´óÏó´«Ã½

How many ways is Norman Hamilton trying to face at once? He has ended up insulting everyone - from Roman Catholics to conservative evangelicals. Sometimes, the middle of the road is where you get knocked down.

NEVER SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL.

169000,
Which one are you warning ?

This is a fair response by Dr. Hamilton. As far as I am aware the service itself will be following the Anglican order of service for Evening Prayer which means there will be not be a celebration of mass. One should respect the difficult position he finds himself to be in and give credit for his balanced way of handling the issue.

Just listened to the interview.
On the one hand N. Hamilton wishes to be gracious and Christ like.
On the other, he has issues with areas of the Catholic Church re child abuse issues and other issues that he would like to discuss with the Pope but does not have the opportunity and hence does not wish to symbolically or otherwise shake his hand - does he feel by shaking his hand that he would be symbolically condoning the actions/words/silence of the Pope on some crucial matters?? Is the expression of the Pope Christ-like re homosexuals/women/child abuse?? Duh .....

What would happen if all the church leaders and everyone else refused to shake the hand of the Pope not because he is RC, not because he is Pope, not because of the reformation or document of faith they have signed or some other theological point - but simply because of his un-Christ like expression, unloving expression, towards his fellow human being?? Does being Christ-like mean condoning or standing up against that which is not loving - however that may be expressed and through whomever it may be expressed?? Food for thought.

No doubt lots of people will have different views re this and NH course of action - strikes me that he has thought quite deeply about this and is endeavouring to be true to his path and respectful of others without condoning that which he disagrees with or doing something false for the sake of appearances. I'm not in his shoes (thankfully!) and don't share his theology - just saying how it came across to me.

Ye'll no say a special invitation-only Service of Evening Prayer at Westminster Abbey on Friday, in ma lug!!

Certainly these are troubling issues, however one of the most troubling is the Pope's clear denial of many essential aspects the Christian faith, esp. concerning the way of salvation.

He has "declined the invitation to be presented to the Pope... [because] ... Such an occasion inevitably has a lot of symbolism attached to it..." Sitting under the ministry of the Pope has a lot more symbolism as it validates the Pope's status as a teacher of God's Word. That is why Christ has commanded multiple times that we do not have fellowship with false teachers.

Mr Hamilton has stated that he wants to show "proper respect to the Roman Catholic people of Ireland and their leader". What he should be more concerned about is respect for Christ as King and Head of the Church.

He is not even loving the Roman Catholic people of Ireland as his actions mislead them into believing that the Vatican's false gospel is valid.

He is not a representative of any people. God calls him an ambassador of Christ, and he is falsely representing Him.

"He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me." (John 14:21)

Jean, it's worse than that for you guys; Norman knows (as does the Pope) that religious views have no validity; that now that people can actually *read* the bible, that the waffle of priests and pastors can't cover up the very clear evidence that whether it's "scripture" or "tradition", the whole bally lot is human made, and the gods had darn all to do with it. So you "people of faith" need to show a bit of solidarity, you know. I'm too realistic to pretend that Norm and Benny are picking up their violins on the deck of the Christitanic, as it prepares for that last gasp before the Deep swallows its doomed hulk forever, but one certainly does get a sense of desperation from these folks as they see Britain striding forwards into this secular "wasteland", accompanied, it has to be said, by very many priests and ministers who know perfectly well that it's all just a *story*.

I am Devout Christian, from a Presbyterian Church. It pains me to see and hear these comments from such an esteemed position within the denomination. It sends out the sort of "If you have a problem with someone, don't shake their hand, just pay lip service" attitude which is totally contrary to the life and times of Jesus Christ.

Jesus warned the and met with the Pharisees at the same time. He didn't ignore them and sit on a panel show exclaiming he "had no time for them"

None of the denominations have it right - never mind the Catholic Church.
Moderator, do the Presbyterian Church a favour. Be humble and Gracious (like we are taught and try to emulate).

Helio,

I'd say the UK is already a secular "wasteland", it's just encumbered with the relics of religious tradition and its privileges.

I do feel sorry for Dr Norman Hamilton, a chance to meet one of the world's most important people (even if he is the Pope), which despite the controversy surrounding the old geezer, might be his only chance and a something to tell the grandkids, and he can't talk to the guy because other people can't seem to seperate what someone does and who someone is and make a big symbolic statement over something as trivial as a handshake and a 'hello'.

