Leave our children alone!

When the truth department, sorry, I meant ‘home office’, speaks one has to sit up, shut up and listen up! This applies especially to the (in my case, unwilling) tax payer who has graciously funded another recent publication (and it had to be pink!), viz. Asylum: Keeping children safe in the UKⁱ, which contains discombobulated information, written in English for non-natives. At least we have been spared some pictures! I take it that means that the Green Party was not consulted which must be very upsetting for them! But they do not like the publication, at any rate! 

I am, of course, not a highly qualified politician (I do not wish to mention any names) blessed with acuity, and so I will have to be excused for my clumsy gut comments.

Now we have been led to believe that “the law protects all children from harm.” But does all this this mean no more Pride marches, soap operas, puberty blockers and child mutilators, abortions, the Roman Catholic Church, or sex education in nursery schools? Silly me, getting carried away. It’s all about the non-natives, of course!

But since “keeping children safe is everyone’s responsibility”, what can I do to play my part? “If a child is in danger now, call 999.” For real? Should I, e.g., report a Rabbi that believes what the Talmud teaches about sex with under-age children?

We learn that “child abuse is never OK, and it is never a child’s fault.” So where exactly does this leave a 17-year old (still a child!) raping another child? Serious though it supposedly is, we have no mandatory prison sentences for the heinous crime of rape!

Then I note “do not leave children alone”, which is immediately contradicted, viz. “children under 12 should not be left alone for long periods.” How long a period would be illegal?

Any decent person may wish to agree that “any sex or sexual contact with a child under 16 is a serious crime”, but the possible, though not inevitable, punishment, suggests otherwise.

I find it hard to believe that the Labour Party (given their track record on grooming gangs) takes all this unsavoury stuff seriously. The whole thing on all fronts looks embarrassingly incompetent.

Our children DO deserve better, very much so! The very publication tacitly proves that our children are no longer safe. Yet, they deserve be protected, not just from illegal (the Greens hate that adjective!) immigrants, but from this government that seems to be obsessed overmuch with children!

But I will finish with a strong warning found on the lips of Jesus, “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6). ‘Mill stone’, ‘sea’; I have just had a thought, but I shall keep it to myself!

ihttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a7f0c161f783fe89daaa35f/COB_A5_Leaflet_FINAL_web_child_abuse.pdf

More privacy is needed in Holyrood!

 

Source: https://www.facebook.com/reel/824670393859992 

My humble response:

Sharing a toilet space with anyone has never appealed to me! If there are 72 genders (https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_the_72_other_genders/article.htm) then that would create a bigger problem still. Single toilets are the answer - it ain't rocket science. Let's stop taking the p**s (well, not literally, of course!) out of each other and move back to planet earth!

18 questions about Transubstantiation

 

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, in loc.), but this non-miraculous miracle has left me bamboozled (cf. Paschasius Radbertus). Aristotle has a lot to answer for!

I still do not understand why a wafer-god receives worship (latria), according to the Council of Trent, whose teaching has never been rescinded (On the cult and veneration to be shown to this most holy Sacrament, in loc.); indeed, such teaching is irrevocable since Trent claims to have convened by divine appointment! There also seems to be a link to a Belgian nun, viz., Juliana (1193-1258, in loc.), who had something to do with it, through a vision!

At any rate, RC teaching is based on the Bible PLUS ... 

So here are 18 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? 

 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? 

16. Why does the 'blood' not congeal?

17. How can one tell the difference between the consecrated and the unconcerted elements?

18. If one were to drink all the left-over blood, would one not still get drunk - on blood?! 

Let the reader be warned that 

a. The papacy has not revoked the following statement: "CANON II. - 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! 

Two Anti-Christs?!

The heaven-sent 'doctor' Donald Trump (is he Jesus?*) may well be a megalomaniac (it usually takes one to know one, in my not so humble opinion), which, however (much to his annoyance, no doubt) does not earn him an entry into the Guinness Book of Records. 

