Thursday, December 27, 2012

Youcef Nadarkhani re-arrested on Christmas Day


His Grace has followed the plight of this Iranian Christian pastor for the past few years - through worry and despair to joy and elation. He had been imprisoned in Iran for (allegedly) converting from Islam to Christianity, and was released in September having been acquitted of apostasy.

In an unexpected twist, the Pastor was re-arrested on Christmas Day and returned to Lakan Prison in Rasht, where he spent almost three years on death row. According to Fox News, the charge is 'that he must complete the remainder of his sentence', which is no charge at all: it is a summary sentence meted out in pure spite (reinforced by the timing of the arrest to cause maximum pain to his wife and young children).

For some reason, the court's prior decision that Pastor Nadarkhani's remaining 45 days could be served on probation has been overruled, and that time must now be served back in prison. It is worth mentioning that his attorney, Mohammed Ali Dadkhah, has also been imprisoned and remains in Iran's notoriously brutal Evin Prison where his health is rapidly deteriorating. He has been incarcerated for advocating Youcef Nadarkhani's case and other human rights cases.

And news has now reached his Grace of Pastor Benham Irani, arrested last year and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on charges of 'action against the state' and 'action against the order' (ie being a Christian). He is now being held in Ghezal Hesar, another of Iran’s most notorious prisons, where he is reportedly beaten regularly by prison authorities and other inmates, and as a result can barely walk. He is not expected to survive another five years in prison in his current condition.

With Christianity being incrementally eradicated from the Middle East, the world needs to stand up and say that a man cannot be put to death or imprisoned because of his faith. It was international pressure which kept Youcef Nadarkhani alive in prison - especially the intervention of the governments of the US, UK, France, Germany and Mexico, who were in turn pressured by believers using social media.

It is time for us to act again - on Youcef's behalf and also that of his attorney Mohammed Ali Dadkhah and Pastor Benham Irani. We must continue to keep up the pressure: pass the word along via blogs, Facebook, Twitter (#TweetforYoucef) and, of course, in churches and in prayer.

124 Comments:

Blogger Roy said...

I wonder what British Muslims think about this? They are often up in arms about things that they regard as insulting to their faith but the persecution of this Iranian pastor is hardly a good advertisement for Islam.

27 December 2012 10:40  
Blogger Al Shaw said...

Roy,

The assumption that "British Muslims" think anything at all about this issue is to treat them as a collective, without individuality of mind and action.

Such an approach is at the heart of all stereotyping and discrimination.

Please focus on the issue at hand, which is the release of Youcef Nadarkhani.

Thanks to His Grace for keeping this issue before us.

27 December 2012 11:29  
Blogger David B said...

Good point, Al Shaw.

Let us not forget the persecution of atheists in some Muslim theocracies, as well as the persecution of Christians, and, indeed, in some places, the persecution of other Muslims from different sects.

Persecution of grounds of what people believe or not should not be acceptable in the modern world, though there remains the vexed question of how far people should be permitted to act according to what they believe.

Mormon polygamy being something of a case in point - Mormons should not be persecuted for believing they should have multiple wives, but even in the land of the Free, America, they are not allowed to act on it, polygamy being illegal.

David B

27 December 2012 11:55  
Blogger len said...

It is indeed time for all (not only Christians but for all who value personal freedom)to make a stand against those who desire to crush and kill those who`s only 'crime'is to want to be be free to worship God . Christians are no threat to any Earthly power ..............'For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.' (Ephesians 6:12)

27 December 2012 12:02  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

http://www.christianpost.com/news/iranian-pastor-shares-joy-despite-imprisonment-in-letter-to-christians-87150/

27 December 2012 12:43  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Funny, but in these cases and many, many, others there is never a loud and forceful statement, supported by threats of action, by any of our Western political or religious leaders.

Why is it that when Christians (and other faiths) are persecuted in Muslim countries or regions - Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi, Indonesia, Sudan, Nigeria,Kosovo, Palestinian areas etc etc NOTHING is ever done.

We will stop aid to countries over crimes against gays but never Christians.

Why?

27 December 2012 14:09  
Blogger Jim McLean said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 December 2012 14:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

Mormons should not be persecuted for believing they should have multiple wives, but even in the land of the Free, America, they are not allowed to act on it, polygamy being illegal.

Utah would never have been admitted the Union so long as polygamy was legal. Mormons (for obvious reasons) vociferously deny a quid pro quo but the fact remains that the 'prophesy' setting aside plural marriage was received right before Utah was admitted as a state.

Are you therefore arguing that polygamy should be legal in the US? To so argue is to assert that the state has no compelling interest in family organization - which is transparently false.

carl

27 December 2012 14:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Youcef Nadarkhani should become a journalist. Then he would be a world-wide cause celebre. Journalists may be uninterested in religious persecution - because they aren't an overly religious group to begin with, and because if you pushed them, they might actually admit that a little religious persecution is a necessary thing. But journalists care about their own liberties. For one like Youcef Nadarkhani, it's not that different from being told to to yell "Fire!" instead of "Help!"

carl

27 December 2012 14:41  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Distressing as it is for this one man and his family, it all seems a little myopic to espouse his plight and ignore the wider picture of Islamocreep.

Christianity is in serious danger of being wiped out in its biblical heartlands because of Islamic oppression, according to a new report from a leading independent think-tank.

But Western politicians and media largely ignore the widespread persecution of Christians in the Middle East and the wider world because they are afraid they will be accused of racism.

They fail to appreciate that in the defence of the wider concept of human rights, religious freedom is the “canary in the mine”, according to the report.


http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prChristianophobia.htm

27 December 2012 18:07  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thank you for raising the profile on this issue Your Grace. Not that one suspects Iranians of having the slightest interest in, or respect for, non-Moslem opinion; that isn't an Islamic trait. We already face that blank wall at first-hand, after all.

The issue also raises the spectre of what would happen if the British 'non-government' put an immigrant/colonialist Imam in prison on trumped up charges? In contrast, it's OK if the henchmen of our masters hold a British patriot and freedom demander without trial(Robinson/Lennon)-- that way the pesky indigene will get sorted out by convicted Moslems already in gaol. Then it won't be long before our whole system takes itself to the Iranian level.

Oh.. and who's counting how many WMDs Iran now has? Awareness on that count might have some bearing on appeasement from the anti-Judaeo-Christian/pro-Marxist West. The advantage to their knowledge would be that they could appear less hypocritical. And we could savour their discomfiture at the practice of honesty.

-------------
btw: A couple of weeks ago, a young Iranian woman and I discussed her views on Moslem immigration to the West. She repeatedly described her compatriots' view of the West as a promise[d] land: so I asked if she really wanted to use that phrase. Did she know its original reference? After I explained, her answer on both counts was "No." I never got round to asking why.



27 December 2012 18:12  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Dreadnaught,

It all seems a little myopic to read selectively and simply spout your usual half-baked criticism. This post mentions three men by name, not one. And why do ignore:

"With Christianity being incrementally eradicated from the Middle East, the world needs to stand up and say that a man cannot be put to death or imprisoned because of his faith."

Or is this not specific enough for you? If His Grace's blog is so tediously inadequate, why don't you simply frequent a more fulfilling blog?

27 December 2012 18:21  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I can't imagine why anyone of sound mind would eve want to join of their own free will the Islamic faith and become a muslim knowing that they do this to innocent people who have somehow managed to leave the Islamic faith.

I realise not all muslims are nasty, barbaric crackpots but those who are not don't seem to stand up and shout against this sort of behaviour much either??? So one has to lump them all together and assume that they are.

God Bless and save all those who are suffering unnecessarily in the hands of those of the Islamic faith, and let those muslims who are persecuting Christians see the error of their ways and help them become more balanced citizens.