Why do people attach so much importance to the role someone has in their professional life all the time? When I meet my grandparents, or my friends outside of work, or even talk to a shop attendant, it's as me, Natman, not Natman, the chemical analyst from XYZ Labs, representing all the analytical chemists in the UK. Surely a small statement from Dr Hamilton to the extent of 'I'm meeting the Pope because I want to, not as your representative. Yah boo sucks' (perhaps without that last bit).

And if he doesn't want to meet the Pope, then why is he going to this event?

On a side note, if given the chance, I'd shake hands with the Pope, but it'd be as a man to a man, not as a humble sinning supplicant to a holy religious leader with far too much bling. I certainly wouldn't kiss his ring, hand or any other designated part of his anatomy.

He might even get a 'ah-reet mate'.

Any one see Mary Warnock on Newsnight last nigth? Classic stuff. Usual secular liberal atheistic stuff to start about how we don't need religion including bishops in the house of lords (as if we need her there). Then as the discussion moved on Paxman and some academic were agreeing that hostility to Catholic Church was greater because it's replaced Church of England as the face of Christianity in England. Well Mary's old fashioned anti-catholic bigotry popped out at the thought. Clearly she's a protestant atheist. Like some of the "humanists" on this blog.

Helio

You been annoying Walter?!!

From: 2MP, passenger on the Christitanic.

To: Heliopolitan, captain of the Carpatheist and rescuer of human soles to the lifeboat - CJCA.


Christitanic, funny! You do funny well :-)

But you also, too often, fix your gaze on idols fashioned by the hands of men! Sinking we may be, but I hear that the iceberg goes by the name, Jesus :-)

To those in the Reformed Faith, that have been saved by the grace of God, a hand shake can be interpreted as extending the right hand of fellowship. In this context, it would be wholly inappropriate for a gospel minister, or any other saved person for that matter, to shake hands with the Pope; bearing in mind that the Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ and head of the Church; such claims are at variance with the Word of God.
While it is right for the Presbyterian moderator not to meet the Pope or to shake his hand; it is totally wrong for him, or anyone else belonging to the Reformed Faith, to support any meeting or service presided over by a Romanish priest, prelate or Pope.

Helio (@ 8) -

"Norman knows (as does the Pope) that religious views have no validity;"

How do you know that? Have Norman and the Pope confessed this to you? Do you believe in mind reading? Perhaps you are now a convert to the paranormal, and can peer into other people's consciousness?

Or is it that you are projecting your own assumptions into other people's thinking?

I thought you atheists were supposed to be 'evidence based' thinkers (ha ha!). So where's your evidence that you know that the aforementioned gentlemen know their views have no validity?

"...very many priests and ministers who know perfectly well that it's all just a *story*."

There you go again!

By the way... if (strictly for the sake of argument) atheism is true (whatever 'true' could possibly mean in your naturalistic epistemology) then ultimately there is no meaning to life. Therefore we have to create our own meaning within a meaningless and purposeless universe. We have to make up our own 'stories' (or 'narratives', if you prefer).

So, according to your world view, if Norman and B16 decide to 'repent' and give their lives to atheism (which they apparently 'know' to be true, so we are told on good authority) then they will simply be exchanging one story for another. And then they're back to square one again. They 'know' it's all a story, so they might as well convert back to their former views!! Frankly, what difference does it make? At the end of the day, if your views are correct, what authority figure is going to tell Norm and B16 that they were very naughty to believe religious stories rather than non-religious ones?!!

It's such a pity you seem not to have thought your views through as thoroughly as I have, Helio. In fact, I think you're quite an amateur atheist, to be honest. This 'Christian atheism' bluster appears to me to be an attempt to use religious tradition to soften the edges of the moral and epistemological nihilism of atheism. I think an atheist with genuine integrity wouldn't mess about with religion at all. That person would make a clean break from it and have the guts to face up to the full emotional force of everlasting meaninglessness, and the realisation that he and his life and the lives of his loved ones have no more intrinsic value than any other collection of atoms and molecules (which is the undeniable implication of the philosophy of materialism).

I know what complete meaninglessness feels like. I've been there and done it, and not crept under the comfort blanket of 'religion'. Perhaps that is why I am less than impressed with atheists who haven't got the courage to face up to the full implications of their own philosophy, and constantly steal ideas from the world view they waste so much of their short meaningless lives attacking.

