The ultimate requirement: religious meeting houses without “offensive” signage and a Soviet-style ban on public propaganda. One consolation: the abolition of Islamic crescents and minarets (I think I have seen a photo of such architectural change in China or maybe North Korea!).
Mr Ben John is guilty of being mealy-mouthed. “Transgenderism” isn’t a “false ideology” (a phrase that has a whiff of Marxism about it) but a mortal sin against Christian chastity. And when the “Transgenderists” start making victims of children (as they do whenever they have the opportunity), it were better for them that a millstone were hanged about their necks, and that they were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18.6)
Well, of course, the traditional Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant belief is that Christ still exists, and some people worship and pray to him as the Second Person of the Triune God.
What about the Jesus in the NT narratives? Both the Good Samaritan and Sheep & Goats passages are misread as “leftist” themes. The chief relevant theme of the Synoptics is the imminence of the kingdom of heaven, i.e. spiritual rule in the hearts of people. Jesus reportedly advocates the abandonment of family lies and of the search for wealth. But it is a mistake to see the few healing miracle stories as an abortive start to create a national health service for ancient Judea. The longterm upshot of NT “ethics” is the instillation of self-abnegating guilt which has transmuted into a secular ideology that incapacitates western resistance to enemies and practical solutions problems of crime, warfare, overpopulation and mass-migration,
The pathetic spectacle of the Archbishop of Canterbury lying flat in front of Hindus to “apologise” for a colonial crime and the Archbishop of York telling us that Jesus was a “black man” (he got the gender right, anyhow) are signs that the “Church” of “England” is a double-misnomer. Do these people really believe that two thousand years ago the Creator of the cosmos became a man for a few years, was killed and rose again to heaven, to love all mankind. But if not, what authority or particular value exists in their pronouncements on the economy or other issues, as distinct from comments from non-faith “experts”? We have a soggy leftist cake served up with a superstitious icing.
What is the Bark of (St) Peter (Mullen) on these matters?
David Ashton: Speaking as a mere layman, I think that Christians have two options: 1. To withdraw from this world of sin as hermits or monks; or 2. to take up arms and fight against evil. Those of us who do neither are Laodiceans (Rev 3.15).
But like you I want to hear from the leader of the SR crusade, Fr Mullen.
Some years ago some “Noble Lords” invited comment on a proposal to outlaw religious hate speech like racial hate speech. I sent in a long memorandum, noting especially that the New Testament, the Quran & Hadith, and the Talmud could all be subject to attack on these grounds. The sacred texts themselves! My contribution was acknowledged, possibly even read – unlike a comparable memorandum I had submitted long before, re Lord Scarman’s Brixton Riots response (based lazily on the discredited US Kerner Commission) – but it was not reprinted in the published report – instead pages were spent reproducing round-robin protest letters from Baptist fundamentalists, with the presumed intention of making objectors look like reactions from Christian cranks.
He would storm into the synagogue and overturn the tables. Hate Speech and PC are the main assault weapons on the foundations of reason and western Hellenic culture. Reason pre-dates the bible, so calculators and Pythagoras had better watch out. Once all reason is banished, madness awaits, as that is what madness is, absence of reason.
Love of Mammon is the root of all evil, including this.
Jesus would be considered an extreme Wokehemist and after leaving Tower Hamlets Dec to persue an academic career in Diversity Studies, would have gravitated naturally, through the Revolutionary Socialist Party, to Labour’s front bench. As Shadow and subsequently Government Chancellor his (zees) policy of ‘Render until Ceaser that which is Ceaser’s and unto God that whichever God you might believe in` would find massive cross bench support and led to the first government of national unity since 1945, and with similar benefits for government borrowing, taxation and spending.
Hallelujah! Praise the Lord and pass the P45s!
Raymond Angelo Belliotti, “Jesus the Radical”, and Julian Baggini, “The Godless Gospel” (reviewed by Terry Eagleton in “The Guardian”, 5 December 2020), enlist Jesus for social revolution. Nothing especially new. The main question is: if Jesus was not a spokesman for a supernatural order, what authority or value attaches to his – alleged – utterances? These must be evaluated on their own merits or demerits. Like Confucius, Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, Spencer, Marx, or anyone else.
“Jesus” is protean figure, “interpreted” in numerous different ways by writers during the past 200 years or so; see among many useful summaries Charlotte Allen’s “The Human Christ”.
As the only certainties are death and taxation he could, with hindsight, have selected a career with the Tax collectors and discharged both secular and spiritual obligations, whilst avoiding the worst consequences of having his neo-Hobbsian thinking checked by the Stasi.
Oh how wrong you are ! Didn’t you know that as a white British male even thinking about the Quran is a hate crime, (hate thought), only the King James Bible that glorious product of western culture can be racist.