Christianity, Ecumenism

Good news: Episcopalians sanctioned by Anglicans for same sex marriage perversion

Update: original headline and article referenced ‘excommunication’ from source article: https://archive.is/pBomC. This source has now updated to ‘suspended’ and so this page has been changed to talk of ‘sanctioned’.

For once the Anglicans have impressed me. In Britain and North America their liberal assault on the good and decent is unending. But today, their African Bishops have lead the way in the fight against perversity:

What Does the Episcopalian Suspension Mean? (source article previously read: Anglicans Excommunicate the Episcopalians)

…the bishops of the Anglican Communion have suspended the Episcopal Church of the USA over their decision to endorse same sex marriage…

…The young, orthodox and majority church of the developing world has formally flexed its muscles. The Africans have stood up to the historic churches of the Northern, developed world

This is a good start in the fight back against the heretics. I can see a future where we remove all Churchians from Christian bodies that house many Africans. Stripped of the status these institutions give them they will slide into irrelevance.

Catholics should move in sync with this action and sanction our sodomy pushers. Ecumenism demands it.

Repent now ‘Catholic’ same-sex ‘marriage’ advocates. This world is getting more African every day. Being actual Christians they will not stand your lies. The choice is yours: serve Christ and his Church or be cast out into the outer darkness.

Standard
Immigration, Rhetoric

Financial Times writer claims stopping immigration impossible: baffled at rage

Gideon Rachman writes at the Financial Times:

“In the long run I expect the nativists [battling with liberals over immigration] to lose, not because their demands are unpopular but because they are unenforceable. It may be possible for island nations surrounded by the Pacific Ocean, such as Japan or Australia, to maintain strict controls on immigration. It will be all but impossible for an EU that is part of a Eurasian landmass and is separated from Africa only by narrow stretches of the Mediterranean.”

The only argument given for the inevitability of immigration is the geography of Europe. Despite all Europe’s money and technology it is somehow impossible to police its borders or deport people to places outside if they get in. Not that this is ever shown in the article, we just have to trust Rachman on this.

He does find time to explain how the EU policy that: ‘…refugees can apply for asylum in Europe, illegal “economic migrants” must return home…’, is: ‘unlikely to stem the population flows for several reasons.’. Which is true, but few disagree that current EU policy is wrong. And what has it to do with the unstoppable immigration thesis?

The writer does light incense at the altar of the Financial Times globalist idols:

“One possible reaction for Europe is to accept that migration from the rest of the world is inevitable — and embrace it wholeheartedly. Europe’s debt-ridden economies need an injection of youth and dynamism. Who will staff their old-age homes and building sites if not immigrants from the rest of the world?”

And makes sure to talk about how:

“In the colonial era Europe practised a sort of demographic imperialism, with white Europeans emigrating to the four corners of the world.”

This might give cheer to liberals looking for historical data to throw at their opponents. But still the most important and concluding claim that immigration cannot be stopped is not reinforced. The vague argument from geography is all there is. This is quite appalling as argument goes and there are only two explanations:

  1. Intellectual failure
  2. The article is rhetoric looking to persuade rather than argue a case

Rachman’s response to enraged commentators attacking his article shows he is claiming it is not rhetoric

“I find all these enraged comments slightly baffling. I am describing how I think events will unfold – not expressing an opinion as to whether it is a good or a bad thing”

Well, if not attempting to persuade whether it is good or bad we can only explain the poor quality argument as an intellectual failure. If this were true then any rage would be misplaced: idiocy is intellectual error and is treated with education rather than anger, which is for moral failures.

Is the rage at his article therefore unfair? Is he right to be baffled?

I think not. The article has all the hallmarks of a counsel of despair designed to demotivate and undermine an opponent by persuading them with rhetoric of their inevitable defeat. That a senior journalist writing for a renowned publication could write such a bad argument, but accidently write such a sustained piece of rhetoric stretches credulity exceedingly thin.

Of course, if Rachman actually believes the immigration is bad, this article might well be nothing more than a mistake. So, I sent him a tweet:

@gideonrachman: “…not expressing an opinion as to whether it is a good or bad thing”. Is the mass immigration good or bad?

A day later, and after he has sent out a selection of tweets, including a retweet of someone attacking him for the article, he has made no reply. So, Perhaps this article is both an intellectual failure and a blunder into unintentional,  but despite this, well crafted rhetoric, but I know which way I would bet.