27 December 2012 18:44  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Throw your dummy out if you wish it just makes you look peevish and unable to take the mildest of criticism.

27 December 2012 18:46  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Dreadnaught,

As the written evidence establishes, your criticism is invalid. The peevishness is yours, evidenced further by resorting to ad hominem.

27 December 2012 18:50  
Blogger Corrigan said...

In one regard, I can kind of see why the Muslims would be a little confused about the western attitude towards Christianity. Our societies are controlled by liberals who are themselves actively engaged in attempting to destroy Christianity and are energetically harrassing Christians (although holding short of persecution as such); it must, therefore, annoy the bejeepers out of Muslims to hear those same western liberals berate them for carrying to its logical conclusion liberal bigotry against Christians.

27 December 2012 18:53  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

You've got a good point there Corrigan

27 December 2012 19:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

If you want to negotiate with Johnny Islam, you do so in a position of strength. You do not appeal to the animal’s ‘better nature’. He will oblige, but only when you have your hands on his throat...

It’s a racial thing, you see.

There you go, this sound advice might help...

27 December 2012 19:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

It’s a racial thing, you see.

Islam is not a race. It is a religion. It has no racial aspect.

carl

27 December 2012 19:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Alright Carl, for YOUR benefit.

For Johnny Islam, read ‘Johnny the Islamic Arab’


27 December 2012 20:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Unpleasant fellow. Would shit in your airing cupboard if you don’t keep an eye on him...


27 December 2012 20:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

Then your principle should likewise be logically valid for 'Johnny the Christian Arab' or 'Johnny the Jewish Arab' or 'Johnny the Atheist Arab.' If race dominates worldview, then race dominates all worldviews. I suppose the 'white race' shouldn't even bother evangelizing them. Perhaps it should just interbreed to make the race more 'white.' Which given the above post would mean 'less animalistic.'

carl

27 December 2012 20:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Carl, calm down son.

The Inspectors use of ‘animal’ is as a non specific reference to a thing. For example, “that pint is 8%. You would need to avoid that animal if you want to drive home”

As for ‘Johnny the atheist Arab’ you don’t really understand the Middle East, do you ?

What’s all this about interbreeding ? You know the Inspector doesn’t approve of mixing of the races. Too many problems for the couple and especially their children...

27 December 2012 20:22  
Blogger Kiwi said...

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which Iran is a signatory, states:
Article 18: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance"
Article 9: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile"
According to a recent BBC report, Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani (Iran’s Judiciary Chief), who is actively involved in determining the fate of Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani – has “criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, stating that Iran made a mistake when it signed the UDHR.
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he; because in 1990 Iran signed the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which stipulates Shari'ah as its sole source of jurisdiction, clearly overriding most of the UDHR.
More evidence, in Islam, ever since its conception, abrogation rules.

27 December 2012 20:33  
Blogger bluedog said...

His Grace comments, 'With Christianity being incrementally eradicated from the Middle East.'

Indeed, yet the liberal Left prefer to ignore the implications of this trend in the misguided belief that it cannot happen here and even if it does, it's no bad thing.

At one time the entire Middle East was Christian majority, but after the Arab attacks of the late 600s and 700s AD that ceased to be the case. The old patriarchates of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople now cling to straws as historical relics in a sea of Islam.

Mr Al Shaw typifies the response of the liberal Left:

'The assumption that "British Muslims" think anything at all about this issue is to treat them as a collective, without individuality of mind and action.

Such an approach is at the heart of all stereotyping and discrimination.'

All the evidence suggests that the newly settled Islamic populations of Europe seek sharia and the dominance of Islam. They will not rest until the crescent of Islam is atop St Peters in Rome and St Pauls in London. To assume otherwise is reckless and naive. Al Shaw's remarks simply ignore the evidence to the contrary.

The dreadful plight of Pastor Youssef shows that even a house church is a high risk operation in an Islamic theocracy. That two or three may be gathered together in the Lord's name can be a death sentence.

Remember Al Shaw, for a Muslim to acknowledge Christmmas is a sin. Allah demands collective submission to this truth.

27 December 2012 21:06  
Blogger David B said...

@Carl

Sorry I didn't make myself clear.

No, I don't think polygamy should be legal in the US or here for that matter.

I was trying to differentiate between the rights of people to believe what they like, and to act as they choose.

A further illustration - JWs should, IMV, be free to believe that blood transfusions should not be allowed, and indeed free to decline such treatment for themselves.

But I would argue that it is quite legitimate for the state to step in when denial of a transfusion would in effect kill a child.

David

27 December 2012 22:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


David B, you do surprise. Being a woolly minded liberal, one would think that as far as you are concerned, anything goes, ( ...so long as you yourself are not inconvenienced :-> ). We'll make a decent citizen of you yet !

27 December 2012 22:30  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

You Catholics have the Mohammedans to use as subterfuge, to hide your spiritual lawlessness. Sure they are heathen; and when Protestants realize that you both should be opposed, we will be free from sought captivity.

27 December 2012 22:43  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Mr. Mcgranor said...

You Catholics have the Mohammedans to use as subterfuge, to hide your spiritual lawlessness.

Kinderling... I found someone else who speaks Yoda!

Phil

27 December 2012 22:49  
Blogger Maxine Schell said...

YourGrace is educating me with his blog. I have learned: British liberals are as stupid as our American "Progressives". Both seem to have a death wish.

27 December 2012 23:11  
Blogger John Magee said...

The Iranian mullahs continue to play their evil cat and mouse game with this kind and decent man causing him , his wife and children, terrible anguish all because the Koran condemns to death anyone who dares to abandon the false "prophet" and pagan moon god cult founder Mohammed.

let us all Pray for Pastor Nadarkhani and all other Christians being persecuted today in Iran in the name of Islam including young Muslim youths in Iran who are secretly converting to Christianity as well as those people of the peceful Bahai faith.

Here are some examples of what this past week was like for Christians and others in the Islamic world:

Christimas week 2012 saw Egypt's Sharia Constitution signed into law. This does not bode well for the over 9 million ancinet Coptic Christians in Egypt who have been facing renewed persecution after the "Arab Spring".

In Iraq Chaldean Catholics attended Christmas Mass in their restored Cathedral in Baghdad where 44 were killed and hundreds injured by al-Quaeda Muslim terrorists during a Christmas Mass two years ago. Iraq's Chaldean Catholics trace heir roots back to the Apostle Thomas and their Mass is said in Aramaic. The language Jesus spoke.

The ancient Syrian Christan Churches face a bleak future resulting from their version of the "Arab Spring".

The only "Santa" allowed in Saudi Arabia are bearded mullahs.Saudi religious police stormed a house in the Saudi Arabian province of al-Jouf, detaining more than 41 guests for “plotting to celebrate Christmas,” a statement from the police branch released Wednesday night said. The raid is the latest in a string of religious crackdowns against residents perceived to threaten the country's strict religious code

No "Merry Christnmas" in OZ. The Lakemba Mosque in Sydney has issued a fatwa against Christmas, warning followers it is a ''sin'' to even wish people a Merry Christmas.The religious ruling, which followed a similar lecture during Friday prayers at Australia's biggest mosque, was posted on its Facebook site on Saturday morning then withdraws it after criticism and says it was taken "out of context"

In Nigeria: Muslims attack second church on Christmas day, having now murdered at least 12 Christians, including a pastor and a deacon, who were killed by unknown gunmen in separate attacks in Northern Nigeria. The gunmen are suspected to be connected to the extremist Muslim group Boko Haram. Witnesses told the press that the gunmen also set a church on fire on Christmas Eve in connection with the attack.

