Monday, 2 November 2020

The best Tories are dead now!

It's an open secret that I am STILL a big Maggie fan, which will, of course, infuriate my socialist friends. So for good measure here are some quotes from Sir Keith Joseph (19.10.1974), a conviction politician, the likes of which are no longer on the scene. His complete speech is worth a read. 

Here is a list of quotations: 

1. "We are opposed to using children as guinea pigs or spare parts for social engineers to experiment with" 

2. "...the family and to civilised values. They are the foundation on which the nation is built; they are being undermined. If we cannot restore them to health, our nation can be utterly ruined - whatever economic policies we might try to follow"

3. "We do not follow that interpretation of Rousseau’s concept of the noble savage that teaches that man, left to himself, is innocent and pure. We take the more traditional and still widely held view that men and women are born with a capacity for good and evil, to make the best use of their talents or to waste them; and that upon our early upbringing - the standards and the self-discipline to which we are brought up first at home and then at school - much of our whole future depends " 

4."Such words as good and evil, such stress on self-discipline and on standards have been out of favour since the war with the new establishment. They have preferred the permissive society, and, at the same time, the collectivised society" 

5. "The Socialist method would take away from the family and its members the responsibilities which give it cohesion. Parents are being divested of their duty to provide for their family economically, of their responsibility for education, health, upbringing, morality, advice and guidance, of saving for old age, for housing. When you take responsibility away from people you make them irresponsible. Hand in hand with this you break down traditional morals, the framework of behaviour, concepts of right and wrong; it is easier to subvert the social framework and replace it by their new monolithic edifice."

6. "Real incomes per head have risen beyond what anyone dreamed of a generation back; so have education budgets and welfare budgets, so also have delinquency, truancy, vandalism, hooliganism, illiteracy, decline in educational standards. Some secondary schools in our cities are dominated by gangs operating extortion rackets against small children. Teenage pregnancies are rising; so are drunkenness, sexual offences, and crimes of sadism. For the first time in a century and a half, since the great Tory reformer Robert Peel set up the metropolitan police, areas of our cities are becoming unsafe for peaceful citizens by night, and even some by day."

7. "We see how the demand for absolute equality turns into the new inequality"

8. "In the universities, which should be sanctuaries for the pursuit of truth, the bully-boys of the left have been giving us a foretaste of what leftwing dictatorship would endeavour to achieve, actively cheered on by the casuistry of some members of the university staffs, cuckoos in our democratic nest, and by the pusillanimity of others, by the apathy of many and, I must add, by moral cowardice in public life."

9. "If equality in education is sought at the expense of quality, how can the poisons created help but filter down?"

10. "If equality in education is sought at the expense of quality, how can the poisons created help but filter down?"

11."Some abuse their power and authority to urge or condone antisocial behaviour either on political grounds - against an ‘unjust society’, against ‘authority’ or as ‘liberation from the trammels of the outmoded family’... None of these phenomena is at all modern, or liberated; they are the very opposite of freedom which begins with self-discipline" 

12. "The facile rhetoric of absolute liberty has become a cover for irresponsibility; instant social protest an excuse for antisocial behaviour"

13. "The worship of instinct, of spontaneity, the rejection of self-discipline, is not progress - it is degeneration. It was Freud who argued that repression of instincts is the price we pay for civilisation. He considered the price well-paid"

West is no longer best; we have reached a new low, where Anythingism is the creed of the day. 

Friday, 28 August 2020

When NOT to be silent!

The Free Church ain't what it used to be. Matters have surely come to a sorry pass judging by a recent advert. My criticism is not directed at the person in the pew, who has little say over church affairs (though money still talks, I see), which perhaps is just as well. Needless to say, diplomacy is not something I can brag about, but I am pleased that my concern has been listened to by the secular Press, both locally and nationally. I do not expect much to come from it, mind you! Who cares about Christian influence in high places? Will one obtain it by paying 30 pieces of silver? 

I am, of course, only speaking on my own behalf, and as the Free Church is now an increasingly broad church, she will be robust enough to handle a restrained outburst from one of its less distinguished members. 

I am grateful that the press (local and national) have published my comments (see below). 

Wednesday, 12 August 2020

Money, money, it's not funny ...

This picture reminds me of a reported dialogue: "Entering the presence of Innocent II., before whom a large sum of money was spread out, the Pope observed, “You see, the Church is no longer in that age in which she said, ‘Silver and gold have I none.’”—“True, holy father,” replied Aquinas; “neither can she any longer say to the lame, ‘Rise up and walk.’” (Acts 3:2–8)" 

Saturday, 1 February 2020

Must we be tolerant towards the intolerant?

