You’ve got to give it to the BBC…they are if nothing else, completely unbiased when it comes to matters of religion.
They rewrote the Koran, reforming Islam on the way, writing out all the nasty stuff about killing unbelievers and imperatives not to make friends with Christians and Jews….it is officially ‘The Religion of Peace’ now.
And they have now rewritten the Bible and changed how the Christian Faith should be perceived….and on Good Friday of all days.
Thanks to George R who provided this link:
BBC accused of provoking Christians with Mary Magdalene documentary
A Bishop last night accused the BBC of deliberately provoking Christians by screening a documentary on Good Friday suggesting that Jesus had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene.
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester, said the programme, presented by Melvyn Bragg would be “hugely offensive” to devout Christians because it amounted to the “sexualisation of Christ”.
He said it was all the more upsetting because it is being screened at midday on Good Friday – the moment the Bible says Jesus was put on the cross.
Bishop Nazir-Ali accused the corporation of deliberately causing offense to Christians and questioned whether other groups would be treated in the same way.
The Pakistan-born cleric, who was the fist non white bishop in the Church of England, added that the programme could cause particular problems for Christians in Muslim countries where they are already facing persecution.
He said “I am concerned about the misuses of very obscure Gnostic gospels to impugne the integrity of the Bible.”‘
I think the answer to the Bishop’s question is ‘No, other faith groups, especially Islam, would not be treated in this manner by the BBC.’
Indeed the BBC goes out of its way not to offend other religions even on the smallest scale:
The BBC’s Religious and Ethics Department explains on its website that it uses BCE and CE in order to be “religiously neutral.”
It states on its FAQs page: “In line with modern practice bbc.co.uk/religion uses BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) as a religiously neutral alternative to BC/AD. As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians.”
A BBC survey of viewers found that they viewed it as anti-Christian:
The BBC is widely regarded as displaying an anti-Christian attitude in its programming, according to the Corporation’s own research.
According to viewers, the BBC uses “derogatory stereotypes” of Christians which portray them as “weak” and “bigoted”.
The BBC report, carried out as part of the corporation’s diversity strategy, said: “In terms of religion, there were many who perceived the BBC to be anti-Christian and as such misrepresenting Christianity.”
A former BBC news anchor warned that Christians are “fair game” for insults at the broadcaster whilst Muslims must not be offended.
Peter Sissons, whose memoirs were being serialised in the Daily Mail, said: “Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.”
That was in 2011…it doesn’t seem to have changed anything…so much for a ‘diversity strategy.’
It is perfectly legitimate for the BBC to ask questions of Christianity…but only if they do the same to other religions. especially those such as Islam which is such a dominant and aggressive force….and the timing with the BBC is always the same….designed to raise the most amount of offence to Christians and controversy as possible.
They’d soon change if it became a view that Jesus groomed Mary.
“misuses of very obscure Gnostic gospels to impugne the integrity of the Bible.”
What the BBC will never explain is the nature of Gnosticism. Gnostics saw matter as evil, they body as evil. To Gnostics sex was evil because it procreated, so they devised other methods to stop procreation which I hear were very popular with certain BBC Dr Who producers.
Gnostics believed that Jesus never had a body, he was like a hologram therefore could never get it on with Mary Magdalen.
But all this must be too complicated for the Beeb to understand. Therefore the Beeb falls back on Da Vinci code style history.
…and influenced a certain desert travelling salesman in creating an aggressive anti-Christian anti-Jewish ideology.
Yes, all though I’m very sure with innocent intent, timing just a pure coincidence I’m sure.
The BBC are fearless seekers of truth who are not afraid to question any shibboleth.
For example, this story in the Mailonline over an adopted 13 year old sexually and physically abused by his adoptive parents.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300779/My-adoptive-dad-abused-years-social-workers-ignored-complaints-hes-gay.html
He says he believes his persistent complaints were ignored because his adoptive parents were homosexual.
On youtube a report by BBC North. You’ll note there is not nothing about his allegations of pro-homosexual bias in Wakefield Council that left him to suffer the horrific abuse far longer than he needed.
Here is research that suggests children with a lesbian mother are 10 times more likely to be touched sexually than those in their intact two parent family…whilst also suggesting a gay father is one of the least likely to touch sexually….but it might be noted that ‘children in planned, stable GLB families exhibit better outcomes than those from failed heterosexual unions’…. ‘there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child development, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive.’
