Methodists Vote Their Own Theology On Sodomy. For Once, They Vote Right.

Mundabor's Blog

As a Catholic, I never cease to be amazed at the very concept a group of faithful calling themselves a church can think of voting their own theology, the same way as a council would vote whether they want a new bridge or to enlarge the hospital. Apparently, the thinking behind that is that  the Holy Ghost guides them. So if community A is guided in a way and the neighbouring community B is guided in a different one…

This, let me say this, utterly ridiculous and childlike system of deciding what is right and what is wrong must not necessarily lead to the wrong results.  Let us say, there is on average a 50% probability they will do what is right. This happened to the biggest US mainstream Protestant denomination in the US, the Methodists.

The Methodists have defeated attempts to modify their own theology in a way which…

View original post 287 more words

Coexist! No, Really!

With kudos to Father Z.

 

 

The Great Absent In The UK Euthanasia Law Debate

 

The debate about the UK euthanasia law has started yesterday, and it is polarising the country almost half as much as a selfie of some obscene slut singer or the new diet of some wannabe celebrity. Still, some people are discussing about it.

In a strange phenomenon, which is at the same time indicative of the confusion of our times, (ir)religious leaders like Lord Carey support the murdering of a suicidal person, whilst left-wing newspapers like the “Guardian” do not.

Why does this happen? Because of a fact that you can notice very easily in the newspaper articles of the last days: the factually complete absence of Christian values in the debate.

And in fact, two heathen factions seem to fight for the ground: those who think that it is good to allow someone who wants to dispose of himself to do it, and those who fear that this would lead to pressure to old vulnerable people to do what they do not want to do. The implicit concession that there shoul dbe some sort of understanding for people who want to commit suicide is clear enough; at the very least there is no vocal debate about the point.

That no one, absolutely no one could ever have any right to kill himself just because he is ill, or suffering; and that this is pretty much the worst sin imaginable (worse than sodomy! Yes, worse than sodomy!) no one seems to remember, much less say out loud.

The debate is entirely secular, and the pros and cons are seen from an entirely secular perspective.

It is also an absurd debate, because it is a debate run from a position of forgetfulness of its very ethical bases.

 If there is no God, it makes perfectly no sense to claim that it be bad that vulnerable people may be put under pressure to die. If there is no God, the question whether any person has any right to live when he is not of use to the community is a perfectly sensible one. If there is no God, we are just a very sophisticated termite nest, and there is no objective rule as to how the nest should be run. Actually, if there is no God and we are all destined to be born, live a short life and and die into nothingness, the most practical thing to do is to maximise the survival chances of the termite nest by getting read of all elements of weakness making it either more vulnerable to other nests (or nations), or else decreasing the utility of the strong termites contributing to the strenght of the nest.

But the fact is, there is God: and this God is not only the one who will judge Lord Falconer and his accomplices when the day of their redde rationem comes, but it is also the God who has given us the Christian values on which our societies rest.

A discussion on values in which God is absent, and which therefore forgets the basis and origins of those very values that are being discussed, seems outright absurd to me, and a losing strategy to boot; because make no mistake, unless the root of morality is found in God, the stupid oxes will happily be led by the nose from the masters of the usual slogans of “mercy”, “freedom” and “compassion”.  In the emasculated, utterly duty-allergic society in which we live, these emotional calls to “freedom” will always prevail over the embarrassed calls to prudence of those who are against, but can’t really say why.

It is only a matter of “safeguards”? Well, then you’ve lost already.

It is a matter of values? Well, then think what these values are, and why you value them, and why you should protect them.

This euthanasia battle is, I think, already lost; because the troops on the right side have completely forgotten why they are fighting.

Mundabor

 

 

Mexican Bishop Declares Christianity “Sick”

The Bishop’s new messiah…

 

 

 

Mexican Raul vera is a perfect example of the rubbish bishops Latin America continues to produce. At times I think populism is mixed in the tap water over there, because they all seem to find it so natural.