The commentators rage makes sense and any bafflement is hard to credit. Insidious rhetoric looking to demotivate the European response to their invasion is corrupt and people are right to oppose it.

 

 

 

 

 

Standard
Eurabia, Immigration, Islamification, Muslims

Mass immigration is invasion

Mass immigration and invasion have the same impact. Invaders rape just as immigrants raped at Cologne, Rotherham and across Europe. Invaders pillage wealth, which immigrants do through the European welfare systems. As invaders conquer lands so do the Muslims pouring into Europe take over neighbourhoods, where locals dare not go.

As well as these attacks on on the physical: raped bodies, stolen material wealth and taking over of land, there is the cultural assault. Invaders seek to supplant the local culture and Europe’s Muslim immigrants are doing the same. They attack cartoonists, writers and artists. They replace pubs, churches and other communal centres with Mosques. They introduce polygamy and burkas that have no place in European tradition.

Finally, as their numbers grow they establish Sharia and get fellow Muslims elected to government. Schools reschedule exams to fit the timing of Ramadan. The logic of elections dictates that increasing Muslims will lead to this take over of governance.

A successful military invasion would have the same impact, but slower. Rape, pillage, conquest of land, cultural destruction and governance take over are common to invasion and mass immigration. This is because they are the same thing by different means: the conquest of one people by another.

The European elite would repel a military invasion by ISIS. What else could they do? Even if they wanted ISIS to win they would have no way of stopping their armed forces reacting. Further such a quick invasion would not allow them to delude themselves that they would remain in control. They will lose this control if they do not reverse the immigration: Muslims will vote for Muslims rather than them. But the slow speed of take over makes their delusion of control possible.

For reasons not looked at here, the ruling elite have decided to encourage and support the invasion by immigration. They have done this despite the people they rule making it known they are not happy. The elite might think they can overlook this groundswell of support as there has been no determined push back. They still live pampered lives and all the pollsters tell them they are looking good as ‘centrists’. Certainly they would not want to be seen as racist and so continue with their current course.

This is a miscalculation. Their position is fragile and will come tumbling down when people fight back. And they will: invasion by immigration is only tolerable when people can avoid the immigration. But the escape hatches are getting smaller as the immigrants grow in numbers. South Africans could flee to Europe, but Europeans will have no choice but to fight. What event will break the dam holding back European anger is beyond prediction. But it will come and the flood that rushes through will sweep the current order away. We should all hope this happens soon, as the longer the dam holds the greater the flood that will pour fourth.

If the multi-culturalists keep increasing the pressure the enormities will be great. We must take the peaceful path of reversing immigration whilst we can. It is better power is given to those willing to undo the damage now rather than wait for assassinations, violent revolutions, civil wars, genocides and who knows what else besides.

Standard
Eurabia, Immigration, Islamification, Muslims

Daily Mail story acts as warning for Muslims to leave UK

The Daily Mail (DM) website covers the story of Nadiya Hussain, the Great British bake-off winner, having police outside her home in Leeds after receiving threats. I had not heard of Nadiya, but the article and its comments suggest she is lovely and the perfect example of successful integration by a Muslim into the United Kingdom.

And yet she received death threats and every DM comment praising her has both many up and down votes. Just being a nice Muslim who has done well at something is enough to foment hatred and division.

If someone as nice as her motivates,  without intent, such enmity then it is clear the British and Islamic people cannot be happy together. People will say the morons who hate her should learn better, but if they are morons that is exactly what they are not capable of doing. And what happens as ISIS fighters and fanatics spring up with future attacks in Britain and Europe? If she causes this reaction, what will happen then? Life is too precious to waste in a place where you are not accepted and must fear targeting in future reprisal attacks.

What should a Muslim in the UK do? The straight forwards path is to go live in an Islamic nation (I hear ISIS have set one up). There they can have happy and peaceful lives free from hate. May God bless their emigration to such liberty and joy.

 

Standard
Apologetics, Atheism, Christianity, Theology

Atheist debate: Is eternal life a gift?

Atheist Reddit user justmadearedit doubts eternal life is a gift:

Eternal life is not really a gift anyways. You don’t need to repay anyone for a gift you receive, whereas that is not really the case with eternal salvation.