Can’t wait for the fearless and impartial BBC to air these findings:-
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
The original study:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
Oops, the youtube video:-
“The Family Research Council (FRC) bills itself as “the leading voice for the family in our nation’s halls of power,” but its real specialty is defaming gays and lesbians. The FRC often makes false claims about the LGBT community based on discredited research and junk science. The intention is to denigrate LGBT people in its battles against same-sex marriage, hate crimes laws, anti-bullying programs and the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
To make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society, the FRC employs a number of “policy experts” whose “research” has allowed the FRC to be extremely active politically in shaping public debate. Its research fellows and leaders often testify before Congress and appear in the mainstream media. It also works at the grassroots level, conducting outreach to pastors in an effort to “transform the culture.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-16/why-not-call-the-family-research-council-a-hate-group-.html
So what are you comlaining about? it sounds as if the FRC has taken some strategy tips from you lefties at the BBC.
Wakefield Council has previous on this…
Gay couple jailed for abusing their foster children
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522158/Gay-couple-jailed-for-abusing-their-foster-children.html
“Judge Cahill told Faunch: “Once you realised social services were going to take no action in respect of the photos that had been found, and believed your ridiculous story about why you had taken it, you went on to abuse others in your care believing yourself to be safe from the authorities.”
Just like Islington under that obscenely appalling woman Margarat Hodge, the ‘paramount interests of the child’ get thrown out of the window when it comes to political correctness. Dark days ahead. Extremely dark days.
Heed the message this Eastertide. The hour is upon us.
The stats, eh? Can’t argue with those. Especially when you don’t provide any. So I guess we’ll just have to believe that you’re making things up to justify your own prejudice. Again.
Scez, how’s it going? I always provide stats. You just prefer not to notice.
See above link
I’ve also previously provided this:-
Click to access fprs99.pdf
For some reason, shortly after New Labour came in, they stopped Home Office research of this nature. Instead of identifying the greatest threats to children they appointed that correcnick abomination Margarat Hodge as Children’s Minister, and ‘rottweiler’ Humphrys gave her underarm bowling over her past in the Islington child abuse horrors.
Despite the huge disparity that exists in proclivity to paedophilia among homosexuals (age range 8-11 most favoured), the Christian Institute states that the majority of homosexuals are not paedophiles.
However, any homosexual – anyone – who tries to rubbish what objective research says about the risks children face, no way should they be allowed to go near children.
They’re usually homosexuals keen to have access to little boys in schools to teach them getting a sore bum is normal.
Clause 28 of course no longer protects innocent children from these depraved perverts.
Hmm. Interesting reading. Not least because it contains huge amounts of data which you choose to ignore in pursuit of your insistence that homosexuals are automatically higher risk.
You ignore all the stats and links that indictate that offending is a complex issue, and concoct your own summary that supports your own bigoted view. That’s really very, very sad. You have my pity.
Now what possible motive could you have for trying to obfuscate the clear findings of this Home Office report that proportionately there are *at least* 3 times more incidences of paedophilia among homosexuals than heterosexuals?
I care about the welfare of children and so have absolutely no qualms in accepting that men are by far a greater risk than women with children. Your priorities however are altogether different, and that is extremely disturbing.
I dont pity you. You worry me.
hippiepooter,
“…the clear findings of this Home Office report that proportionately there are *at least* 3 times more incidences of paedophilia among homosexuals than heterosexuals?”
Which part of the report you are referring to? Can you quote the relevant section please?
And the report does state that men are a greater threat – offences by women are estimated at 5% or fewer.
What you don’t seem to be able to justify is your assertion that gay men are automatically a higher risk of being offenders against children.
Other academic reports looking into this issue have demonstrated that there tends not to be any link between sexual attraction to adults of either gender and offending against children. The majority of child sex offenders tend to have trouble relating sexually to other adults – rendering any labelling as heterosexual or homosexual moot.
Scott M – you should resist the temptation to “like” your own posts.
Interesting you believe that I do that, Scrappydoo. I don’t.
Either you have evidence – which, if it existed, you would only be able to get by being one of this site’s moderators posting under an alias – are you’re just out-and-out lying.
Either way, you’re not exactly in a position to claim the moral high ground. So, where’s your proof?
Don’t worry, I am only winding you up. Its just when a post sits there for some time with ony one “like”, it does sometimes look odd.