Helio, if you want to be a Christian, then go the whole hog. If you don't want to, then why don't you go the whole hog the other way? That's my advice, but it's your decision (and I hope you make the right one).

By the way, as a Christian, I know that I'm not making it up. You can make of that what you will.

As a Roman Catholic I find the 'never shake hands with the devil' comment deeply offensive. Pope Benedict XVI is carrying a very difficult cross as is the entire Roman Catholic Church in dealing with the abuse crisis. The Holy Father is Vicar of Jesus Christ and an inspirational leader. He is Soverign of the State of Vatican City and as such I think he should be offered the same respect as any other head of state, never mind world leader.

LSV, my life is not meaningless, and I do not need pixies to give it meaning. The same applies to Norman and Benny, and even you. Delude yourself all you want - that's fine.

RJB, re Walter, yes, I see what that old eejit has been up to - he described arriving in the UK as being like arriving in a third world country; the Vat tried to say "oh no, he was not insulting the UK, he was merely commenting on all the brown people milling around". It seems that under the current papacy, racism is a valid excuse for all sorts of gaffes.

Britain a secular wasteland? Roll on the day!

Interesting that one of the Cardinals who was to travel with the Pope thinks that the UK resembles a third world country.

He's not coming to the UK because he's ill - just another excuse from the Roman Catholic Church rather than tell the truth.

Is there something wrong with being multicultural? No wonder there is division within religion if Cardinals and the like think it's OK to slag off another country.

If the UK is third world then maybe the Roman Catholic Church would like to make a substantial donation to help with the defecit.

I am as you will detect totally disgusted at these comments from someone who should know better.

There's absolutely no problem or objection to shaking the hand of the pontiff or anyone else for that matter.. Dr. Hamilton besmirches the Gospel and every vow he has ever taken by attending the same ecumenical church service. Jesus saves.... Rome enslaves !! Makes you wonder why the martyrs laid down their lives for the sake of the gospel !!

Helio

It also makes me smile that the Vat put out a Press release saying that he has pulled out of the visit because he is "sick."

He makes racist remarks, Ratzi welcomes back to the fold a Nazi holocaust denier and insults Islam, Bertone blames clergy abusing children on gay people, Sodano extolls the virtues of Maciel, Castrillon Hoyos praises a Bishop who protected a paedophile priest and calls him a "hero", but worst of all.... they ask Susan Boyle to sing for them tomorrow.

And Ratzi recently stated that the RC Church doesnt need structural change, what we need is more prayers to some woman called St Hilfilger or something.

You British tax payers need to give yourselves a shake.

A world leader and a head of state... in the same vein perhaps as President Ahmadinejad... I guess they have their similarities- one was in a far right organisation that tried to annihilate a race of people and the other has made pretensions along the same lines..but it seems clear they share other similarities too. Their views on homosexuality & same sex relationships, their barbaric /non treatment of the AIDs issue, the role of women in their power base... yes an inspirational leader indeed...and Lord Patten feels the need to co-erce other church leaders to shake hands as if it's some jolly Gentlemans club,how lovely. Perhaps a spot of tea , a bun & some tut tutting about the state of the world & morals too.
Oh and this is the first time I've seen the Pope referred to as B16. Wasn't that a WWII bomber? Oh thats right..better not mention the war.

Indeed Ryan Lord Patten feels the need to co-erce other church leaders to shake hands as if it's some jolly Gentlemans club,how lovely. Perhaps a spot of tea , a bun & some tut tutting about the state of the world & morals too. How many would shake his hand, be nice to his face, eat the bun and drink the tea, and say something other than behind his back?? Hypocrisy I think it's called and religion as it stands today is full of it.

Helio: LSV has a point I feel. You say it's all a story - and that is true. However, stories can be used to convey a deeper truth or meaning that may not be initially apparent on first reading or tellling. I am not sticking up for the bible here - but for stories. All of our lives are stories - one day on Jack-a-nory they might even say once upon a time in a far off land a young man called Helio tried to convince the world that God did not exist......etc :-) . But are they just stories or is there a deeper truth and deeper meaning that may not be apparent on first hearing of the story? Obviously that is for each person to discern for themselves. For me, there is the story and there is a deeper meaning, a deeper truth behind all our stories - I could say there is the story and then there is the truth behind the story and the 2 are not the same. THe real gold for me is the truth behind the story, without which a story is .....well just a story irrespective of the content.