A non-Christian gay friend of mine has asked me to sign a petition to ban F Graham from speaking in the UK, because of the latter's supposed hatred of LGBTQ folks. Needless to say, I declined because I do seek to live by the golden rule (Matthew 7:12)! By that kind of egological thinking (if thinking is the right word), one would have to ban, or, re-write the Bible (I’ll leave that to the spineless archbishop of Canterbury), or burn the Qur’an. Neither seems right to me, and, I trust, so say all of us!
Perhaps someone could prosecute ‘Eminem’, or help him develop a better grasp of the English language, as long as it is not from Shakespeare, with my apologies to Alastair Stewart, of course! Eminem’s lyrics ARE offensive, but I can choose not to listen to him! The same applies to so many other things in life, including people like Greta or Donald or Jeremy, not to mention my own name! 
Some people must surely be tired of hearing so much about history (why not herstory?); and ladybirds, what’s that all about?! MPs giving maiden speeches, how offensive is that?! Manchester! Who ever invented that name?! Tremendous trifles to be fought over! What could matter more? Where is my Newspeak dictionary?
I profoundly disagree with many friends, and often with myself, but that does not mean I hate others or myself! I certainly disagree with much that Franklin Graham stands for, but reading 'The cancellation of Franklin Graham’s tour events is a seminal moment for the UK' has sent shivers down my spine. The author has a point, and we all need to be alert and should not be afraid to stand up against bullies, ecclesiastical ones included! 
I have to remind myself again and again that it is indeed 2020 and not 1984! But by the sound of it, it looks more like January 1933, and we all know what happened to the voice of dissent! 

Saturday, 3 August 2019

15 questions

I shall not bore anyone with the official teaching of the papacy on transubstantiation first officially formulated in 1215 (see, e.g., Trent, Vatican II and the RC Catechism), but this non-miraculous miracle has left me bamboozled. 
So here are 15 questions:
1. Did Jesus say this ‘is’ my body or this ‘becomes’ my body? 
2. Was our LORD holding His own (glorified?) body / divinity in His own hands? 
3. Is the Apostles’ Creed wrong when it insists that ‘He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty’ until the final judgement Day? 
4. Is Jesus truly human if He can be present both in heaven where He remains until He returns as well as in thousands of different altars (wherever the mass is celebrated and the elements are consumed) at the whim of a male priest’s intervention? Women excluded. Not sure about transgendered ones.
5. Is the doctrine of concomitance (not to mention the use of a wafer rather than bread!) not a flagrant violation of our LORD’s command in Matthew 26:27, as well as the universal practice of the apostolic church? 
6. Why does Paul retain ‘eating bread’ (1. Cor. 11:27ff.) if the bread has disappeared?  
7. How does transubstantiation differ from ‘transubstantiation’ in John 2:1-11?
8.  Once the communicant has partaken of the Mass, at what stage do the elements ontologically cease to be the literal person of Jesus? 
9.  Which New Testament writer relies on the Aristotelian explanation of ‘substance’ and ‘accidents’?
10.  How can one get drunk on blood, if the wine ceases to be wine? Just let any priest drink a few cups of the left-over 'blood'!
11.  How can the ‘real presence’ be reconciled with the teaching of Jesus in Mark 14:7 and John 16:7?
12.  Does transubstantiation not destroy the sacramental character (destroying the analogy between the sign and the thing signified) as defined by Augustine, since the symbols (about to vanish) are changed into Christ?
13.  Is it right to speak of two miracles, in the words of one scholar, who says that “it takes a miracle to have the substance of one thing and something else’s accidents, and it takes another miracle to have the accidents of something and the substance of something else”?
14.  Why ‘do this in remembrance’ when Jesus is actually literally present?
15.  How does partaking of the Mass differ from cannibalism? 

Let the reader be warned that 
a. the papacy has not rescinded the following statement: "CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema. " (source: click here)
b. My comments could have got me burnt in the 16th century! 

Tuesday, 2 July 2019

1933, 1948, or 2019?

This disturbing video on transgenderism has provoked numerous reactions. I had to remind myself that it is, indeed, 2019 and not 1933, or 1984, and that we do live in a democracy, if the politicians, who keep on lecturing to us on tolerance, can be trusted! I must, of course, immediately apologise to anyone who may choose to be offended, especially those with low blood pressure, but freedom of speech means freedom of speech. As I was born to talk (I think I got that from my mother!), I just cannot help it! I am, after all, a very human being, though normality may not come into it, but I have not consulted my Newspeak Dictionary! As yet I have not said anything significant - just saying, in case anyone wonders about me having misspoken! Indeed, for a change, I will let someone more intelligent have the penultimate word, enter D Robertson! Meanwhile, I am waiting for a response from the Scottish Education Secretary, who, as yet, has not replied! Not sure whether he will have the final say, though! So many voices are clamouring for attention! What's wrong with egological anythingism? Only bigots, like that young man, must keep their thoughts private!   
I'd better not translate Heine, or I might end up with a teacher trained by the thought police!