Ed: continued from Part I published here yesterday.
An Anglican church in southern England held a joint birthday celebration for Jesus and Mohammad which ended with an Islamic prayer. In Southern Italy, a parish priest actually produced a Muslim crèche, starring Mary in a burka and Joseph as a North African Muslim while another Italian priest eliminated the Christmas nativity scene outside his church ‘because it could offend Muslims’, and Islamic songs accompanied Christian ones in Florence’s Cathedral.
But possibly the most worrying of the Christmas services was that held in an Episcopal Church in Scotland because this included a reciting in Arabic of verses from the Koran which denied the deity of Christ which is of course, the whole point of the New Testament of the Bible.
And it was at this point that it dawned on me in this handshake of friendship there was one hand taking and the other giving. The Christians were giving in and the Muslims were taking it for granted. As far as I could find, no mosques were hosting Christian priests or combined faith services and no fully Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, were accepting ‘Chrislam.’
So why are most Christian denominations — including the Catholic Pope of Rome himself — agreeing to Chrislam and even insisting upon it?
Pope Francis was elected in March 2013 and since then his main aims seem to have been firstly to mollify Christian opinion of all Muslims and secondly the early creation of a One World Religion.
Friendship and even the merging with Islam is obviously important to the Pope as he has said or intimated several times during his reign that Islam is a religion of Peace and that terrorist attacks are only made by ‘extremists’. Strangely, for a Christian, he equates this violence with the Bible instruction to preach Christianity in all lands. But it seems that Pope Francis has not read the various verses of the Koran which command Muslims not to make friends with ‘Disbelievers’ or ‘Idolaters’ and that any alliances with them can be broken. Nor does he seem to have heard about ‘Taqyyia’, the permission given to Muslims by Allah to lie if it is to the benefit of Islam.
Whether this idea was suggested by Pope Francis or not, Chrislam was given another boost in June 2014 (this time involving not only Islam but also Judaism) when a crowd-funded Temple was planned to be built in Berlin, Germany, with a church, a mosque and a synagogue all under one roof, where Muslims, Jews and Christians could worship together. This is to be called ‘The House of One’.
As to his drive for a One World Religion, this has been going on since his election. It began in November 2014, when Pope Francis hosted a global ecumenical conference at the Vatican, sponsored partly by the Pontifical Council for Inter-religions Dialogue with more than 30 speakers from Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Jaina, Shasana, Taoist and Sikh religions as well as Roman Catholics and Professing Christians. And by November 2017 the Pope had completed the nineteenth foreign trip of his papacy, this time to Myanmar and Bangladesh, the common thread of all these trips being to push the Catholic Church towards interfaith dialogue, especially with Muslims.
Now, the idea of a One World Religion, no more religious wars, no more ‘phobias, all worshipping the same God, living in peace, does sound, well, civilized — just what Pope Francis has set out to achieve.
But once again, there is a problem and it’s this: who’s going to be the boss?
At the moment, there are two main religions: Christianity and Islam. And currently, both religions have approximately two billion members — with Jews, Hindus and Buddhist membership counted in the millions. However, in Europe, the religion’s heartland, the numbers of Christians are now falling rapidly, with 30 churches closing a year in Britain and a higher number expected over the coming years. But the Muslim congregations are rising just as rapidly as the Christian ones are falling, due largely to fertility rates and to the increase of migrants into Europe. This increase in immigration is very much approved of by Pope Francis — after all, his family were immigrants into Argentina back in the 1920s — but it could well ruin his hopes for an equal Chrislam, if not for a One World Religion.
In any group there is a Leader, one who can inspire respect and even fear. But that is not the Christian religion, especially at the moment when it is cringing and jettisoning its beliefs for fear of ‘offending’, bowing to one which will never bow back.
If there ever is a One World Religion (to go with the One World Government which Pope Francis also seems to favour), it will be Islam.
“The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing”. Doing something of course requires those good men to know of the existence of that evil. I have devout Christian friends who had not heard of this aberration; nether had I until reading this article.
Another quote by Ayn Rand: “Evil requires the sanction of the victim.” The victims have not been aware, probably by deliberate intent, until supporters have been found and briefed. Now we are aware it is up to us to use all means possible to remove those supporters of this aberration from positions of power and/or influence. We cannot give sanction by our failure to act.