I’ve registered a complaint against this programme. We’ll see how the bbc choose to respond. I watched the thing and it gives the impression that Good Friday is all about Mary Magdalene, and that she might have been more intimate with Jesus than the Bible suggests. However, Mr Bragg should know better than to cause such hurtful mischief to so many people. If he knew anything about the development of the Christian religion he’d know that the Gnostic writings have been carefully considered – I think in Constantine’s time but I’m open to correction on that – and dismissed for good theological reasons not least because the Gnostics were elitists who didn’t /don’t believe that anyone can enter Heaven if they follow Jesus. But the sodding bbc wouldn’t be interested in presenting the correct version of events, rather they’d prefer to put on such a programme as this was; which was empty of anything useful and more like something one might find on the Youtube, created by someone with a warped view of reality.
‘We’ll see how the bbc choose to respond.’
If, after several exchanges, you get beyond an apology for the delay in responding, and a suggestion that it’s all best dropped but they’ve made a log in the giggle book, I’ll be surprised.
Remember, unless it makes it all the way to the Trust, and they actually concede it was not ‘about right’, it never happened.
Probably quite lucky those in the UK of the Christian faith are compelled by law to fund the BBC.
Turning the other cheek is one thing, but not the daily version the BBC manages to impose.
Perhaps the time is coming when Christians should adapt to the new multicultural Britain, which the BBC has done so much to create, and adopt some of the cultural traits of the new Muslim neighbours. In particular their very effective way of complaining about religious matters. I think that the BBC would alter their stance rather quickly if a few of their lot were beheaded , blown up , stoned or maimed.
But would we really want to lose the tolerant culture that has developed in Britain over a 1000 years ? Of course not , but that is exactly what the BBC advocate, as our culture, is in their eyes, not worth a fig and can be trampled on every day of the week.
“BBC would alter their stance rather quickly if a few of their lot were beheaded , blown up , stoned or maimed”
i don t think they would, the cowards and liars they are
they could get worse, after all journo s have been attacked, raped, and abducted already … well! … wheres the flag waving from the biased brainwashing cresent
exactly … there isn t any.
be careful doublethinker
serial libellist colditz will be along shortly to accuse you of condoning/encouraging murder,in much the same way as he did me
It’s nothing new. There was a ‘documentary’ on Mary that gave the Life of Brian version of the Immaculate Conception. Jesus’ dad turned out not to be a sky fairy but Nortius Maximus or some other fairy tale character. They broadcast that at Christmas, not of course, to cause maximum offence but because it was ‘topical’ then!. (It could have been on C4 tho’ – can’t remember)
Anyway, as we all know Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus and emigrated to the South of France where her offspring founded the Merovingian Dynasty. They then became the well spring of numerous dodgy organisations such as the Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, Priory of Zion (calm down ajp), the xxx* and those nepotistic heroes of local government skulduggery the Freemasons. (Copy write Lincoln, Leigh and Baigent)
* = insert your favourite bête noir ici.
It’s laughable. 🙁
And this is how Goldman-Sachs was created. Those Magdalene sisters were planning to take over from the beginning.
…quite…and she invented the jet engine and designed Madonna’s Kabbalistic Bras.
To be serious…the ‘Mary’ of the Gnostic Gospel of Mary is nowhere identified as from Magadala….it is nonsense to suggest that the Magadalene is even meant as ‘Mary’ was a very common name.
Gnosticism is highly esoteric and syncretic drawing many ‘new age’ streams from Hellenism and Judaism into a new ‘secret gnosis’.
It is attractive to conspiracy theorists being ancient and used as an attempt to invalidate Christian theology.
Gnosticism is intellectually addressed by the early Church fathers…Ignatius and later Augustine whose analysis is a model of excellence.
Its better than sex with underage children or animals. Melvin Bragg would not dare. In fact, 90% of the population do not know about some of the very dark aspects of Islam.
I trust Michael Nazir-Ali.
He comes from a background where he can see where all this is going( no, not Rochester for the trolls here); and sees it as another grinding of the thorns into the head of Christ.
If Nazir-Ali was a Muslim, they would soon kick this kind of crap off his screen.
But because he`s a Christian, the BBC probably only see him as a colonial puppet.
If Nazir Ali says its of grave offence, then I`ll back him.
The three hours of Good Friday really has no need for any smarm or controversy from the Godless creeps who run the BBC these days.
Jesus will bury them within our lifetimes.
Where is the Archbishop in all of this? Shouldn’t he be all uppity about this rather than some relative notion of poverty? Why isn’t he offended?
Or is he too busy turning the other cheek?