The ancient Catholic and Eastern Orhtodox Churches in the Middle East face extinction through emigration by a new wave of Islamic violence and persecution and the West still does nothing.

On another note.

How lucky our Eastern Orthodox Catholic are celebrating the religious festival of their Christmas on or around January 7th because they use the old style Julian (authorized by Julius Caesar)calendar and we in the West use the Gregorian Calendar given to us by Pope Gregory the Great in the late 500's AD. In modern times the Orthodox usully celebrate our Christmas on Decmeber 25 with the tree, presents, and outward trappings we invented. But most still celebrate Jaunary 7th as their "real" Christams. Of course for Orthodox Christians it's Easter Sunday which is their central liturgical celebration of the year in their Church calendar and our our December 25th version of Christmas is meaningless to them.

Maybe we Western Christians should join together and celebrate
Orthodox Christmas on January 7th as our Christmas to escape the commercialism which curses our Christmas?

We elebrate January 6th as the Feast of the Epiphany. Twelve days after our Christmas on December 25th which atcually was celebrated as a major Church feast day before Christmas.

28 December 2012 02:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

The Inspectors use of ‘animal’ is as a non specific reference to a thing.

You said that the behavior of a specific race should be understand according to the behavior of animals. there was nothing non-specific about it. Here is what you said:

You do not appeal to the animal’s ‘better nature’. He will oblige, but only when you have your hands on his throat...

Let the reader judge.

As for ‘Johnny the atheist Arab’ you don’t really understand the Middle East, do you ?

Yes, actually, I understand it a fair sight better than you. But that wasn't my point. Arab atheists do exist, OIG. The list however was meant to be broad. It was intended to illustrate the implication of your statement - that race is more important to a man's character than worldview. You can't blame the behaviors associated with Islam on race, and then say that an Arab Christian would behave differently.

What’s all this about interbreeding?

I think that should be obvious. You said ...

It’s a racial thing, you see.

If race determines character, then character cannot be affected by changing a man's religion. You have to change his racial composition. Last I saw there is only one way to do that - and evangelism wasn't the solitary itam on the list.

carl

28 December 2012 04:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

I was trying to differentiate between the rights of people to believe what they like, and to act as they choose.

Agreed. Religion is not and never should be a 'get out of jail' free card. Freedom of religion does not and cannot translate into prefect freedom of action. Otherwise, we should be forced to allow human sacrifice at the extreme. The question as always is the basis for law. In your example, the basis for law against polygamy is the long history of Christian influence on the law in the US. You may say that laws against polygamy are not exclusively Christian in origin, but that is irrelevant to the US. Here the law derives from the broad Christian consensus that once dominated the landscape.

So what then is the basis for law? It's not enough to say "Men may believe what they like, but they are not free to act as they like." You must define the basis for determining allowable limits on that behavior. If you say "Religion should not be allowed to practice human sacrifice" you have assumed an unstated standard. So where does that unstated standard come from?

Here is a hint. The answer is not "reason." The most bloody systems in the world have been the most self-consciously rational. In any case, reason is the product of a man's presupposition, and not an objective source in and of itself. A man cannot escape his first principles.

carl

28 December 2012 05:14  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

So much for the "Arab Spring." It has ushered in more oppression, more fanatical Islamisation and less freedom throughout the Middle East. I hope all our liberal politicians are satisfied.

The agenda throughout the Middle East is the complete suppression and eradication of Christianity and any other religion. Only in an Islamic state is there a literal death penalty for converting from Islam, only n these states is "proselytising" on behalf of any other faith subject to a death sentence, and only in these states are the Ayatollahs, Imams and Mullahs now the sole arbiters of justice, law and all other aspects of life.

Those who attack Christianity for its past would do well to take note of what they will facilitate once the slew the system far enough. I've lived and worked in Iran and several other Middle Eastern states - and the atmosphere is one of fear and suspicion everywhere.

Not a world I would wish to see imposed in Europe.

28 December 2012 07:25  
Blogger David B said...

Grey Monk

On my predominantly Liberal Atheist discussion board discussion of the Arab Spring has from the outset been dominated by misgivings.

It is not liberals who need to take the blame for the way it has turned out.

David B

28 December 2012 07:44  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

"Pure spite"
correct.
But then, the "Iranian" state is a theocracy, is it not?
One should not, ever, expect anything better.

28 December 2012 07:56  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Phil: "Mr. Mcgranor said...

You Catholics have the Mohammedans to use as subterfuge, to hide your spiritual lawlessness.

Kinderling... I found someone else who speaks Yoda!


Listen to the writer, to the author's intent and not to the subject they are pointing at, Phil.

You've got the ability, to discern, but in your present state you do not know what Mr Mcgranor is on about, and that poverty of a half-used brain is embarrassingly apparent.

Go on, ask him if the I-didn't-do-it Demon behind the Catholic religion that blocks out Jesus' teachings is one that uses to their advantage the fear-of-women Demon behind the Mohammadan's Faith.

28 December 2012 08:26  
Blogger David B said...

Carl

Before I begin on your post addressed to me, I was heartened to see your temperate but telling criticism of Inspector's obnoxious racist views.

It has substantially increased my respect for you.

Now, we seem to have substantial agreement regarding the limits of religious freedom - it cannot and should not justify human sacrifice.

The area of disagreement is, I think, an important one. I have long suspected that for many people the continued belief in a god rests on what boils down to something like the following syllogism.

Without God there is no basis for morals.

Morals exist

Therefore God.

It doesn't follow that there is no basis for morals other than God - morals could be Platonic ideals, an idea I long toyed with, but found I could not justify a belief in such Platonic ideals either.

So we agree that morality is meaningful, that morals exist, but we disagree on the basis for morality, and we also, as I shall come to, disagree on how closely they can be defined.

I shall now quote a large chunk of your post, and make my comments.

"The question as always is the basis for law. In your example, the basis for law against polygamy is the long history of Christian influence on the law in the US."

I certainly would not deny that custom and tradition are relevant to how laws have developed, including Christian custom and tradition.

"You may say that laws against polygamy are not exclusively Christian in origin, but that is irrelevant to the US."

I may indeed say that, and would deny that it is irrelevant in the US

"Here the law derives from the broad Christian consensus that once dominated the landscape."

It has certainly had its influence, but I might suggest that it has been coloured by the freethinking, often deist, enlightenment values associated with many of the American founding fathers. Tom Paine, anyone?

"So what then is the basis for law?"

This I take to be the crux of the matter. The question being whether the basis for law is natural or supernatural. I favour the former.

"It's not enough to say "Men may believe what they like, but they are not free to act as they like." You must define the basis for determining allowable limits on that behavior."

Actually I think this is more a problem for the moral absolutist than it is for the moral relativist. It is the moral absolutist who needs to define such a basis, whether Platonic or imposed by some Deity, or whatever.

It is not, I think, such an imperative for someone who maintains that morality is an emergent, and still emerging, quality of the universe. As I do. No doubt we shall return to this.

To be continued

28 December 2012 08:27  
Blogger David B said...

continuation


"If you say "Religion should not be allowed to practice human sacrifice" you have assumed an unstated standard. So where does that unstated standard come from?"

Moral ideas that have descended with modification more successfully than the human sacrifice is good idea.

Some might argue that that gives no basis at all for morality, I maintain that it does so give a basis. If I am right then it knocks a big chunk out of what many people see as a foundation for religion, IMV. We will not talk this through successfully in a single exchange, I think, but I think it worth talking about because it is, IMV crucial to the foundation of faith.

"Here is a hint. The answer is not "reason." The most bloody systems in the world have been the most self-consciously rational. In any case, reason is the product of a man's presupposition, and not an objective source in and of itself. A man cannot escape his first principles."