‘Join the discussion’ – I did – but was censored for not conforming to author’s analysis.
This is UKIP.
You were censored because your comment was over 400 words long.
‘So why are most Christian denominations — including the Catholic Pope of Rome himself — agreeing to Chrislam and even insisting upon it?’
The whole premis of this article is wrong.
Roman Catholicism is counterfeit Christianity and the pope, Antichrist. Therefore, whatever he does, you can be sure it is anti-Christian.
“As for ‘most Christian denominations…agreeing to Chrislam…”
Either they are not true born-again Christians or they are badly backslidden.
No true Christian, whose sins have been washed away by the blood of the Lamb and who are wholly trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of those sins – past, present and future – would have anything to do with such a heresy as ‘Chrislam’.
‘Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.’ Matthew 7:20
‘That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.’ Ephesians 1:17-23
‘I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me…’ Isaiah 45:5
As for Roman Catholicism or Islam or any other heresy, God is quite clear –
‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.’ 2 Cor 6:14-18
The only confusion is in the minds of unbelievers.
“An even more embarrassing possibility for Church authorities is the prospect that a notable cathedral could be bought by followers of another faith.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5923169/Church-England-forced-sell-cathedrals-cover-debts.html
So what? Is it not even more embarrassing that the C of E has made itself irrelevant in the battle against Islam?
Thousands of Nigerian Christians have been murdered so far this year by Muslims. Has Welby ever pointed to the root cause? Namely the commands in the Koran to kill non-Muslims, and the example of Mohammed who did exactly that.
How many C of E schools serve Halal? Probably most of them by now. And yet the Bible states that Christians should not eat meat sacrificed to false idols. Not that it is physically harmful, but that it gives encouragement to false idol worship. So, established Christianity in the UK has become utterly useless. Because it blatantly ignores the Bible.
Islam deserves to take over the cathedrals. Muslims actually believe the Koran, whereas Welby and co gave up believing the Bible years ago, if they ever really did.
If Welby were to speak out against Islam (Islam itself not “Islamism” or “Islamic extremism” or other such weasel words which imply the existence of a fictitious “moderate Islam”) then he may make the C of E relevant again for the life of the nation. Otherwise it is time to sell the cathedrals off to the middle east sovereign wealth funds under Sharia bonds (introduced by Sajid Javid who is supposedly not a Muslim). It would be pointless leasing them back (as the government does with our former buildings), because alcohol is not permitted to be consumed. So they would not be able to perform Communion.
Left to the acidic Welby, St Paul’s and Westminster Abbey would be flogged to the Saudis, and the money recycled to pay for courses (for clergy and laity) on:
– gender fluidity awareness training
– how the Resurrection isn’t to be taken literally
– how Matt. 24:4-5,24 specifically excludes Mohammed (PBUH) from the prohibition on false prophets to follow Jesus
– how to smoothly transition to an Islamic state
and similar noble causes.
All with a nod and a wink from the incoming Defender-of-the-Faith in waiting (Charles III).
Chrislam an absolutely cretinous notion; put a ravening lion in with a meek lamb and what happens? Trust Dope Francis and other dimwit clergy to advocate it.
Incidentally I have a short but very meaty book of 3 essays by by Iris Murdoch, “The Sovereignty of Good.” (She was a philosopher as well as novel writer).
To try to put it in a nutshell, this examines what she regards as the shortcomings of modern philosophy which has lost all sense of the transcendent. Relevant because if we no longer accept Christian dogma we need a workable philosophy to replace it.
> put a ravening lion in with a meek lamb and what happens?
Isaiah 11:6 contains what is often erroneously rendered as the lion will lie down with the lamb:
“The wolf shall dwell with the lamb: and the leopard shall lie down with the kid: the calf and the lion, and the sheep shall abide together, and a little child shall lead them.” (Douay-Rheims)
So Franciscus is merely living in hope of a promised paradise.
Unencumbered by such beliefs, were I to be approached by a lion I would immediately seek the use of a tree or a gun.
We could also be talking Revelation 5:5-6
“5 And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.”
No, that’s not it. Not that I pretend to comprehend the “deep” symbolism in Revelation (and Daniel). Were I unkind, I might say these books serve as examples of what noxious weeds can do to the human brain.
