Jean D'Arc

Jeremy Corbin And His Inability To View Islamic Terrorism Correctly


Jeremy Corbyn is making the claim that it is British foreign policy that makes terrorist attacks inevitable. However he, and people like him, make the mistake of viewing Islam from their own ideological perspective and drawing his conclusions from there. Corbyn’s evident lack of understanding of Islam, either wilful or otherwise, makes his assumptions about what terrorists want dangerous.

Corbyn is a Marxist and as a result he sees all societal conflict as a result of the struggle between the oppressed and oppressors. Such thought suggests that by removing this inequality peace will be achieved. It’s easy for adherents to these thoughts to transfer their beliefs onto Islamic terrorists as Marxism itself sees violent means to achieve their utopia as acceptable, if not moral. Secondly, as a supporter of the IRA he, like so many others, is making the mistake that religions are ‘all the same’.

These thoughts lead him to conclude that should we give the terrorists what they want, in his view by stopping the airstrikes (which he appears to infer are purely aggressive acts by the West) the terrorist incidents will stop. No doubt he, again, sees the troubles in Northern Ireland as evidence for this thought process.

However, despite the fact that the members of the IRA were predominantly Catholic, the beliefs of the organisation were influenced more by Marxism. This is why the IRA had clear aims that could be negotiated towards, even though their methods of achieving them were reprehensible.

That doesn’t mean that the IRA members weren’t influenced by their Catholic culture, or the Loyalists by the similar Christian culture. When we are steeped in a prevailing culture we, naturally, imbibe the thought process subconsciously that are within it. Within a Christian culture that means an appreciation for the sanctity of life, that it is God’s to give and take away (or in a more secure sense that all life is sacred), as well as the theological discourse surrounding when it is right and proper for a state to use violent means in order to defend this.

As a result correctly applied Christian doctrine teaches that if it’s in order to defend life that a war may be waged, through just means, and it should end when life has been safeguarded. Of course, nations who profess to be Christian have waged wars of aggression in order to obtain monetary value. However a wealth of Christian heritage is a base we draw from in order to critique such wars.

In relation to the state and Christian believers (again, unfortunately, not always this in practise) is the belief that although there should be prayer for “Thy will be done”, and therefore Christian beliefs be reflected in the state, that this reflection must be voluntary. However, as the nature of man is not ‘good’ but ‘fallen’ even removing all the inequalities will not create a utopia here on earth; even when a Christian culture is evident.

I’m not seeking to dilute the evidently immorality of the IRAs actions, just seeking to unpack the thought processes behind it. The two ideologies, Marxism and Christianity, may allow the participant to engage in acts of terrible violence to bring about ‘justice’, however the underpinning belief of the sanctity of life may restrain that. Hence the difference between Islamic and IRS bombers; both committing despicable acts, the latter giving coded messages to minimise the casualties as a result of their actions.

In contrast the Islamic belief system believes that Allah wills a theocracy here on earth, and through the Qur’an and the actions of his prophet Muhammad has demonstrated that subjugating people to this through force is not only legitimate, but holy.

Those who try and avoid this point by inferring that either this is not the case are, like Corbyn, doing so because they are imposing their beliefs onto Islam. Those who try and claim, as I’ve heard so often, that ‘all Islam needs is there own Reformation, like the Christians and Jews’ are ignorant of the differences between these monotheistic religions.

The Qur’an and the Bible are different; the former is believed to be the very word of god, spoken directly to Muhammad as a consequence of the ‘errors’ in Judaism and Christianity. It is, if anything, the equivalent of Jesus – The Word of God. The Bible, or the books as the name infers, is a collection of writings, by different authors, from different classes and backgrounds, in different historical settings that communicate throughout The Old Testament Israel’s history, poems praising God, prophetical warnings and the coming of the Messiah. Such a diverse collection of works can and is open to interpretation; it always has been as the two creation stories demonstrate.

Therefore Judaism and Christianity are able to discuss and debate God’s meaning when it comes to our morality and His intentions for us. This is precisely why a Reformation could take place. Islam would, theoretically, be unable to do that as they would in essence be arguing with God himself.