Another one has already beaten him to it, a wicked and deluded pope who has declared himself to be God on earth, viz. Boniface VIII (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm). It took a French king to prove him wrong. Dante went further and consigned him to one of the lowest circles of hell. And let us not even mention the Babylonian Captivity (1309-1377), which made a total mockery of Petrine succession! 

It is well known that the present pope sees himself as anti-Trump and 'anti-Christ' (the Greek preposition means 'in the place of' or 'opposed to', as Protestants would prefer), but also more significantly, ruler over the whole church (which also includes purgatory, hence Martin Luther). Trump's powers do not extend that far, in case no one knew that!

As to the present pope, of such men Gregory the Great tells us that "I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others."

Donald Trump does, indeed, have God-given (but unlike the pope, limited) power over others, for a little while (and not over my eternal destiny), but what is all that compared to men who claim to have miraculous powers (not even granted to St. Peter) over the elements at holy communion when Christ is being re-crucified? I have commented elsewhere on the pernicious doctrine transubstantiation (https://found21.blogspot.com/2019/08/15-questions.html) first officially formulated in 1215. 

Well may we ask, who is Donald Trump, or for that matter, any of us, compared to the pope? Mere underlings? Willing ones, too? No, no, no, as one politician taught me to say when it comes to abuse of power! 

* And just a reminder, if one is needed, Donald Trump is not Jesus, and neither is any pope, let alone any wafer-god! One does not speak of God by speaking about man with a loud voice! 

"The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind." (Bob Dylan)

I was foolish enough to ask the following question on the site of a well-known left wing politician: “Could you point me to a geographical map of Palestine?”

I got hundreds of ‘likes’, which is flattering, but alas, my head is shrinking again! But the hate comments are of more interest, to the unbiased onlooker at any rate!

For sure, some comments were insightful and thought-provoking. Quite right, I think! But I seem to have unleashed a storm of personal abuse that I have never experienced before. Perhaps I should get in touch with https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/, sell my autograph once I have secured an entry and then, when famous, move to Israel.

As a believer in free speech I will not sue (after all the great assize is yet to be), and neither do I wish to name my opponents, but here is a selection of some wonderful examples in response to my original question, and by no means the worst. They are in no particular order.

I have added a few observations and will leave it to others to decide how one should respond to malice or stupidity.

a. “you embarrassing yourself Schneider”. A comment couched in poor grammar, but as one can see, we are not on first-name terms.

b. “don't be daft...You're just coming over as inadequate. Desperate too”. Must send that person a mirror.

c. “you fecking ignorant”. For sure – I am not omniscient – so disappointing!

d. “you’d have to take your head out of your behind!” I am not a contortionist!

e. “this isn't a question is it”. Is it?

f. “Does Google not work on your phone?” Now why did I never think of that? Google is the answer!

g. “up yours American poodle”. Barking mad! I think that all the poodles of the world need an apology.

h. “Nazism complex?” A simplistic, rather than complex, answer!

i. “Found the Jewish nonce.” Nonsense. How did he know I was Jewish?

j. “you're gross”. German for great! Schneider the Great – that’s a first!

k. "get back to school”. The one you went to?

l. “it’s to the East of Narnia and North of Atlantis.” Is that what head-knowledge looks like?

m. “Hitler knew”. I was born at a young age, but I never knew Hitler!

n. “think its on your bald head..between 1 brain cell and the other one…”. I may be bold, but I am not bald, yet. A brainy quote, I guess?

o. “Paid troll alert”. My contributions are for free, not sure how much longer, though, as the thought police are on their way.

p. “Get a life Adolf!” He will – at the final resurrection!

q. “at least educate yourself before you open that mouth of yourself.” You are confusing me with some politician, perhaps?

r. “ that's an original statement. How did you think of it by yourself?” Pure genius response.

s. “Get lost with your selective bias.” A neutral response?

t. “Moron.” Haha, I don’t get it!

u. “You can't point to your brain, so how can you be expected to read a map.” (sic). Duh!

v. “You fool. Do you research before you ask stupid questions!” Is that a stupid answer?

w. "I could point you to a cliff with a very long fall into the abyss in which you belong. Sick". I was not talking about the Taliban! 