Any sensible lion, symbolic or otherwise, confronted with a standing though slain lamb with seven horns and eyes, would turn tail and flee.
My elderly uncle is a retired vicar. He read the Koran many years ago, and describes it as “seriously bad news”. He would never hold inter-faith services. Because he knows the reality of Islam. Many “trendy vicars” don’t, according to him.
He and I have had long conversations regarding Islam, and the stupidity of clergy and politicians.
The problem is that wherever a Muslim prays, that place is then consecrated to Allah. Which includes churches and cathedrals. The soft-in-the-head bishops who allow anti-Christ chanting of the Koranic verses within their buildings clearly do not understand this point. What exactly do they understand? Not very much it seems.
If they have stupidly allowed the Koran to be chanted in their cathedrals, then really they should hold a re-consecration service. But they probably think that Allah is the same as the Christian God, so they would not see the necessity.
Regarding the number of Muslims in the world – how is the figure of nearly 2 billion obtained? It seems to me (and please correct me if I am wrong) to be the sum of the populations of Islamic countries, of those who are not members of other religions. However are they actually sincere Muslims or not? Probably most would describe themselves as atheists if there was not the death penalty for apostasy.
I know someone who is from Iran. I asked him to estimate what percentage of Iranians are actually practising, believing Muslims. He thinks around 10%. If this figure applies worldwide, then the figure of Muslims is not anywhere near 2 billion, it probably is closer to 200 million. If they were free to leave that death cult.
Quoted alarmingly often by apologists is Qur’an 5:32, which they claim says “whoever kills a soul … it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely”.
Pretty uplifting.
Until you read the whole of that verse, and the one immediately following it:
“Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors. Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment”(Qur’an 5:32-23)
from which it is evident that, far from being a beautiful sentiment, it is yet another admonition to true believers to torture and maim Jews for breach of what the Prophet claimed was a law given to the Jews.
Freddy, indeed.
Following the murder of Lee Rigby, Nick Clegg partially quoted this passage. Of course omitting the “unless…” part.
“corruption in the land” could well be interpreted as applying to the acts of our armed forces in Islamic countries such as Afghanistan. Hence the very verses which Clegg quoted could arguably justify the killing of Lee Rigby, for those who take the Koran literally.
The entire speech had been on Youtube. I can only now find a cut down version. I suspect that someone must have pointed out to Clegg what a fool his Islam advisers made of him.
> who’s going to be boss [tomorrow]?
Easy!
It is those who one dare not criticise today, for fear that an idiot constabulary, complicit prosecution service and contemptible judiciary will rain misfortune upon one’s head for the “crime” of calling a spade a spade.
—
Religions which reserve to god (and, therefore, not to man) the right to punish me for failing to buy into fairy tales are safe from attack by me and by hundreds of millions who think like me. Most religions today which count their adherents in the hundreds of millions – and there’s only one really noteworthy exception – fall into this category, either through scripture, practice, or both.
A religion which does not, and instead encourages its adherents to punish critics, is not at all safe from me or from people like me.
I will remain an implacable foe and outspoken critic.
I couldn’t give a monkey’s if their adherents take offence. In fact, I’d prefer them to take offence, as it just might – hoping against hope – mean that something is beginning to penetrate thick skulls. If they have the audacity to threaten me with dire earthly consequences for laughing at or mocking their nonsensical beliefs, they deserve worse than I’ll give them.
Atheists/agnostics on the one hand, and Christians, Jews, Hindus, Confucianists, Taoists, Buddhists (most of whom are atheists as well) etc. on the other, have worked out a fruitful truce, and did so many, many centuries ago. All the arguments one way or the other are old hat, millennia old, and there is no point rehashing them.
And atheists/agnostics, even the thick lefty cohort, should be at the forefront of the struggle against a deeply intolerant ideology that cannot stand criticism taking root in the West (it already has) and then seizing power (work in progress). “Our sort” will be among the first group of victims.
Turkeys don’t vote for Ramadan, right?
Here’s something interesting to ponder over: because the Islamic holy month of Ramadan falls earlier every year due to it following the lunar calendar, rather than the solar calendar, in the year 2030 there will actually be two Ramadans.
January 6th 2030 to February 4th 2030. And then again from December 26th 2030 to January 24th 2031.
In 2031, 2032 and 2033, Christmas Day will occur during Ramadan. By which time, I wonder which religious occasion will have greater precedence in this country.