Helio,

RE: LSV's comments on 'if atheism is true then ultimately there is no meaning to life.'

It's amazing what people did before organised religion. Just think! All that wanton killing people just because they're different, all that power-grabbing, money-hungry politiking, all that intolerance and cruelty. All of it abolished by the advent of a 'church' and it's amazing morals.

However did humans manage without it?

I suspect LSV's true meaning in that sentance was 'if atheism is true then there is no meaning to my life'. He cannot comprehend an existance without a higher authority to hold his hand and tell him what to think and do. The concept of free-thinking is an anaethema to the religous mindset.

Back on thread:

I'd like to know, of those reading this thread, how many of you would shake the Pope's hand?

Why do the FP Church (half of the presbytery elders) share the same Knights of Malta (KoM) faternity connection with the Pope, Queen of England, Winston Churchill, Hitler and Hitler's companions such as Dr Death..?

Approx. 50% of the FP elders have a KoM connection (secret oath) thru' their York Rite Mason faternity, which serves the National KoM (Black Nobility, The Queen of England). In return she is subservient to the International KoM (The White Pope), who is under the control of the Jesuit General (The Black Pope). The Jesuits being the largest roman catholic organisation within its membership. The jesuits, who in the past expelled from nations, only return with subtlety into the Word Council of Churches college cemeteries, sorry did I really mean seminaries.

Why does Paisley & co. protest against the mass, but proceeds each year to celebrate the pagan C'mass, that satanic pagan day on the 25th of Dec. Winter Solstice, Paganmas Tree and Santa/Satan and even pagan easter have nothing to with Christ and the Messianic Passover. Easter is in fact dated by the moon, not Christ. Wake up you FPs. Deut 18. We are told to separate, are we not? This trip to see the pope is a vanity stunt. Stay at home and speak to the flock about paganism on our own door step. Or maybe a hirling cannot afford to. Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, was a tent-maker by trade and also a preacher of the Gospel. Not a '10 shekels and a shirt' Read Judges 17. Futhermore, it is not biblical in the NT to tithe. Tithe is biblical under OT law under the temple conditions, priesthood, animal sacrifice and circumcision. No tithing or infant baptism under the NT. There is however, believer's baptism. Also to Paisley & Co. you do not take a scripture view on 'The Last Trump', instead it is open to conflicting interpretation. Please clear up this pagan mess on our doorstep, and may be the people of NI might see a more truth inspired scriptural stand that's not double minded.

Good work, Al - that was out of the top drawer! Natman, I think what is really going on with VSL is that secretly (maybe even unconsciously) he knows that there is no god. I do find it strange that he thinks that without a magic inflatable space pixie, life has no meaning; one has to wonder why/whether the *pixie* has any meaning in its existence. I mean, if there is just the pixie, and it has to create universes and such like, and sycophantic zombies to mutter holy^3 on repeat (no shuffle option even!) to inflate its self-regard, how can it find *meaning*? Maybe the pixie/god/gods finds meaning by creating punters just to hurl into the lake of fire, or hot-tub or whatever, but you'd think that after a few centuries, never mind all eternity, the numinous First Cause would get bored to the lugs with that.

An alternative might be to indulge in the sort of Dan Brown fantasies above, but again, even that has to lose its lustre in the blink of a cosmic eye. White popes, black popes, rainbow popes (you've seen the shoes) - meaningless! It is all meaningless!

Whereas the millions of well-balanced atheists (and Christians and Muslims and Buddhists and whatever) actually really pragmatically derive meaning for their lives from the relationships with those around them, and a noble quest to make the world a better place. That seems a fine thing to do with molecules, and I do rather pity people who are so narrow that they think meaning can only derive from a warm fuzzy feeling they can give to an imaginary god. Their existence justifies the god's existence. How pathetic.

Incidentally, I have no problem shaking the hand of the pope or anyone else. This ridiculous notion that a handshake would imply that I agree with the views of the shakee is clearly nuts. A handshake is a simple act of civil courtesy, not a substitute for more challenging interactions, and I would shake the hand of Satan, Jesus, Hitler, Mother Theresa, Mohammed or whoever. But I will not submit to any authority they may presume, and if we have substantive matters we wish to discuss, we can get on to that following the minor social pleasantries.

YOUTUBE SEARCH: Secret Orange.

Rev 17 & 18. Could this be the white or black pope?