Reason is only as good as the premises fed into it. It is not only religions that have taken absolute premises and run with them - the totalitarian non-religious, and/or quasi religious have done so as well, with similarly unfortunate results.

My view is that absolutism is not only wrong but dangerous, religious or otherwise. I think it would be useful to explore the absolutism/relativism dichotomy further. It will not, I think, be the work of a day or even a week.

"carl"

David

28 December 2012 08:27  
Blogger bluedog said...

David B @ 08.27 says, 'I think it would be useful to explore the absolutism/relativism dichotomy further. It will not, I think, be the work of a day or even a week.'

Translation, 'I haven't got a clue and need more time to bluff my way out of a corner'.

28 December 2012 09:04  
Blogger len said...

I think the premise here is that man does not need God to have an ordered civilised Society?.

Well the 'proof of the pudding is in the eating' to coin a phrase.Christianity is becoming increasingly marginalised in the UK so things[should be} at least as good as they where when we were a mainstream Christian Country.

Is this a reality?.Or are we seeing a gulf widening between the rich and the poor, increasing lawlessness and corporate greed, laws being introduced that bring further confusion and disorder to Society?.We have whole 'chunks' of Society alienated and forming a 'sub culture'a broken Society cut off from its roots.

And this is merely the beginning of our slide into paganism and man (quite obviously) has no solution to our ongoing problems.. moral social... or economic.

28 December 2012 09:24  
Blogger David B said...

@ Bluedog

You are quite wrong.

It is just that in my experience once someone has got the idea in their head that morality requires a god, then it takes a while to disabuse them of that misapprehension.

David

28 December 2012 09:49  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Without God there is no basis for morals.

Morals exist

Therefore God.

This of course requires that morality does indeed "exist" dependently of a divinity who has invested His very Being in upholding morality.

Isn't "emergent" just another word for "take it on faith"? I'm trolling a little there perhaps, but for all that I'm aware of emergence as a concept in "cutting edge" science, from the hard application of the scientific method there's very little to substantiate it. In effect, we have scientists doing theology/philosophy - but whereas the theologians and philosophers are often dismissed because of their lack of science, the scientists doing much the same thought play are accepted, in the hope that they may someday do so.

However, it's difficult to see how they will ever be able to do so with regards to morality. I'm curious as to how one can assert the ontological reality of morality except as a form of qualia - and if it is a qualia, why then the justification for dismissing qualia associated with faith? There certainly isn't any objective evidence for morality - there can't be; you can't prove a "should" independently of the value system that requires it, and any value system relies on its "shoulds" being true.

That either leaves you in denial of a form of moral relativism, in which morality is subjective, but in which you must conceed that - whilst you may have no wish to do so - there is no evidence to substantiate a position in which you hold a definite moral position (on say, harm) as being "objective" (and history already debunks the idea that it is truly "universal"); or you hold to a moral doctrine on essentially unproveable grounds (by objective standards), but nevertheless take its content to be unmoveable for any reason including that it seems obviously right to you.

There's far less between us than might be supposed: the question comes down to what you've done with God, and why, and correspondingly what we owe to God and why.

28 December 2012 11:09  
Blogger David B said...

Belfast, I agree that there is less between us than might be supposed, though I think you would have to establish the existence of a God before I would concede that I've done anything with him, or that any of us owe anything to him.

'Existence' is something of a difficult concept is it not? Does Charles Dickens exist? It's clear enough to me that he did exist, but there is also a sense, is there not, in which both Dickens and Sidney Carton might be said to have at least some sort of vicarious existence, insofar as they can make an impression on a reader of 'A Tale of Two Cities'.

An ultra reductionist, I would argue, might deny the existence of such things as tables and chairs, or - rather more crucially - decision making, on the grounds that all that is happening is fundamental particles are obeying fundamental rules, and there is no room for tableness, chairness or decisions being made at any ultimate level of reduction.

I am not an ultra reductionist.

Before I respond further, could you please expand on what you mean by 'ontological meaning of morality'?

David

28 December 2012 12:10  
Blogger Preacher said...

When any religion has to resort to the persecution of people who hold different beliefs & even resort to the death penalty for those that dare leave that religion & wish to follow their own conscience & strongly held beliefs in peace & safety. The truth is revealed about the persecutors, if their only alternative is legalised terrorism. That religion is false & the perpetrators of this persecution will one day have to answer to the Almighty for their actions.

28 December 2012 13:06  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

Kinderling what are you implying?

28 December 2012 14:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Carl, at 04:54 Let the reader judge.

You have the Inspector’s explanation for his use of the term ‘animal’. Are you doubting his word Sir ?

So, you understand the Middle East better than this man do you. Let him tell you something. The BBC’s charter was enacted in 1924. The British Empire was at it’s peak in 1919. Ever since 1924, the BBC has been out there reporting on any event of interest to the Empire. That is, by definition, anything and everything in the world. That fact we no longer have an empire has had absolutely no effect on the BBC’s reporting remit whatsoever. Any Briton who has grown up with the BBC has had a thorough education of events worldwide.

Now, the news as reported in America. Rather insular, wouldn’t you say. But wait, you do get some foreign news. When either US interests are directly involved, or a US personage is involved. Of the two of us, whom would you say is the better informed ?

If you want to understand the world and its people, you need to appreciate the collective behaviour of the subjects and the culture that behaviour has brought forth. It’s much easier to condense that mouthful into the word ‘race’. When that behaviour is also influenced by a somewhat over controlling heartless religion such as Islam, then into the pot it goes. You can’t ignore what’s boiling away, it’s there. What do you call it ?

If race determines character, then character cannot be affected by changing a man's religion. You have to change his racial composition.

Why change them. Why would you wish to change them. You just appreciate le difference. God has provided the world with lesser achieving races. Just appreciate them. Some of them might even be the happiest people on the planet, as they extract grubs from the bark of trees, and know which plant you can obtain safe moisture from and which ones will kill you…



28 December 2012 17:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



David B. I was heartened to see your temperate but telling criticism of Inspector's obnoxious racist views.

Obnoxious eh ? Do elaborate…

Of course, the Inspector would not need race to explain the Iranian’s obnoxious behaviour of locking a Christian man up on Christmas day for being a Christian if they had not obnoxiously locked a Christian man up on Christmas day for being a Christian !

Now, the reality is what happened to this man could happen to any Christian in just about any Middle Eastern country. Whether they be Arab spring or any other dictatorship. We have to ask ourselves is this due to a racial makeup. And we don’t want any guff about religion not being a racial element. If they all embrace the harsh teachings of Mohammed, it is because it satisfies the religious outlook of their race.

Indignantly and obnoxiously yours, the Inspector !





28 December 2012 17:17  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 December 2012 19:54  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

Carl take that advice; from the Inspector Papist.
For instance: his ilk the Catholics --are largely white or Hispanic-- in the Western Hemisphere; and Roman Catholics are of course a pariah. Even though these Roman Catholics are white.
Then you have Hispanics; of which are of course a nemesis to 'anglo' culture.

28 December 2012 21:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Mcgranor, ‘Inspector Papist’ !

A most agreeable moniker, one thanks you. He is impressed !

Are you a “good ol’ Southern boy” by chance ?




28 December 2012 21:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Mr Mcgranor

OK ... so ...ummm ...

take that advice

Which advice?

from the Inspector Papist.

'Papist' is what I call my RC friends when I want to troll them. For example, if I see a gaggle of RCs talking in the hallway at work, I say "Look! A Papist Conspiracy!" They look at me sideways and tell me my name is on 'The List.'

his ilk the Catholics

OIG isn't really much of a RC. He is more a RC version of a Therapeutic Moralistic Deist. It surprises me from time to time how heterodox he is. Dodo on the other hand might have such an 'ilk.'