Curious also that the UN Agenda 2030 also references that year… is this all part of the plan I wonder?
Stuart, contrary to mainstream media and Prince Charles, Ramadan is not in fact a holy month. Just because the MSM keep telling us something does not necessarily mean that it is true.
Koran 9:5 tells Muslims to attack “when the sacred months are over”. Jihad attacks are perfectly permissible during Ramadan, since it is not sacred.
https://www.ukipdaily.com/pattern-jihad-attacks/
“Prince Charles tried to halt Afghan invasion to “honor Ramadan””
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/prince-charles-tried-to-halt-afghan-invasion-to-honor-ramadan
> “Prince Charles tried to halt Afghan invasion to ‘honor Ramadan’”
Mr Tampon talking to plants may be cool. Him hearing them reply to him is… troubling.
I suspect Imam Charles, who has evidently not read the Qur’an at all, thirsts for the chance to unify the two major Abrahamic faiths in Britain.
The monarchy skipping him seems increasingly attractive.
You are mistaken. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_calendar
Sorry, I’m not clear which bit is wrong – for example, http://www.ichild.co.uk/p/when-is-ramadan-2013-2014-2015-2016-2017-2018-2019-2020-2021-2022 confirms 2 Ramadans in 2030…
Before my comment is misconstrued – the four holy months of Islam are Rajab (the first spring), Dhu al-Qa‘dah (the time of truce), Dhu al-Ḥijjah (the time for the Hajj and Eid) and Muḥarram (fighting forbidden).
StuartJ’s error that I referred to is that Ramadan is not a holy month (Hugo’s correction of the same error may have been in the moderation queue when I posted mine), and the enormous significance of this is, scripture permitting, it is perfectly legitimate for true believers to slaughter infidel/kaffir wherever ye may find them (per Qur’an 2:191, 4:89, 9:5) during Ramadan and the other 7 non-holy months. As those unfortunate churchgoers in Indonesia found in May. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
To inject some humour into the grim subject of when the probability of being murdered for laughing at ignorant fairy tales and superstition is maximised, the month following Ramadan is Shawwal, meaning “raised tail”. This is because pregnant camels are prone to raise their tails (other than merely while defecating). Uplifting stuff!
But since this unsound calendar is based on synodic months with no correction mechanism (Roman, Chinese, Indian astronomers knew about this many centuries or millennia earlier, and corrected for it, unlike a very poorly scientifically advised lot here), this calendar advances by a whopping 11+ days each year – sending the seasons into a right spin. Cow camels won’t know when to tail raise! Quick, blame Brexit.
The power of ridicule should not be underestimated.
So worrying; and evidence if any more were needed of the collectivist intentions of highly elitist Saudi-financed Wahhabist expansionism that has a clear “pecking order” in terms of status and privilege. I know of (more enlightened) muslims from Turkey, Algeria, Kosovo and Kazakhstan who deplore this takeover, branding it as racist and even barbaric. And there is ample evidence that it is those things; I remember from working (on training courses delivered to the Saudis) in the very caste-ridden Sharia environment, that what matters is what the trusted moslem says, the word of anyone else is essentially non-existent and at best, totally derisible; and remember feeling that the West should never allow such a creed to infiltrate the advanced enlightened thinking of the rational and “progressive” freedom-loving societies that are build around the right of the individual to follow a spiritual path that leads inward to personal growth and fulfilment, and an outward one that is expressive, imaginative, boundless and ever-changing. Even worse than the collapse of values that have taken hundreds of years to shake free of the chains of Dark Age religious dogma and persecution, if anything can be, was the thought I had back then that those I spoke to and who actually believe in slavery, liked Hitler’s treatment of the Jews, condoned the mistreatment of women and sometimes children and animals, and adhered to a fatalism that relieves them of any kind of personal responsibility for anything (since only what is in the Koran is really “true” or “permissible” and so by doing it they perfect themselves no matter how illogical or pointless the task), could be encouraged by the “progressives” who on paper were promoting the polar opposite.
Can there be any other conclusion than that the Progressives are in fact sinister revolutionaries determined to work with “Blag Flags” (as spelled out in the Conquest of Rome manifesto by ISIL) anarchists and lunatic collectivist utopians whose seriously schizophrenic words and actions must be the result of deep brainwashing? Jung called this “psychic possession”, and feared after WW2 and the madness of Fascism and Communism (Socialist products) that it would return, in an even more dangerous form. It has.