This walking disgrace is, then, on record with saying:

The people who say homosexuals are sick are sick themselves.

It beggars belief that these people can abuse of their habit undisturbed to propagate open enmity with 2000 years of Christianity.

Homosexuality is a perversion; which is, whilst obviously a sickness in a wide sense of the word, much worse than a sickness as it is traditionally intended. Cancer, or flu, happen to you. Homosexuality doesn’t. A sexual perversion can only develop if the person who first begin to experience a wrong kind of attraction (a perversion; something that goes in the wrong (per)  way, direction, turning to (versio) ) accepts and indulges in his wrong and perverted thinking; until in time this thinking takes root, and the person ends up, in a satanic twisting of his own very nature, to consider his own perversion part of what he is. It’s not. It’s the result of his having turned himself in the wrong direction.

This is no rocket science. It’s Christianity 1-0-1.

But Christianity 1-0-1 escapes the enlightened wisdom of your average XXI century Central American bishop. Your average XXI Century South American bishop is either homosexual himself – and therefore very interested in not having to see himself as “sick” – or has lost his faith a long time ago, substituting it for a desperate quest for approval and popularity.

When people lose faith in God, they make of Man their god. Social justice, fight against oppression, all kind of socialist rubbish become the new priority.It also makes one rather popular, which doesn’t hurt.

How could it be otherwise? No Bishop who has lost his faith can say it out loud, because he would lose his job. Ditto, obviously, if he were to out himself as a sick pervert. Therefore, the way is to follow the new path of self-satisfaction and self-aggrandisement as long as one lives, ditching that inconvenient truth called Christianity for a fluffy, emotional, and very bent new ideology in which the pervert becomes the victim, and the Christian the oppressor.

As always – and in another trait very typical of these men – note how in such a rubbish bishop the condoning of homosexual behaviour goes hand in hand with an extreme “social” agenda. This chap pays the lip service of saying he is not a socialist (which, incidentally, would probably cost him his job, too), but then proceeds to think and speak exactly like one. So even  if he has not read Marx himself, the excrements Marx has propagated are his own all right. Easy words like “share equally in the bounty of the land” are a full espousal of socialist thinking, because human nature is such that the bounty of the land will never be shared “equally”; and in fact, as truly as men are – pace all PC thinking – not made equal, but with huge differences in intelligence, attitude, entrepreneurial spirit, ability to risk, and the thousand and one motivating and incidental factors which make, in the end, life, the same huge inequality will appear in all juman matters. Wrapping socialist thinking in fluffy slogans doesn’t make one less socialist, it only makes of him a slimier one.  

This all-encompassing religion of man is seen, lastly, in the typical obsession of the socialist of seeing everything in terms of social justice. Abortion must be linked to the miners’ issue, because abortion is only good as an issue if it furthers the socialist agenda.

Also note: this is another nincompoop who, like Francis, deeply dislikes Christians. Think of these words: “Abortion, just like same-sex marriage, has served us [as] subterfuge to tell ourselves that we in the Church have our morals”, and tell me whether any pervert atheist would not enjoy saying the same, and wholeheartedly agreeing with Bishop Cretin. Unsurprisingly, chappy even goes on saying he is against the legalisation of prostitution *because of the exploitation of women*, and you clearly sense the sin of fornication in itself is not a problem to him at all, the “oppression” and “exploitation” is. Pure secular thinking.

This man has lost the faith. Having lost the faith, he can’t see anything in Christian terms. As a result, he speaks like a Chavez, with a varnish of fake piety that is, in the end, satanic complicity with sin.

May God lead this man to repent, and to obtain forgiveness for the betrayal of the most elementary Christianity. 

I do not bet my pint.

My pint is, in this as in many other cases, that after death this chappy here will go to take company to the sodomites whose cause he has so shamelessly espoused.

Mundabor