Arrest both the black pope (jesuit general) and the white pope 'on suspicion of being the ANTICHRIST'. Read Rev, 17 & 18 - purple and scarlet or the GREAT WHORE. All watered down protestantism have made their concordat with the Jesuits (those who secretly rule the high ranking York & Scottish Rite Masons).

Al, this is brilliant stuff. I think arresting popes on the basis of being the ANTICHRIST (I presume the caps are important) would establish a fascinating branch of case law in the British legal system, and I'm sure such a trial would be fascinating. However, I'm not even sure it is illegal to be the antichrist.

So we now have black, white, purple and scarlet popes - we need to complete our little spectrum to truly have a rainbow papacy.

Isn't revelations the drug-induced hallucination of a lonely extremist?

Fact for the day: the author of revelation wasn't even the apostle John. Quite why it's in the bible I've no idea.

Other than the fact it's good source material for horror films.

..... black, white, purple and scarlet popes,


did he mean Daleks, I had heard we were going back to a more traditional colour scheme in Doctor Who.

Surely to convict someone of being the Antichrist it is necessary to prove that such an office exists (and is illegal) and to do so would necessitate proving, beyond all reasonable doubt, that christ exists in a court of law.

That will make Saville seem cheap.

After reading this and accidentally clicking the right column link -A Tangled Web- Im beginning to think there's not much hope for humanity at this rate- especially when so many people just don't seem to grow up. All this talk of God belonging to one religious interpretation & not another. It's like a Primary School Playground with kids saying- no, he's in my club not yours. No, he's ours. What is wrong with people when they can so vehemently believe they're right, at the expense of others. That the selfish need to feel they're the chosen ones inflicts pain, death and cruelty on others. Is it this easy for fundamentalist Muslims, Christians and to a lesser against even Athiests be so sure of themselves.To me ,this is the biggest lesson we have to overcome as a race, how do we maintain a connection to spirituality and God, without taking ownership of the concept to the detriment and pain of others and from what I can see in many posts- slipping into mental illness

Ryan_, Eunice. Eunice, Ryan_.

;-)

Dave, you have me thinking; if the christ and the antichrist meet, would they annihilate each other in a huge explosion? My rapid back-of-the-Turin-Shroud calculation suggests that the energies involved would generate a large number of Higgs bosons. We get a double result - in destroying the gods, we create the god particles :-)

If this was a state visit, which the BRITISH TAX PAYER had to pay for, why then did people have to pay to see "2THESSALONIANS 2:3-4" doing a so-called spiritual thing in a SECULAR Country, I wonder is the Money going to be used to pay off THE TRUE CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS who were and our VICTIMS.

Also, what a joke, the big man over there protesting, where was he when the KINCORA PAEDOPHILE VICTIMS needed help.

Helio,

I think you are right in a matter/antimatter collision way but I think a double explosion due to the Blinovitch Limitation Effect in this case would also be a danger as they could be different instantiations of the same entity existing in different dimensional planes. This would have serious repercussions for the stability of time and might actually cause a reset of the Universe through a big bang starting it all off again. Spookily this might actually be what happens periodically.

Just a theory, no proof, I'll right a book and see if I can get some people to believe me - who knows in a few thousand years time I could be well read.

Helio: having a relationship with God does not focus on or include 'warm fuzzy feelings' of an 'imaginary God'. A relationship with God feeds into every relationship in life - including/esp with oneself that then feeds into all others.

So I know that the Pope is a son of God just like everyone else in my view - and in that case shaking his hand is not the problem. Most of us including the Pope do not live and express ourselves like a son of God on a daily basis and in this case the Pope less so than many other people due to his many expressions that are not loving of others and such expressions are very harming. However, we tend to expect more from a religious leader eg like the dalai lama who does convey messages of love and compassion. Hence, he ( the pope) comes in for much criticism including from me and so I'm not rushing to buy a ticket to shake his hand.

That said - I also know there is a bigger picture as to why he is the way he is and why he says the things he says - which allow such harming expressions to occur and is based on his own lovelessness. So in a way - it could be argued that he is the one who needs compassion and love! Perhaps that would be the Christ-like response NH has missed out on. That's on one side of the coin - on the other is the very real harm he is doing and is responsible for and perhaps ought to be held accountable for.

Oh and yes as you've noted - Ryan does talk sense (like me!) ;-)

Helio (@ 26) -

"Natman, I think what is really going on with VSL is that secretly (maybe even unconsciously) he knows that there is no god."

