased the first book, I tried to substitute my name and the messages became more personal. In some ways I have moved on, because I have continued my own love of reading the Scripture. This I believe is the purpose of seeing the hand of God in something that is private revelation. It should lead us back to the Scripture, and we should be more aware of Catholic teaching about the Scripture. When I have asked priests about this material I have been told to read it with caution. I agree that a cautious approach needs to be taken. Then I read the prayers that spill forth from the writings and again I know the source. It is the Holy Spirit who writes through Vassula.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Pope Benedict XVI, priesthood and marriage, the meaning of love

Pope Benedict XVI is due to release his first encylical soon. The subject of the encyclical is related to the true meaning of love. It will cover the issue of the way in which love is being abused in our society today. Since Cardinal Ratzinger has become the Bishop of Rome there has not been much in the way of news that has indicated which way things will go in the near future, so I was rather surprised that the BBC had reported on the Synod of Bishops in Rome in October, and that I had missed reading about the outcome of one of the topics discussed - celibacy and marriage within the priesthood. It appears that despite the hardships of not having enough priests, the Bishops from around the world have rejected the idea of allowing priests to marry. They continue to endorse the vow of celibacy for newly ordained priests. The reasons for this attitude are many and varied, and it is interesting that on the whole the MSM has overlooked this particular decision that was made by the Bishops, not by the new Pope alone. The liberal faction of the Catholic Church has been pushing for ages on this subject. Whenever there is mention of the scandals that have rocked the church, the cry goes out to let the priests marry, and that the panacea for the scandals will be married priests. However, it is the Bishops who disagree with the pundits on the issue. Yes, the Bishops, and in turn the priests who serve under them, have rejected the idea of marriage within the priesthood. From a practical and spiritual point of view, it makes sense for priests to remain celibate. A pastor must be available at all hours of the day or night to serve those in need of his services, especially those who are dying. Most pastors run a parish that has several thousand members in the congregation, and the demands upon their time are quite heavy. A wife and children would suffer greatly under these extraordinary demands. Also the salary of the pastor is not that high when compared to the earnings of other men with their standard of professional qualifications. If he had a wife and children, then this would be an added burden to the parish community. Then there is always the possible scandal that would come if the marriage broke down due to the demands of being a priest, and a divorce was to follow. The reasons that I have outlined are the issues that Rome addresses each time a request is made for a man who was once a pastor to a Protestant congregation, to become a priest within the Catholic Church. The wife has to be aware of the added burdens and she has to consent to these difficulties prior to the man being accepted for the priesthood. (yes there are married men who are Catholic priests today).