--are largely white or Hispanic-- in the Western Hemisphere;

I suppose that's because most people in the Western hemisphere are either white or Hispanic. Plus the fact that Spain was both RC and a major factor in the colonization of the western hemisphere. That might explain the predominance of whites and Hispanics. Except for the Canadians. We aren't sure where they came from, and no one seems to want to claim them.

and Roman Catholics are of course a pariah.

Where? To whom?

Even though these Roman Catholics are white.

This is where the train completely disappeared into the fever swamps, and I lost total contact with what you were saying. RCs are a pariah even though they are white? What does this mean?

Then you have Hispanics; of which are of course a nemesis to 'anglo' culture.

How are Hispanics a 'nemesis' of 'anglo' culture? Are you referring the battles between Spain and England for dominance of the new world?

carl

28 December 2012 22:03  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

This is no television show, Papist.

28 December 2012 22:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. OIG isn't really much of a RC

Blasted cheek !

Mcgranor. This is no television show, Papist.

Pleased to make your acquaintance Sir. You don’t know what this means to the Inspector. Having spent the last 18 months battling with benders and liberals, to be up against a spirited trigger happy manly southern US prod, well it’s absolutely topper !


28 December 2012 22:16  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

I assure you; that i am an absolute Yankee.

28 December 2012 22:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Apologies that man. Delete ‘southern’

28 December 2012 22:22  
Blogger Kinderling said...

The Inspector brings the eugenic term 'race' to espose a temperment bred into racial lineages. This is obvious. Of course there are different temperments, just as there are different dog breeds of collective shapes and personalities, bred from the wolf.

Different religions get total control over these different egos in different cultures by tapping into their psychi. Some can be controlled by a good kicking to earn respect, some need compassion and a sob story of victimhood to get them to act. Fascism or Socialism.

Understand the base need for food, sex, and everlasting life, and you have tailor made a slave race of Islam where the truthers thrive.

Repress the desire for food,sex and worthiness for everlasting life and you have Christianity, where the liars thrive.

Man should master his needs, not indulge them with a four-wife licence, or reject them completely with abstenence.

Youcef is a higher consciousness and inteligence than his Arab peers, as an athiest is higher in consciousness than her Christianized Caucasian peers, as a conservative is higher in consiousness and intelligence than his socialist peers. To value the individual is to be an individual.

Practice on one spouse alone, is sufficient to wake a person up.

That breeds of humans have been brought together with their different brains and comprehension, is an explosive mix, expecially as the Socialist agenda is to destroy the most intellient animal via Positive Discrimination, which is no more or less than Pol Pot did.

For, Mr McGranor, the master priests do battle with each other, but will side against a common enemy as the Socialists and the Islamists are doing againt the indigenous British people of fair play. Wipe out the animal that respects idiosyncratic behavior, in favor for one that respects pretense and their definition of Diversity of one group higher than the other.

A genocide of souls by any other name.




28 December 2012 22:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

You have the Inspector’s explanation for his use of the term ‘animal’. Are you doubting his word Sir ?

Do I think you a liar? No. But you have to take ownership of your words. Your explanation doesn't track with what you actually wrote. I try to read people charitably, but I cannot find a charitable reading of those words. The sentence as written draws a direct connection between the behavior of an an Arab and the behavior of an animal. If I had seen a similar reference about Jews, I would attribute it to anti-semitism ten times out of ten. You would do better to re-write that paragraph to explain what you actually meant.

Of the two of us, whom would you say is the better informed?

So, you are saying that the BBC is a better news agency than anything in the US, and therefore you must be better informed than me because you live in Britain with the BBC? That's your argument? You mistake the collective for the individual. I think I have posted here long enough to establish that 'insular' is not a word that should be associated with me.

It’s much easier to condense that mouthful into the word ‘race’.

The man being imprisoned is of the same race as those imprisoning him. Is he therefore different from his jailers? Why?

God has provided the world with lesser achieving races.

Has he now? We are all of us the sons of Adam. There is no ontological difference between us. There is neither sound theology nor actual science behind this observation of 'lesser achieving races.' It is simply the assertion of one who was privileged to be born into the dominant culture in the world at the time. It is the observation of one who mistakenly attributes the acquisition of power and wealth to something as arbitrary as skin color. But be careful the standard by which you measure. Western culture is in decline. What will you say when the 'white race' is humbled by its own degeneracy?

carl

28 December 2012 22:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

Blasted cheek!

Well, you aren't much of a RC as defined by doctrine. You have on this weblog rejected whole swathes of essential RC teaching. A RC isn't defined by the church he attends. Neither is he self-defined. He is defined by his assent to the defined dogmas of the RCC.

carl

28 December 2012 22:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Kinderling. You seem to have it Sir. One just wishes his IQ is higher so he can fully understand your message.

Carl. GMT marches on, and this man must rise early tomorrow. Expect a reply then...



28 December 2012 22:53  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Kinderling

You've got the ability, to discern, but in your present state you do not know what Mr Mcgranor is on about, and that poverty of a half-used brain is embarrassingly apparent.

Go on, ask him if the I-didn't-do-it Demon behind the Catholic religion that blocks out Jesus' teachings is one that uses to their advantage the fear-of-women Demon behind the Mohammadan's Faith.


When I comment about you being incomprehensible you talk about my half used brain. Oh I see if I was cleverer (Or used my brain) I would know what you were talking about and would just have to agree with you?

I'm just so stupid and feel so bad about myself...

But you Kinderling must feel so good knowing all that stuff, being able to talk in Yoda and all.

But hang on do you know God Kinderling? When you pray (Do you pray?) are you filled with the Holly Spirit to the very core of your being? Have you come to God completely broken and fallen at his feet?

I'll keep my Lord God and my half brain Kinderling and you can keep your Yoda. I don't need half a brain to know who has the better bargain.

Phil

28 December 2012 23:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Earlier than expected reply...

One repeats his use of the word ‘animal’ in replacement of an actual named thing is of a humorous disposition and not literal. But just a moment, you are on a BRITISH site, so you ask, you are told - there is no appeals facility. End of story.

Agreed, you are not as insular as the rest of the US. But that still does not give you reason to suppose that you are any more informed of the state of the Middle East than this man.

What has the fact a man being imprisoned by his fellows of the same race have to do with anything ?

Regarding ‘lesser races’, no doubt the Romans had the same idea about the Iron age Britons living in England when they came over. Adapt and prosper, that’s the ticket, which is what the European colonised peoples of the far East did. Recently in the press, two African tribes clashed with ‘spears and guns’ leaving several dead. Jesus would have wept.


28 December 2012 23:19  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 December 2012 23:23  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 December 2012 23:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Very well said Phil @ 23:02

28 December 2012 23:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 December 2012 23:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Actually Inspector. I'm half Jewish and do take exception to this nonsensical racial theory of yours. There is only one race, genetically.

28 December 2012 23:34  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Kinderling

Sorry I should not have said Yoda

Perhaps I should have said your Lord Krishna? This would explain a great deal...

Am I right?

Remember that you are bound by Satya.

Phil (Half Brain)

28 December 2012 23:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Dodo. The Inspector is well aware you are half Jewish. Now there is a race that has done well. On a personal, cultural, and even national level. The Inspector’s favourite humour is Jewish New York. Deep respect from this man...


28 December 2012 23:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

One repeats his use of the word ‘animal’ in replacement of an actual named thing is of a humorous disposition and not literal.

So you are saying this is an instance of British humor that Americans simply don't understand. I cannot argue with that. I shall leave it to your fellow nationals. It is true that I find British humor challenging. Someone once recommended P G Wodehouse to me saying he was hysterical. I tried. Seriously, I did try.