Well, I'm very pleased that the sheer force of logic has forced our resident psychoanalyst to downgrade his assertions from the certitude of omniscience to the conjecture of mere opinion, hence the use of the phrase "I think" (rather than the implied "I know"). A refreshing little whiff of humanity has suddenly materialised, rather than the nonchalant self-apotheosis, which seems to be the usual fare coming from the "evangelist of the Great Omission". It's tremendously ironic that the very people who claim to be champions of 'reason' rarely resort to the same, and attempt to bludgeon others into accepting their theory through the desperate promulgation of emotionally charged opinions. I find this phenomenon tremendously affirming of my own position. So thank you for your generosity, Helio, in desisting from using logic. You are really very kind.

The problem you are facing when you attempt to divine my innermost thoughts is that I am not a believer in your understanding of the word 'faith' (i.e. believing something I know to be untrue). I don't subscribe to that kind of 'faith'. It's like "I know that the chair I am sitting on right now is defective and likely to break at any moment; that is why I am sitting on it, because I have 'faith' in it!" You and your merry band of one-way pseudo-sceptics might be quite hard put to, to find many Christians - indeed any at all - who subscribe to that view of faith (and I'm sure that would include Norm and B16). It's the ultimate straw man, if you ask me! And to think that you atheists expend so much energy denouncing something that hardly anyone believes anyway: and I am not talking about God, but your deluded interpretation of the word 'faith'! It's really quite amusing watching this performance. The celebrated prof. writes his books and makes his appearances to lambast those who are into this kind of faith, and we're saying; "Yes, you're right. We Christians don't believe in that kind of faith either! And your point is...??" And yet the poor feller rabbits on, talking about something which is completely irrelevant anyway, driving his rusty bayonet into a mirage of his own imagination.

Of course, in the same category as this fabricated view of faith is the distorted understanding of God, which is so clearly evident from your rather misguided attempts at theology. "Sycophantic zombies"? "Creating punters just to hurl into the lake of fire?" Well, at least we agree on something, Helio. I find it rather interesting that you include such sentiments in a post that is an attempt to respond to my earlier observation. This seems to imply that you are rebuking me for believing this stuff. Hmmm. Omniscience again, I see. Very strange indeed, considering that not only do I agree with you, but I have made it clear on W&T that I don't subscribe to such a distorted view of God. You seem to live in a simple bipolar world, Helio, in which the only conceivable interpretations of reality are materialism, on the one hand, and hyper-Calvinism, on the other. So therefore, if the latter takes a knockout blow, the other is deemed to be the winner. Sorry, old chap, but there are other bouts going on of which you seem to know nothing (so much for omniscience!)

Ah, but then the "champions of reason" come up with another little classic concerning this variety of 'religious' views (and this relates to the topic of this thread, in case anyone thinks I'm wobbling off topic). So called 'religious' people are not allowed to have a range of views, because that just shows how 'immature' they are, by always being at each others' throats. Of course, it's perfectly OK for an atheist to disagree with a theist. That sort of disagreement is not deemed to be 'immature', but if you're going to believe in God you're only allowed to believe in one definition of God (preferably the one laid down by those who don't believe in God at all! "You are only allowed to take the hallucinogenic drug we prescribe, and then when you take it, we will explain to you how bad it is!" Oh how very noble of you!). Such profound logic displayed by those gallant "champions of reason"!!

At least we can agree that there is at least one kind of god which is definitely made up: the one cobbled together by the neurons in Helio's overheated brain!

Oh well, this little essay is now drawing to a close. I will soon go click, send my missive on its happy way, and then it's a matter of sitting back and waiting for my free entertainment: the bluff and bluster from molecule man. Ah, what a life this is!

Ryan_ (@ 33) -

...slipping into mental illness

I once did a very futile thing on this blog, and asked fellow travellers how they defined 'mental illness' (and guess who was the only one who replied??!)

It seems no one really knows what this mysterious thing is, called 'mental illness'. Do you know?