All Christians know you cannot work your way into heaven, but justmadearedit rejected the reply that no repayment was required and went on the attack:

Yes, millions of Christians believe you have to serve God after you receive this “gift” for ever and ever…God sending people to hell for not worshipping him would be like a dictator or tyrant monarch who tells people “You can choose to serve me or I’ll send you to a concentration camp or prison for the rest of your life, it’s your choice I won’t force you to bow down to me”.

The response:

Penny Cathechism: “God made me to know him, love him and serve him in this world, and to be happy with him for ever in the next.”

There is service in this life, followed by eternal happiness, which is the best gift possible.

Is service bad? Is it drudgery under the yoke of a cosmic oppressor?

Well, what is this service? What ultimately is asked for? The commandments are neatly summed up as: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mt 12:30-21).

So, firstly, accepting the gift you will need to love God, but then if you don’t love him why would you accept? And surely no one ever called loving someone ‘work’. I hope you can love without feeling lesser for it. And what does loving service to God in this life mean? Does it entail enslavement to a great dictator of the universe? No! It means to try one’s best to do good rather than evil and repenting when we fail. This is not enslavement to a cosmic tyrant, but freedom from the petty tyrants of pride, greed, gluttony, lust, envy, anger and sloth that rule every man’s heart unless he be liberated willingly by God. Liberation, not prison is God’s offer.

But what of the other part? Loving your neighbour as yourself. Again, a commandment to love. Once more I see no deprivation from loving my fellow man. Indeed, serving my fellow man out of a love that earnestly wills that which is good for them is not a service that leaves me less. It raises me up and makes me better than I am. If you cannot see this the best advice I can give is that you should just get out into the world and love people and help them and see if you gain or lose from such action. You certainly won’t find the answer arguing online.

Hopefully, you do know what love is about, but did not realise it was what God is about and so saw his offer as sadly lacking. If so I commend you for not settling for less. But as you can now see from his own Scripture that it is all he asks we can hopefully consider the issue resolved.


The complete original exchagne can be found at Reddit (the response given in this post had minor, non-substantial changes for grammar and flow). It has been three days, but so far no further response has been made.

Standard
Uncategorized

Force Awakens: verdict on Rey (spoilers)

Spoilers ahead. Leave now if this is a problem for you.

Daisy-Ridley-as-Rey-in-The-Force-Awakens

There was much to enjoy in Force Awakens, but one obvious flaw is that Rey is too good at everything.

This is anti-drama. Characters need limitations and challenges to overcome. She has none, or when she does she overcomes them without any hint of a challenge. And she does this without the necessary foreshadowing to justify her greatness. If your character speaks every language, can win street fights against massive thugs, outdo Anakins grandson with Jedi-cum-Sith training in the force, shoot like Annie Oakley and  both pilot and repair the Millenium Falcon better than Han Solo himself you had better well justify that. Anything less is bad writing.

Worse, her being perfect ruins other characters. In the Original Trilogy we have Luke and Han saving Leia from her prison cell, but then Leia saving them with her escape through the trash chute. And mutual rescue and help carries on throughout the three films as we see the three band together to become more than the sum of their parts. Rey, on the other hand, needs no help and others are made to regret offering it.

Finn, for example, rushes to save her from thugs out to steal her droid. Before he gets there she has taken them out and gets annoyed when he tries to lead her to safety by pulling her by the hand. No bond forms as he neither saves her nor works with her to defeat a common foe. His actions accomplish nothing, but instead leave him diminished. We get a glimpse of what could have been when they work together in the fight aboard the Millenium Falcon. Their teamwork pays off and they come out the other side slapping each other’s backs in admiration. Such camaraderie is rare as most of the time super-Rey gets the job done all by herself.

There is no justification for her abilities. A short flashback showing her abandoned on Jukka (the new Tatooine) at a young age, suggests that, like Luke Skywalker before her, she might have powers that need to concealed. Other hints suggest she is Luke’s (or maybe Leia’s) daughter and thereby we can infer inherited force powers. But this is all far to thin a reed to build a case for her abilities: they are small clues, not an argument and nowhere near enough to sustain the suspension of disbelief.