Forget asking how the BBC treat other religions, just consider the contrast between this and the treatment of the BBC’s own Messiah, the Lord Nelson Mandela.
As recent BBC coverage has shown again, there’s never any need to revisit His legacy. You don’t need any wacky old scrolls to learn about the murders, epidemics, racism and industrial-scale corruption in the Rainbow Nation, you just need to turn off the BBC and get your news from actual journalists.
All of which is what really grates about the whole thing: the BBC demands we admire their radical radicalism when it comes to going after Christianity, but when it comes to Lefty heroes, suddenly they turn into Mary Whitehouse.
Well if Mohammed had it off with a 7 year old – I don’t see any problem with Jesus enjoying a bit on the side.
This must rate among the height of insult to Christians that the BBC has indulged in.
Good Friday is the day where Christians contemplate the death and resurrection of their Saviour. That this is one of the key elements in the Christian religion is a no-brainer.
It’s fair to think that but for Jesus and his philosophy, regardless of ones personal religious or non-religious perspective, the scum at the BBC would be crucified for what can be considered blasphemy.
Just imagine the BBC running a documentary about Mohammed’s relationship with a 9 year old at Ramadan, or any day of the year for that matter to know what would happen to them in response.
Since Bragg et al regards himself now as a non-believer, it would be justice for them to be subjected to the probable response he/they would have got if Jesus had not been inspired by his insights.
Just like those of Islam.
It looks very deliberate and designed to cause offence. I am not surprised the liberal BBC is interested in Gnosticism. it underlies the liberal world view. The world as I wish it rather that as it is.
It also touches the other BBC /liberal obsession. -sex. And by using sex as a motif the power of the Crucifixion and Resurrection can be diminished and deconstructed much as the liberal elite uses sex to deconstruct marriage and the traditional family.
That these same liberals are determind to deny that our civilisation drew much of it’s power from the Gospels goes without saying. In reality they fear the simplicity and directness of the Gospels.
In John 19 v 23 to 30 even the most jaded of us can sense the power of the images evoked. They have nothing to do with sex .Yes Mary Magdalene is mentioned but it is the person of Mary the mother at the foot of the Cross that gives power and life to the words.
The BBC is just very sad.
I’d suggest that the bbc is not just very sad. I believe there is good and evil in the world and the bbc is most definitely not on the side of good. How or why they have made that choice, even they probably don’t know. But regardless it is quite obvious that is where they exist. God help them come Judgement day because they’ll need it.
Dave S wrote:
“The BBC is just very sad.”
From what you wrote, you appear to be a Christian. Contrast your forebearance with what the reaction of Muslims would have been had the BBC dedicated a doc at Ramadan on Mohammed’s predilection for little girls. And not using highly disputed texts that are not included in the Koran, but the Koran itself.
As indicated by J-I-C, this calculated provocation at the Holiest of Christian Holies is an act of evil by the BBC. The BBC doesn’t just whitewash Islam, it whitewashes it and makes common cause with it as a fellow hater of Christianity.
For those who seek truth, remember what the angel told Christ’s disciples upon His Ascension. Each year, each day that now passes, what the angel says becomes more an more important.
This is a test for the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. What will he do? If he does nothing he will have failed. He must speak out.
Having heard the Muslim head of religious affairs at the BBC cite Widdicombes programme about Christianity and comedy, I took it upon myself to watch it on iPlayer.
It featured Brigstocke of course, but no surprise. Given his personal travails at the moment, he`ll be watching the adultery aspect of the Gospels a little more than usual this Easter I expect.
But I digress-classic elephant in the room stuff from all concerned with Widdicombes show…need I spell it out?
Not one comic would dare mock Islam-they cite the aspect that they er “don`t know enough of it…didn`t go to a madrassa when young yada, yada”.
And that elephant is…because they are shit scared of what would happen if they mocked Islam/Muhammad as opposed to we limpdick Christians…no more , no less.
But the contortions, the games of twister to pretend that it`s because it`s unknown, not their youthful culture yaday yada was a wonder to behold.
Being shit scared is the BBC/liberal elites default when it comes to Islam…now if only they`d admit it, we`d move along a lot quicker.
And they accuse US of being deniers re global boiling etc, etc…perpetually denying that they`re not shit scared of what Islam does to the likes of Brand, Norton etc when it gets them is NOT credible Beeboids!
The Brigstock who proudly told the story of his daughter going so high on a playground swing that she said she was ‘kicking Jesus’…and he was very happy she thought like that….as told on HIGNFY.