Agreed, you are not as insular as the rest of the US. But that still does not give you reason to suppose that you are any more informed of the state of the Middle East than this man.

My reason is that I don't understand the Middle East by means of a false racial grid.

What has the fact a man being imprisoned by his fellows of the same race have to do with anything ?

I want to know if you think the imprisoned pastor is different from his jailers? Would he if given the opportunity return the favor? If not, then why not?

Regarding ‘lesser races’, no doubt the Romans had the same idea about the Iron age Britons living in England when they came over. Adapt and prosper, that’s the ticket, which is what the European colonised peoples of the far East did. Recently in the press, two African tribes clashed with ‘spears and guns’ leaving several dead. Jesus would have wept.

Why do you put scare quotes around your own phrase? The Chinese as you must now recognize aren't a lesser race. Do you know how many PhDs they are producing? And yet what was the opinion of the 'yellow races' some 150 years ago? Why then do you so easily dismiss black men as inferior? Haven't you learned from the errors in your predessessor's judgments?

carl

28 December 2012 23:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector

The Jews are a people - not a race. We/they are from the Semites, the same ethnic grouping as Arabs and Muslims.

It's the same with the Irish. We/they are a people and not a race, hailing from the Celts.

(Actually, despite the genetic evidence to the contrary, I still believe the Irish (Eire) are one of the lost 10 tribes of Israel.)

29 December 2012 00:10  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 December 2012 03:20  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 December 2012 04:17  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 December 2012 05:43  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 December 2012 05:52  
Blogger John Magee said...

We live in a secular society. As much as it pains me to say this there is nothing in the United States Constitution at any point that mentions marriage or the definition of marriage. That was left to the states to define, if need be, by the ballot box. For people living during the time when the Constitution was ratified in 1788 and until recently it was inconceivable that there could ever be an issue debating the definition of marriage being anything other than a civil or religious union between one man and one woman in Christian cultures. It took, at the most, only 2% of our population to badger society and get finally get their way through the courts or even by voters to change our age old cultural and religious definition of something as sacred and basic a unit for the continuation of the human race as the concept of marriage. This ability by a tiny fragment of our population to destroy the traditional definition of marriage is one of the many serious defects in our secular system. These idealistic or obnoxious and screwy demands by the far left end up as one of their new social agenda ultimatums causing fissures (they call "diversity") which eventually widen into a huge gap through protests and eventually divide and weaken our society. This was their intention all along to mock and wreck our traditions, religion, patriotism and destroy these ideals. From the ruins they imagine they can rebuild society on their utopian left wing dreams.

How many times did we see these utopian dreams for a paradise on earth cause catastrophies and mass death in the last century under Communism?

The November 6,2012 election with three states approving Gay "marriage" and two others voting to allow smoking of Marijuana made legal says a lot about the cultural and moral demographics of those under forty who vote today. The children and grandchildren of the Woodstock generation will soon be the majority. Not a solid majority but a 51% + majority. Enough to win elections. They will vote for the welfare state if it gives them what they want. Legalized drugs for instance and a redefinition or or moral codes.

I'm not looking forward to living in a country with these kind of people in control of our destiny. Are you?

29 December 2012 06:24  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 December 2012 10:27  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

DoDo, i find the 'one race' slogan to be inadequacy. The recent findings of a racial genetic similarities or indistinguishment regarding race. It is a computation that is inhuman. Man is conscience of his race; but also clear weighed and measurable physical traits are seen. It is a against an innate autonomy that men go about irrationally biased.

29 December 2012 10:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. You and humour are two different animals. This man remembers relaying a joke to you that included the highly unlikely scenario of an Eskimo baby not just being born in an English hospital, but abandoned by it’s mother and left in the neo natal unit. (....The casual observer will be wondering where the wit is in that – well, it was part of a good joke...)

Your response ? A lecture on why Eskimo mothers are no less likely to abandon their new born than any other mother of the world !

You really are hard work sometimes, but one expects you’ve been told that many times before...

29 December 2012 12:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

On the subject of humour, an observation about the reception given to the word ‘race’

A shameful word. The devils word. A word apparently loaded with hate and despising. Associated with unacceptable and insurmountable differences. A divisive word. A word that brings out inner feelings of disgust.

Anyone agree with that ?

Well if you do, you must ask yourself this. What is it in your hearts that causes you to think like that. Do you secretly agree with those descriptions (...which this man does not...). Is there somewhere in you that you do not wish to visit, to keep hidden ? Feelings that you have that you know are unacceptable in this day and age where the curious notion exists that we are all and every one of us ‘equal’...



29 December 2012 12:48  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Phil: "But hang on do you know God Kinderling?"

Yes, I do know of your ego-needy projection. I've sen it in the faces of Allah/Jehovah/Shiva/Jesus worshippers.

"When you pray (Do you pray?)..."

Why should I pray when god knows everything in my heart. What inadequate Micky Mouse religion do you follow?

"...are you filled with the Holly Spirit to the very core of your being?"

Why would I suck on anything more when it already outflows? Do you get a tingling effect to the bottom of your toes when you do this? Are booster packs found in church?

"Have you come to God completely broken and fallen at his feet? "

I can bow down to no Idol. I only went to my neighbor to admit I had been playing god to become free, not submit to some Deity-with-priests uncovered in my millenium.

The truth sets you free, not your imagination.

29 December 2012 13:01  
Blogger len said...

There are two different levels of perception.

The 'Politically Correct' one.
The actual true one.

The PC 'solution' is the Humanist (Orwellian) concept of controlling man through controlling his speech and thereby[hopefully] controlling his actions.

God has a far more radical plan He gives the fallen man a 'new heart' and a 'new nature' to replace the existing one.

29 December 2012 13:05  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

Racism is always a vice in the mind of a liberal if they read or hear about a person today who is white and Christian being proud of Western Christian Civilization and it's accomplishments and rich culture which has made the world a better place to live in.

Racism is a always a virtue in the mind of the same liberal when practiced by non white people who feel the same way about their civilization and heritage.

It's always the double standard for liberals. They can never be consistent. They are the true racists.

I am support all people, no matter where they live or what race they belong to, being proud of who they are and their culture.

29 December 2012 16:15  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Len: "God has a far more radical plan He gives the fallen man a 'new heart' and a 'new nature' to replace the existing one."

So has Socialist Man been given "a 'new heart' and a 'new nature' to replace the existing one."

I think the existing one does quite well enough when you get it out from under a ton load of imprinting from religions, cultures and sexual addictions.

To do that, you have to get out more and realize their hypnosis is your hypnosis.

And those who don't want you to wake up? We're back to those who want to be your representatives and bless you in return for a shilling, or curse you should you wish to leave.

29 December 2012 16:20  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

You said:

(Actually, despite the genetic evidence to the contrary, I still believe the Irish (Eire) are one of the lost 10 tribes of Israel.)

Why the need to fantasize and prove this concept? How can you deny DNA findings?

The Celts, along with many European "tribes" (with the exception of the Basques) emigrated from Central Asia, east to west, into Europe or from India and what is now Iran emigrating north then northwest into Europe giving us our Indo European language roots. Mummies dating back to 6,000 BC have been found in the western Gobi desert and the Tarim desert in China which are clearly Celts with their Celtic/Caucasian DNA, plaids, long red hair and other Celtic attributes. Several of the female mummies have tall pointed hats similar to those women in wales usd to wear as part of their national folk costume.

Seems as though these "Chinese" Celts descendents trekked west several thousand miles and eventually got "lost" a few thousand years later and ended up in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cormwall, and in Brittany...