Other stories have super powered characters. Traditionally the character’s back story provides the justification for their abilities. James Bond (not a franchise I much enjoy) has amazing capabilities, but then he is an elite secret agent selected and trained to be the best of the best. I still think he is often portrayed as too perfect (and prefer the more flawed Skyfall Bond to most of the others), but at least there is a reason given to suspend disbelief and accept his abilities.

Even more pertinent is that other secret agent: Jason Borne. He is on the level of a super-hero and when we meet him this is an unexplained mystery. But where as with Rey this defect is ignored, in Borne the entire film is about uncovering who he is and explaining his abilities. This makes sense: super powers are incredible and a story telling their origin can be worthwhile. Whatever their root, they need  solid justification or the story falls apart and the viewer walks away intellectually insulted rather than entertained.

Some have attempted to say she is no different to Luke Skywalker in the original trilogy. If this were true it would only prove that the writing of Luke was also flawed. However, Luke, despite similar beginnings, is not so perfect.  In A New Hope alone, he needs saving from Tusken Raiders, saving from a bar fight, saving by Leia via a trash chute escape and saving by Han when attacking the death star. This carries on through the series (Han saving him on Hoth, his Father saving him from the Emperor, etcetera). And everybody knows that if he had attacked Vader after Obi-wan’s death that he would have been over-powered. We had to see him grow through training and over-coming myriad obstacles in his adventures before there was any hope he could challenge the likes of Vader. The only time Rey is like this is when she is captured by Kylo Ren (which does add drama), but even then she ends up saving herself. Well done Rey on using those super powers, again.

John Gary has said her abilities do not matter as: “Rey doesn’t have an arc of skill – she is already proficient at doing many things. That’s fine. Besides, we’ve already seen that story.” and “What’s so special here is this is also the arc of many girls – smart, talented, but unsure of themselves. Rey is them”, which explain why her skills do not need improving, not why they go unexplained.

Others defenders have tried to do the writer’s job for them and speculate about her possible forgotten training by Luke or the force consciously taking her over and using her for its own purposes. And they might be right. That the Star Wars holy spirit might be acting through her to give her who knows what powers is possible as who knows what the Force is capable of. Perhaps, the train is fine, but we can be sure that the movie is not. Whilst possible explanations might be logical and coherent within the context of the Star Wars universe they are still anti-dramatic. And what point is the point of a story: to allow nerds to argue around their deficiencies or to enrich the soul through drama? To ask the question is to answer it.

 

Standard
Uncategorized

What is this blog about?

The who (not the rock band)

A Catholic Thomist who sees much wrong with the world, yet loves life and thanks God daily for it.

  • Conservative in wanting to preserve that which is good, beautiful and true.
  • Traditional in valuing those ways and institutions that have evolved to service our society and not abandoning them on whim.
  • Reactionary in opposing those who have run roughshod over the common good and all that is right and being willing to undo the damage.
  • Prudent in accepting change where it is necessary in response to material changes in the world.
  • Catholic Christian in accepting Christ as King and being in communion with the Holy See.
  • Evangelical in wanting to spread the faith so all may hope for and then attain heaven.

The why
Why write? There is joy in expressing one’s thoughts and hearing back what others have to say and forming bonds and connections through the friendship of the written word. Anyone who has a pen pal knows this.

Writing also clarifies thoughts and inspires new ones. The work of putting well defined terms into propositions to form a valid argument is often neglected when the reasoning stays in one’s own head. Sharing forces us to consider how others will understand leading to close examination of any thoughts. So, the public glare strikes at the laziness that leads to complacent acceptance of ill thought through ideas. And if you still reason still fails others will always be kind enough to point it out.

But beyond these direct personal benefits there is the simple belief that ideas matter. Their impact is not felt immediately everywhere, but by changing one mind at a time they can change how great multitudes understand the world. As the will follows the intellect, which is its guide, they can change what people attempt to do and how they live their lives.

Humility prevents one to believe that our own ideas and their expression will transform the entire world even whilst we hope that they might. But beyond such grand designs there is the happy thought that if unable to change the world it is possible that one could change the mind of a single person.

That might not sound like much, and one person does looks so little compared with the whole world, but we are beings made in the image of God and all who accept the gift of his grace will spend an eternity in heaven. If an idea you express leads to one person to receive this infinite reward your contribution will be beyond measure. And with the exertions of writing so small and the possible gains so large the better question might be: why not write?

Standard