“he`ll be watching the adultery aspect of the Gospels a little more than usual this Easter I expect.”
Outch
Something of a Mea Culpa from Marcus Brigstocke on “The Now Show” on Friday, (18:30-19:00 on Radio 4) in which he did seem to agree with a lot of the criticisms made against him.
Oh heck.
James Jones of Liverpool is doing the Easter Sunday service on Radio 4.
Is God a
a) concept by which we measure our pain-gospel according to St John of Lennon?
b) both ebony AND ivory, side by side on the piano keyboard of life…gospel according to St Nelson of Mandela( well, not ivory-for that`s not sustainable!)
c) a gas, gospel according to St Alan of Partridge.
But a God of anger who sent His Son down to die so that might yet live?…yeah, right …as if!
The Easter Bunny did not die in vain however….for Allah sent a body double to squeeze out Terrys chocolate oranges(PBUH)!
As long as Qatada doesn`t get to hear it eh?
“En Attendant God – oh!”
“The Pakistan-born cleric, who was the fist non white bishop in the Church of England”
Seeing as Pakistani Moslem men are the top of the hierarchy of isms, then it follows that any Pakistani man must be pretty high up there and worthy of distorting or changing history for.
Nazir Ali was not the first white bishop, that honour goes to Wilfred Wood who was enthroned in 1985 a full 9 years before Nazir Ali’s appointment.
But when has reality ever been an issue to the bBC when there’s a case to be made for their brown eyed boys.
Whether coordinated or in coincidental, it can intrigue what motivates who in the BBC to share various notions, and when.
Given the already odd timing of various investigations and challenges at a time where it seems reasonable to presume those of the Christian faith are at a sensitive level, I opened my BBC FaceBook page to this:
BBC World News
Are you religious? What do you believe leads to intolerance towards your religion? How should we deal with intolerance?
NB. This is not a platform for insulting various religions so please refrain from doing so. Thank you
While today all across the Muslim world, it is the traditional day of prayer, for Christians, it’s Good Friday, and the world’s 14 million-strong Jewish population is in the middle of marking Passover.
But while there’s unity in the dates, intolerance continues to reign.
Rights groups this week accused Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, of failing to protect religious minorities – and leaving many Christians with nowhere to pray at Easter.
And in Burma and Sri Lanka, as we’ve reported this week, Muslims continue to be targeted, and homes and mosques burned, by Buddhist monks.
Questions are always fair enough, though of course the BBC is usually less keen on answering than posing them.
For instance, one might ask what prompts a topic of intolerance at the weekend when Christians are contemplating forgiveness?
I also have to like the second para, given the BBC’s woeful moderating record on FB. It almost comes across as a challenge to some to do their worst. Again, odd timing.
Then of course in the third they launch first of all into the significance of the day to the… Muslim World. Which it is every week. Oh, and by the way, something or other once a year for some others. Again, interesting priority sets.
For balance there is a mention that those beastly Indonesians are failing to offer facilities.
But in conclusion, there is the core outrage, which is the targeting of the Religion of Peace by hostiles globally.
I wonder who is manning the BBC World News desk while many staff are off for Easter Hols (for a month, on past form), and what may be guiding the slant adopted in their ediorial choices and content?
Anyway, seems the ArchBish has sussed where the real danger lies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9962339/David-Cameron-feeds-fears-of-Christian-persecution-former-Archbishop-of-Canterbury-says.html
The BBC may have found a guy they can do real business with.
Carey is yet another naïve loonie leftie who has utterly failed to recognise the stupidity of his political beliefs. You reap what you sow, and this case you sowed triffids! Now you don’t like what has resulted it’s time to do that favourite of the left, blame someone else for your mess!
His Grace George Carey a looney leftie??
*Befuddled*
Cameron has fully embraced cultural Marxism and aids and abetts war against Christianity. I somehow think between Carey and Cameron, the BBC will not regard the former as a bed-fellow.
Christianity has its uses, mind you, even for Marxist atheists, for example wangling your children into decent schools because your wife, at least, is Catholic or some such.
So it`s Easter.
Time was when the BBC would spend a bit of time reflecting on what these three days mean to a large part of the population.
No longer-I`ve noticed that these last few years or so Easter is less noted for the meaning of Christs life, death and resurrection , than it represents the ****in teachers going on about pay, conditions…and now(since 2011) the likes of Michael Gove.