Christianity has much to value, in particular its absorption of pagan ways and its belief in personal attrition and redemption through responsibility (islam has on rare occasions when not cruelly subjugating the people and lands it invaded also allowed pagan festivals and practises to last, somewhat reluctantly of course); the utterly irresponsible actions of so-called leaders and their absence of any kind of critical awareness, philosophical coherence or even moral basis, is alarming; since these things are absent in any case from Wahhaibist thinking who can be surprised that they adore it?
We need to set about re-educating people as the reality that lies behind their cosy dream-land.
Ipz I agree with you entirely.
hello how are you doing today nice to meet you as a friend and i am from the Gambia IN West Africa
There has been a Christian church inside the mosque in Cordoba for centuries
The Magdalen laundries, the theft of illegitimate babies, the attempted electric shock “treatments” for homosexuality, and the refusal to allow women beaten up by their husbands a divorce, all practised by the Catholic Church, were enough to convince me that Popes (and in fact all clergy of any denomination) are very dangerous self-serving people, and how anyone can revere them is beyond me.
None of these evils were taught by Jesus Christ. To know a religion you must look at the life of its founder. Then determine who is following the founder by imitation. Some very good people imitate Christ.
Some very bad people imitate Mohammad.
While I have grave doubts that a historical Jesus existed, what good person could argue with:
… do to others what you would have them do to you
I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
As an atheist with no religious axe to grind, I assure you that you can comb the Qur’an from one end to the other and find not a single sentiment even remotely as noble.
Clearly they do not appreciate Jesus was around way before Mohammed so Mary would not have been wearing a bin bag., but the the Jewish god adopted by the Christians and Muslims is as likely as a multicoloured unicorn.
All religious shite should be banned under penalty of death!!!
Arthur, please don’t beat around the bush. Tell us what you really think.
Holy crap! Doesn’t he realise the death penalty for crimes stems from Leviticus, therefore if he advocates it, he would have to start by killing himself? 🤣
Frightening…
I have long regarded the various popes as idiots at best and the enemy within at worst. Your article confirms the latter. Thank you for clearing that up.
The monarchs temporal and spiritual of yesteryear were happy to see heretics burned – can anybody who has read the Gospels imagine that Christ would have condoned such action? Monarchs and Popes alike are self-appointed or appointed by the elite – the people are then expected to acclaim them. No surprise that the ranks of heretics included those who upset their lords by translating the good book into the native languages of the people. Suddenly they could read it themselves and not rely on their lords and masters to tell them what is good for them – the world was turned upside-down!
It is now recognised that the true church lies in the hearts of its believers who must wrestle their beliefs with their own conscience, and it is these individuals who must take responsibility for the future of their church leadership, go back to the first principles of their religion and speak out against the self-serving humbug that their leaders so glibly proclaim. The people are sovereign in religious matters also – they can walk or they can make a stand. They have been doing the former for some time – it would be good to see more of the latter also.
Don’t forget that Jesus Christ is the son of God. He is God incarnate. He died for mankind and rose again from the dead.
Muhammad is mere mortal who murdered and raped and did all kinds of violence. He was a false prophet. He did not go around doing good. He only waged war to extend his evil Mafia like empire.
The Catholic faith is the true faith. The Pope is very much thought to be a heretic and a traitor.
That’ll do for now.
Oh dear.
Given the profound misconduct – judging either by the standards of today or the standards prevalent at the time – of so many of the (~265) predecessors of Franciscus, for example the Borgia Popes (and close family members) who were notorious for many crimes and perversions, including murder including fratricide, rape, torture, poisoning, pimping, fraud, extortion, blackmail, bribery, other corruption, simony, incest, warmongering, industrial-scale whoring and perhaps even infanticide, bestiality and “witchcraft”, I can’t help but think of the plain meaning of Matt. 7:16-20 about rotten trees producing rotten fruit.
Then there’s the de Riminis and the Sforza too.
Would you consider Luther, Zwingli and Calvin heretics too?
de Riminis? Brainfart. Meant the Medicis.
> can anybody who has read the Gospels imagine that Christ would have condoned such action?
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”