AND THE LESSON FOR TODAY? Learn to listen to learn.

It’s not ‘all about us’, but the victims on both sides.

Viewing the world from below, as D. Bonhoeffer put it rather than from the comfort of one’s living room in front of a television set, is a challenge that few, if any, of us have been able to master.

Those who put their trust in politicians to solve the crisis in the Middle-East are foolish - in the extreme. I shall refrain from naming D. Trump or T. Blair.

Has there ever been a just war? Is Israel the only ‘Suendenbock’? Would the world not be a better place if you and I were not in it?

It seems to me that wisdom and humility are needed to move forward, in the right direction. A left turn could unleash Armageddon.

The answer of course to all the troubles is … never God, or is it?!

The discerning reader should seek to study the unfulfilled prophecies of the Tanakh, not to mention the whole Bible. The future looks gloriously frightful!

Ichabod in two pictures

One is reluctant to comment on anything at all nowadays, and certainly not on ‘The Confirmation Of The Election Of Sarah Mullally To The Office Of Archbishop’ on January 26th, 2026. 

The Zeitgeist of anythingism, tolerance and niceness is now ubiquitous and systemic, and has infiltrated the Church of England. I may yet be cancelled, ostracised and close to committing the unforgivable sin for what I am about to say! But I must – for conscience sake! As S. Freud might have said, ‘thou shalt not repress!’

Having forced myself to watch it all on-line (no one ever thought of inviting me!), the whole event was certainly deliberately pompous, and thus memorable, all carefully choreographed and meticulously orchestrated by the elite. 

Two pictures stick in my mind that sum it all up for me, and the camera never lies!

Here she is, swearing, no, no, as in invoking God, on an upside down Bible. With poignant precision! Sarah Mullally, contrary to what she promised, does not accept the authority of the Bible. Invoking the name of God to bless that for which there is no biblical justification is certainly bizarre, deluded and reprehensible. It simply amounts to perjury, if not deliberate lying. I am too polite to mention the name of the father of all lies! 

And then I note a group of people near the front dressed in black, reminding me of a funeral service in (or, ‘of’) the Church of England. A church of which Christ is no longer the head, is dead, and one can certainly smell the rot. 

Well, live and let live, but also let the dead bury the dead! 

I will finish my humble contribution, served with humble pie, with W. Cowper who plagiarised my thoughts:

“The World grown old her deep discernment shows,

Claps spectacles on her sagacious nose,

Peruses closely the true Christian's face,

And finds it a mere mask of sly grimace;

Usurps God's office, lays his bosom bare.

And finds hypocrisy close lurking there;

And, serving God herself through mere constraint.

Concludes his unfeign'd love of him a feint.

And yet, God knows, look human nature through,

(And in due time the world shall know it too)”

Iacob locutus est, sed causa nondum finita est.

 

Jacob’s bubolic comments are always of interest. Notwithstanding, his remarks are somewhat surprisingly, to some degree, reminiscent of floccinaucinihilipilification. Under the present electoral system, (even) a (tactical) vote for Reform could mean letting Labour in through the backdoor! After all, Jacob himself lost his seat at the last election because of Reform, yet he seems willing, indeed eager, to embrace a coalition government with N. Farage which implies a high degree of personal doubt about an achievable Conservative majority. He attacks, by name, R. Sunak, T. May and D. Cameron only, ignoring B. Johnson and L. Truss altogether who also inflicted a lot of pain both on country and their own party, not to mention 'yours truly!' His center-right tribal loyalty seems to be gravitating to Reform! Jacob agrees with R. J.’s defection speech yet wants to be loyal to K. Badenoch, whose decision to expel R. Jenrick he did not initially trust implicitly, suspending his judgement to begin with. That does not imply full confidence in the present Tory leader! I note that “Jenrick defects - and everyone wins”. How so? The Conservative party lost a man of intellect and integrity, and the Reform party admitted a Judas, depending on one’s perspective. At any rate, at the next election all that has been said will be insignificant. So much for my ramblings! It will teach me humility – which I am still struggling with at the moment!