LSV, you should be the pope - you would have done a better job than he did with that insane paranoid drivel he spat out at Bellahouston Park. There's probably time for you yet... ;-)

Hi LSV,
Maybe its when somones sense of self gets distorted,from some external or internal influence. I guess to an outsider that's what alot of Religions looks like. If I ever had a child or someone asked me if I had to choose a faith that had some rationale and commonsense to it Id probably say hey- why don't you look at this /religion/religions/unitarianism/

Heliopolitan, ref. to colour spectrum of rainbow papacy. How about 666nm wavelength? Forget about the case law in the British legal system. The pope rules over 150+ nations so use an international. We all are familiar with the Hebrew 10 commandments. After all these are the laws pope benny and co. have tried to remove i.e. graven image, aka the 2nd commandment and replaced by the RC 10th commandment split into 2 parts. Even today people have resorted to humanism the new faith, the inner man and mirror, mirror on the wall. The Jesuits have subtley over the years as part of their 100 planning, which includes taking the bible away from the people e.g. schools or in churches by allowing a minister to have sub-authority over the Bible. The Bible to me is sole-authority i.e. without any temple crown or masonic compass over it.
WILLIAM TYNDALE (1494-1536): " If God spare my life for many years, I will cause a ploughboy to know more of the scripture than a priest."
This sums up the situation in the Church at that time. And a warning to the men who claim sub-authority over the Bible, as opposed to scripture alone having sole authority instead of 'sub & final authority'.
That ploughboy can also represent the printing press success throughout the world. It’s thanks to men of God like Wm Tyndale providing the ordinary man with scriptures and literature. And through this, escaping the dark ages and the introduction of some of the greatest inventions.

Jesus Christ, Lord and Saviour, King of Kings

John 19:30 Jesus said, "It is Finished"

Matt 10:22 Jesus said "he that endureth to the end shall be saved"

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2 Cor 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

Rev 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Books:
VATICAN ASSASSINS "Wounded in the House of My Friends" by Eric Jon Phelps (amazing book detailing the Jesuit Wars and the jesuit killing of JFK), FIFTY YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME by Charles Chiniquy, THE TWO BABYLONS Romanism and Its Origins by Alexander Hislop, GREAT PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE by Ralph Woodrow, SMOKESCREENS by Jack T. Chick, The Bible (KJV) ~ This is a very powerful verse in the Bible describing the Godhead found in 1 John 5:7. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This is one of the most hated passages in the Bible by apostates of almost every kind, including JWs (Russellites), Liberal Churches (Jesuit Controlled World Council of Churches), New Agers and so called Humanists and their UN fundamental environmentalist religion (New Age mother gaia / mother goddess worship). With reference to 1 John 5:7, other text/versions alter or omit , even pagan practices such as Royal Arch York Rite Masonry found in the Orange Order will try to bundle the true Godhead of the Bible together with other false gods into a grand all-embracing figure , who can be accepted by all. This theology is known as SYNCRENISM, i.e. all roads lead to God or Rome if you prefer. This popular humanist view/religion tries to take away the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:3-5 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Heb 9:27

Natman 8:24

"Why are you quoting the bible when it's all made up?"

Helio 1:1

"Cabbage"

Dunno, Natman, I found Al's latest offering quite persuasive. So let's get this straight - we're going to arrest Benny and charge him with... er... fiddling with the ten commandments. Hacking the text? Which version of the ten commandments should we use? And what is the standing of the ten commandments within British Law - oh fiddlesticks - looks like the Jesuits have got rid of them too!

It *is* rather a problem for Al and co that Jesus was never explicit in the bible about this Trinity lark. I mean, many early Christians held that this Egyptian invention was heresy, yet the hangover of Egyptian paganism was so strong that whoever the writer of the epistles ascribed to "John" was, clearly allowed the influence to creep in. Think how much more straightforward it would have been if we actually knew who had written these books, and what in tarnation they actually thought that they meant.

Anyway, I'm away off to polish my Jesuit robot before unleashing him on the unsuspecting hordes of Carrickfergus...

Hugh55,

The martyrs (pre Reformation) were Roman Catholics.

Where was Christianity lurking before the Reformation?

In general,

Last month I was in the south of France where, in the 13th century, the Cathars/Albigensians were massacred by the Papal and French royalist forces on account of their alleged "heresy". When one considers the number of different interpretations of the "Christ" concept that have existed throught the history of Christianity, and which were branded as "heretical" by the interpretation which became dominant (the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches), and the later "heresy" (Protestantism) which declares the dominant interpretation as "heretical" and "anti-Christ", one has to ask if any interpretation reflects the teachings attributed to Jesus, if he ever actually existed. A careful and thoughtful study of Matthew and Luke suggest that he did NOT exist, at least in the time frame of the gospel story.

Dennis Golden