Are you familar with the American Robert Ballard former United States Navy officer and a professor of oceanography at the University of Rhode Island who is most noted for his work in underwater archaeology: maritime archaeology and archaeology of shipwrecks? He is most known for the discoveries of the wrecks of the RMS Titanic in 1985, the battleship Bismarck in 1989, and the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown in 1998. He discovered the wreck of John F. Kennedy's PT-109 in 2002 and visited Biuku Gasa and Eroni Kumana, who saved its crew. He is is now working on a project proving the Black Sea was once hundreds of feet lower that it is today and was flooded about 8,000 years ago when the ice from the last Ice Age was melting and flooded the Mediterreanean Sea and gradually overflowed at the Bospherous and flooded the Black Sea driving out the inhibitants with slowly rising water? Is this the cause of the many legends of a great flood?

29 December 2012 16:41  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

John Magee

"There are 6,000 year old mummies found perfectly preserved in the dry Gobi desert in Western China which are red haired Caucasians wearing plaid coats with some of the females wearing tall black hats similar to those worn by women in Wales which we now recognize as part of their national folk costume"

"These mummies are clearly "Celts"."

Did they have a rugby ball with them John? Cannot be real Celts then...

Also I don't see many women in Wales with tall conical hats!

Perhaps in Bridgend, Never been to Bridgend

Phil



29 December 2012 19:51  
Blogger John Magee said...

Phil

Scroll back. I said these black conical hats several of female Celtic mummies found in western China were similar (in fact they are exactly like them) to the traditional hats women used to wear which represent the Welsh national costume for women. These Welsh women's traditional hats are black and conical with a wide brim. Ask any Welshman here. They look like "witches hats" but have no connection.

Egyptians play football too. Does that mean 3,000 year old Egyptian Pharahh mummies played your verison of football? Of course not.

I would research the Celtic mummies discovered in the Gobi Desert in China before making light of them. Serious archeologists, a few from yhe greeat universities in the UK and the USA take them very seriously s being what they look: Celts.

Please type in your search:

Takla Makan Mummies

Gobi desert Celtic mummies

Tarim mummies

Then get back to me. Thank you and best wishes for 2013.

29 December 2012 20:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Magee

You do know my comment about Celts and Jews was a joke, don't you?

29 December 2012 22:15  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

John Magee

I don't know where to start

First I am Welsh, never seen any woman wearing the conical hats you speak of except at St Fagans.

I doubt any fashion will last 6000 years. women's fashion usually lasts around 6 weeks max.

The most serious heresy is to call rugby football

rugby has no connection to the nancy boy game you play in the US (Played with the same ball) all kitted up in padding and helmets in case you might get hurt!

Getting hurt is the general idea!

Phil



29 December 2012 23:17  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

John Magee

However,looking more closely at the Takla Makan Mummies

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/chinamum/taklamakan.html

The bottom image does look like Dai Jones after he has had a few on Saturday night.

In fact come to think about it, Dai Jones looks like that most of the time.

Maybe you are on to something here Joh with that mummy thing.

Either Dai is older than he lets on. OR Dai drinks so much because he hates the Welsh rain and would prefer to be in the desert.

Good thinking, I will pass you ideas around town and see if any of the boys remembers any stories of living in the desert.

You never know mind. Yes indeed.

Phil


"Seems as though these "Chinese" Celts descendents trekked west several thousand miles and eventually got "lost" a few thousand years later and ended up in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cormwall, and in Brittany..."

Dai's always getting lost. Or so he tells his wife.


29 December 2012 23:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Phil Roberts. I doubt any fashion will last 6000 years. women's fashion usually lasts around 6 weeks max.

The Inspector is good friends with a lady involved in the charity shops lark. She informs they receive donations still in the original wrappings. The gals concerned has bought the garment, often at substantial cost. The threads are worn just the once, and then replaced within the plastic wrapping. You see, the thing ‘just isn’t her’ or some such. The idea is to ask for a refund but it never happens, for to do so would involve a loss of face. It spends a few months in the wardrobe until the lady feels she has had her moneys worth, then it’s taken to the cancer shop, or heart shop.

This is a rare post. The Inspector knows more about the life cycle of the African snail than he does about the workings of women :->



29 December 2012 23:38  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil Roberts,

I thought for some silly reason you were a Scot, but you are actually Welsh.

I found your discussion with Len was very good on the other thread.

In Judaism, which has 613 commandments, we are in essence called to Love G-d and our neighbour.

And the Welsh have that lovely sing-song voice which has inspired many a choir (one of my brothers is married to a Welsh Jewish girl).

I like Men Of Harlech:

"Men of Harlech stop your dreaming
Can't you see their spear points gleaming
See their warrior pennants streaming
To this battlefield
Men of Harlech stand ye steady
It cannot be ever said ye
For the battle were not ready
Stand and never yield
From the hills rebounding
Let this song be sounding
Summon all at Cambria's call
The mighty force surrounding
Men of Harlech on to glory
This will ever be your story
Keep these burning words before ye
Welshmen will not yield!"

30 December 2012 00:07  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 December 2012 06:55  
Blogger John Magee said...

Phil

Please type in your search under images: Welsh national costume

You will see many illustrations and photos of the black conical hats with the wide brim worn as part of the national costume by Welsh women. Similar hats were found in the in the 3,000 + year old coffins of the female mummies (LOL) found at sites in the Gobi desert of western China I posted above.

@ Dodo

Sometimes I'm not sure when you are joking or serious. Or both at the same time. However I do respect your knowledge and also your tanicity defending the Magisterium.

Best wishes for you and those you love in 2013.

30 December 2012 07:39  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hi Hannah

Princess Nest is one of my favourite stories of Wales

http://www.pembrokestory.org.uk/princessnest.html

Glad you liked my exchange with Len. He still hasn't got it that to change people's viewpoint they at least need to like you and they are not going to do that if you are unpleasant to them.

Phil

30 December 2012 10:04  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

John Magee

I don't believe that you can say that people are Welsh because they wore the same sort of hat. Or that some of them "got lost and came to Wales"

All the medieval paintings of Wales that I can have seen do not show conical hats. I believe that became popular about 1750. Before that the women were more sensible and did not wear conical hats for some reason? (Perhaps they realised if you want a guy to storm a Castle to get you don't wear a silly hat.)

Phil

30 December 2012 10:09  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Inspector:

We - well, I say we only in order to muffle my weeping - have a pile of clothes/shoes/accessories (but never handbags - they're always kept) waiting to be returned to their online distributors at any given point in time. Fortunately, most of them are ebay sellers, which means the loss to my rather scant purse is minimal, but about once a quarter I lug a huge bag of items down to the charity shops in much the same way.

30 December 2012 10:38  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

David B:

"Before I respond further, could you please expand on what you mean by 'ontological meaning of morality'?"

Glad to hear you are not an ultra reductionist (not that I doubted you for a second - very few are). I simply meant the degree to which any non-divine system of morality could be said to be able to make definitive moral positions, and on what basis.

Very often, including in this thread, you have characterised yourself as being opposed to "absolutist morality". I am always a little confused as to what this actually means, but it does seem to get thrown at religion rather a lot. If you mean that I am absolutist in believing that certain things are always a sin, and that there can be no renegotiation or redefinition of sin to suit a person's inclinations (precisely because pretty much all of us would like very much to avoid the idea that we are doing wrong, when we are doing wrong), then I suppose I must be "absolutist". But then, I've read comments from yourself that suggest that you have fairly definite (my preferred term) positions on things like child abuse, murder, domestic violence, and even on specifics like circumcision & FGM.