Same old Blowhards, Keates and Bousteads harping on, and in futile gestures with Blairs new breed of head facilitators and financial directors in “educational management of the student experience”.
As for kids and parents…so f***in what?
Easter is teacher bitchfests by the seasides as from now…none of that Christian crap, which no NUTter would even know what to “teach” anyhow?
Nah, don`t tell `em about the labourers in the vineyard…why cast pearls before swine?
Bloody teacher unions-bloody Blairs public sector schmoozers and phonies that sponge the money away from the classroom…and Evan Davis has no kids-so why should HE give a damn?
Vote of no confidence in Gove-that means he`s doing OK then!
Just look at the religious story of Britain over the last 500 years! Everyone hating their neighbours — Dissenters, Puritans, Quakers, etc. How many millions fled these islands because of religion?
The former archbishop should really keep his mouth shut and stay out of politics. The American notions of separation of church and state should apply. If a church in the US made political statements they would soon lose their tax-free charitable status. Hence, quiet. Anyway, how many votes did Carey get?
A pity, however, that some American churches can’t achieve separation of church and science.
How many are still fleeing these islands, often to Australia to escape the rise of Islam?
Hmm, and you made the same comment when His Grace Justin Welby criticised HMG’s welfare reforms?
You don’t think Carey has any right to talk about the Government’s attitude to the rights of Christians in society?
I think people like you slowly destroying our democracy with Cameron’s help is the point Carey was making, and God bless him for doing so.
what people like him fail to appreciate about separation of church and state in the US,was that the whole concept was designed to stop the state interfering with freedom of religion,not the other way round
The BBC is a treacherous, lying, cowardly, corrupt, biased, incompetent proselytizer for the socialist left; it has no right to coerce the populace into funding its disgusting anti-British agenda and will go down in the history books as one of the main instruments in undermining the fabric of this nation.
Story about a priest who opened his doors to muslims – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21953899
Quite a touching and bias-free story, until you get to this:
There has been some opposition to the arrangement, with Reverend Poobalan facing abuse by online trolls on social networking sites.
‘Facing abuse by online trolls’ isn’t exactly neutral language!
Why couldn’t the BBC have written instead that some people on social networking sites expressed their disapproval of the arrangement in strong terms?
Jeff
Don`t want to be too much of a nitpicker here-oh, sod it…of course I do!
How come the BBC referred to 4 churches fussing on about the welfare reforms.
1. Isn`t the Church of Scotland just the CofE with tartan trimming?…so if Justin fusses, so too will the tartan trews of Scotland?
2 Aren`t the URC and Methodists the one church these days in effect?…hardly counts as two churches any more to anybody other than a Beeboid trying to big up the numbers, does it?
3. Which only leaves us with Steve Chalke and his mates at the Baptists…what else would they say about welfare cuts, seeing as half of them rely on Thought For The Day for any kind of public profile?
So there you have it…basically a miniscule sect of Baptists aren`t happy with the cuts…don`t remember ever being asked in a poll at church about this, but there you go.
The BBC are just lazy Godless phone-it-in-phonies who only give the church any news space when they`re shafting the Government or little boys(allegedly, but no smoke without fire eh,BBC?)
The Church turn out to be as lazy, stupid, naive and venal as the Tories…maybe we DESERVE Islam which at least has said nothing about the Toricutz!
“Isn`t the Church of Scotland just the CofE with tartan trimming?” …………………. No, nothing like it whatsoever.
And the URC/Methodists are separate churches?
Do continue!
‘They rewrote the Koran, reforming Islam on the way, writing out all the nasty stuff about killing unbelievers’
This is in the hadiths, not the Koran actually.
I tend to find Christians like to feel persecuted. They wouldnt have it any other way. And I also find they are almost universally prejudiced against Muslims.
JC told them to expect their beliefs to be ridiculed. Because they are so open to ridicule. I’m sure they can turn the other cheek though.
Nicked Emus the Leftist atheist rushes to defend Islam as usual I see – tells you all you need to know about the Left.
I am not ‘Nicked Emus ‘ and nowhere did I defend Islam.
I merely pointed out a factual inaccuracy in the OP.
I don’t suppose it really matters to Muslims who kill apostatesd whether its in the Koran or Hadith, but thought I’d point out Alan’s error.
The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”
The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from “fitna” which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time.
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).
Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.
Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption.
Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.
Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had the power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. This was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.
Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”
Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.”
Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.”
Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.
http://www.dhimmi.org/
Wonder what Jack Ryan will say to all this then?
I`ll not stay up though!