In effect, the question is, given that you reject God for lack of evidence (presumably empirical evidence), what evidence forms the basis for such definitive positions, which seem so often to be as unshakeable as my conviction that child abuse, murder, domestic violence, and FGM are sinful? Are these positions in fact the product of a purely evidential morality, is it possible for them to be definitive, or are you essentially always leaving room, however slight, for the possibility that there may be circumstances in which murder is acceptable when you say murder is wrong?

It's not really the individual points of right and wrong, but rather the overarching system that enables you to arrive at them, and what evidence forms its structure.

30 December 2012 10:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Belfast, a sorrowful tale of loss of wealth. Commiserations old chap...

30 December 2012 11:05  
Blogger John Magee said...

Phil

Are the Welsh a Celtic people?

Last I heard they were.

These 3,000+ year old mummies discoverd during the 1980's perfectly preserved in the Gobi Desert of Western China because of the extremely dry conditions with reddish blond hair, Caucasian features (I realize the Gobi is east of the Caucasus Mountains) with many wearing plaid fabrics, and of course those women in the coffins with the black "pointed hats" not to mention DNA evidence isn't fiction.

Migration into Europe and eventually to the British Isles of the Celts and the Germanic peoples went from Central Asia west into Europe. The present day Celts in the British Isles once lived in what is now southern Germany and France. remember the Gauls? Long before that they lived in what is now Russia, the Ukraine, and further east. The Slavic peoples also migrated east to west or perhaps northwest from India and what is now Iran.

Maybe the Irish, Scots, Welsh, etc should make some territorial demands today asking the UN for their "right of return" to their ancient homelands in Central Europe and Russia?
That would give the IRA something to do these days.

It may be difficult for a resident of the Dingle Peninsula in Eire or residents of the Scottish Highlanders today to imagine, but their ancient ancestors most likely once lived near Kiev in the Ukraine. Long before that they were living east of the Urals in western China.

There's no place like home.




30 December 2012 15:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

In fact John, we all hail from Africa and are all members of one human race.

30 December 2012 15:30  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

If global warming statistics can be doctored by some scientists and meteorlogists to suit their political correct agenda's then the origin of the human race can be revised or covered up to suit politically correct needs too.

Back in the 1970's "climate change" was supposed to mean a new ice age was approaching.

The climate on earth has been in a constant state of flux for the bast 3 billion years.

We've just endured another global warming caused snowstorm with temperatuures in the teens F here last night and today. This follows the one we had last week with more snow on the way by this weekend.

30 December 2012 17:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Beautifully simplistic Dodo ! ( 15:30)

30 December 2012 19:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 December 2012 19:02  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Eh? You are saying Dodo is simplistic ?

I thought we were came from Adam and Eve. Weren't the happy couple from Iraq/Mesopotamia?

30 December 2012 20:11  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector

Just before you think I am a dumb girl, I would say in all seriousness, Dodo does have a valid scientific point. Look up Mitochondrial Eve.

30 December 2012 20:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good evening Hannah. How could anyone call a sweet thing like you dumb.

The Inspector introduced Mitochondrial Eve the other year. The theory being that all humanity that is not 100% negro traces it’s origin back to just 7 females who left Africa, via the Horn, some tens of thousands of years ago. Science holds at the moment there really was an Eve, but several Adams, none of which were around when Eve was.

One recalls all this upset Carl, as he is a creationist / talking snake man.

Dodo not being criticised, but you must admit, he has managed to sum up humanity in one sentence. Isn’t the human brain marvellous for being able to do that !


30 December 2012 20:40  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Inspector

" Science holds at the moment there really was an Eve, but several Adams, none of which were around when Eve was"

Typical scientists did not take Sex Ed seriously

One wonders how we came about then. Presumably DanJo would be happy with the several Adams but no Eve.

Not much fun for the rest of us,

Or for Eve come to that

Phil



30 December 2012 20:49  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Creationism and talking snakes seem more possible than an Eve and several Adams, not living at the same time

How they work all this out from a finger bone and tooth found in Kenya whilst scrabbling around in the dirt amazes me.

They must be very clever (or very....)

Phil

30 December 2012 20:53  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Perhaps they were Welsh?

John, did they find any conical hats?

Phil

30 December 2012 20:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Phil all derived from work on the genome. Interesting word that. From a poets point of view, anything that rhymes with gnome is welcome...

30 December 2012 21:23  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I would say that from an academic perspective, I am more versed in cosmology than I am evolution.

Although to me, the whole debate about talking serpents and creation is a bit of a moot point. I already know that G-d is the creator, for as the first line of The Torah says "Bereishit bara Elohim".

30 December 2012 22:03  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 December 2012 22:07  
Blogger John Magee said...

Wasn't Adam's first wife named Lilith. Seem to remember she was also created from the same earth as Adam. Simple minded Goy like me aren't familiar with this sort of stuff.

Isn't Lilith considered some sort of female demon in Hebrew folklore?

What say you Hannah?

30 December 2012 22:09  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

John Magee,

Please stop putting yourself down. None of the Joos here have ever called you a 'simple minded goy'.

Anyways,how did this thread leap from discussing the creation and the study of the cosmos to Jewish demonology/folklore? How does your brain join these dots together?

30 December 2012 22:47  
Blogger GreenTeaMan said...

By the way

Either Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were put together by a complete idiot who did not see the inconsistencies between them, or more likely – because it reads like this---Genesis 1 is a song of joy about God deciding to create the world and the historical narrative starts with Genesis 2.

Phil

30 December 2012 23:13  
Blogger John Magee said...

david

From Celtic mummies in the Gobi Desert we evolved into Dodo mentioning that we all come from Africa. The supposed DNA "earth mother" of us all "Lucy". Then the subject of Adam and Eve surfaced. That reminded me of Lilith the first wife of Adam. The dots are connected.

30 December 2012 23:18  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

John Magee

I see ... I've got a Welsh-Jewish wife, who is a mummy, so the dots must be connected.

In respect to Lilith, whom you rightly identify as being one of the pantheon of demons in Judaism, but regards being the 'first' wife of Adam, it depends upon which tradition of Judaism you follow and is more prevalent in the mystical /Kabbalah.

30 December 2012 23:26  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 December 2012 00:11  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 December 2012 00:12  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Green Tea Man Phil,

If it helps in your spiritual joruney, to be a Jew is to be 'people of the book' or in another sense, books. We do tend to read a lot.

So in respect of Genesis, cosmology and creation, from a theological and philosophical vantage point, I have found the theological works of our Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks to be of great benefit to me.

I guess as a Christian, you would want something from that perspective, so perhaps more 'up your street' (and for me of equal interest) is the Anglican theologian Alistair McGrath or for another interpretation the American Christian William Lane Craig.

31 December 2012 00:13  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hi Hannah

Thanks for that, I had not thought of the Willan Criag Lane approach

I have now figured which one of the 7 kids is switching my profile

Phil

31 December 2012 10:02  
Blogger John Magee said...

david

Egyptian mummies, like all mummies are transexuals after death and can no longer reproduce. So they can never be real "mommys" again. Yet at least 50% of preserved mummies may have once been mommy's or even called by their chidlren "mummy".

The English word mummy is derived from medieval Latin mumia, a borrowing of the medieval Arabic word mūmiya (موميا), which meant an embalmed corpse.

I wonder of there is a
"mummy's day" celebrated by archeologists for embalmed mummies?

31 December 2012 19:14  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

John Magee,

LOL to your play on words.

We shall give you English irony afterall.

But as for the topic-

Fascinating. I didn't realise that the ancient Egyptians thought that following mummification became transsexual. I thought the idea of mummification was to preserve the body for the afterlife, along with the person's treasured possessions? I'd be interested to read if this view is wrong.

31 December 2012 20:36  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older