The reason why this is important to consider is that, just as our society has had mores passed down from Christendom despite our evident rejection of its roots, Islamic societies have a similar, but more powerful, underpinning of their own moral thought processes. That would include the belief of a theocracy, which can be achieved by violent means, the subjugation of non-Muslims, the second class status of women, that homosexuality is a sin against God: I could go on. These are in effect non-debatable, because they are from the very word of god. So even if we withdraw from all conflicts within the Middle East it is unlikely that acts of terrorism will stop.

Again, it is a mistake to take the superficial comparison of Islam with other religions as our example. It is more beneficial, actually, to compare Islam to the Marxist thoughts of Jeremy Corbyn himself. They both are focused on a utopia after all and, as the recent culture wars have demonstrated, these are absolute belief systems and they demand absolute submission to the ideology in its entirety.

So, like gay people, women, black people etc, even if there is support for what is seen as a need to overcome ‘self-evident’ injustice, even if the means aren’t agreed with, what is ‘self-evident’ will quickly become less evident to the majority within those groups. However, as those not subscribing to the whole agenda will soon find out, the methods used to force the political goal will be used to ensure their silence too.

Whereas social justice demands more and more allegiance to demands that we can wildly imagine, we know the ultimate goal of Islam. Subjugation to this doctrine and all that entails.

He came to the disciples and found them sleeping….


I am always sleeping. I make promises to God and do not keep them because I want to sleep instead. Sometimes this is literally; it’s Sunday morning and I should go to mass but I choose to stay home. So, when we can once again enter into the eternal sacrifice of Jesus I am sleeping. Unlike His disciples that deserted him from fear of death, I do it for a cosy morning on the couch.

Other times I sleep by only half attending to the mass or Rosary that I’m offering Him. I’ll be dreaming, the day kind that are inevitably full of ridiculous idols. A perfect home, a ‘skinny’ and attractive me, a successful me…. all idols. I give to them my time, dreaming of how I’m going to achieve these things instead of heaven through the narrow gate.

The rosary and its mysteries are connected to blessings. In the sorrowful mystery the first offering is the regret of sin. I missed mass again today and I’ve become wayward in the desert of Lent. The rosary I promised to offer for 40 days for life has too often been left unsaid. Today though I felt sorrow for not going to mass and turned to my rosary. Instead of the glorious mysteries I’m offering the sorrowful instead; the one I hate. The mysteries tug at your conscience so. As I started my first decade I felt such sorrow for missing my Lord at mass I’m crying.

IMG_9371Lord Jesus, I’m sorry I don’t love you enough. My offerings are always small and unworthy. Yet I know too, as I reflect on this, that my love for you is growing. My awareness of what I do is greater, of how I hurt You. I’m so sorry that I’ve done so today again, and with your help I will not sin in this way again.

May I ask anyone reading this post today to pray for me, that I may keep awake with my lamp alight and I will pray for you too. God bless you this Lenten season.

The Reichstig Fire And Three Scary EU Moves


Reading Brendan O’Neill’s article on The Reichstig Fire and its impact on 1930s democracy has highlighted the incredibly worrying nature of recent developments within the EU.

O’Neill explodes the myth that “Hitler was democratically elected, and that this demonstrates that democracy can very easily give rise to dictatorship, and even to mass murder”. This claim is being increasingly used in an hysterical fashion against those who supported Trump and Brexit. From the article (but I would encourage you to follow the link to read it in full – I have highlighted the significant areas);

“The fire took place on 27 February 1933…..the fire became the founding event of Nazi rule. It took place just a week before the federal elections, on 5 March 1933, and the Nazis cited the terror of the fire as a justification for suppressing and crushing much of their left opposition in the days before the election took place.
At this point, in early 1933, Hitler was chancellor of Germany but he had not been elected to that position. He had tried to become president in the 1932 presidential elections, but he lost to Paul von Hindenburg. Hindenburg got more than 19million votes; Hitler got 13.4million. Yet Hindenburg had a troubled presidency and struggled to find a chancellor he could work with. In January 1933 he appointed Hitler. Elections were called for early March. Then, at the end of February, came the fire, and everything changed.
The Nazis unleashed terror and authoritarianism against their political opponents. Claiming the fire was proof of a vast communist plot to take over Germany, Hitler convinced Hindenburg to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree immediately after the fire. The decree effectively ended civil liberty in Germany. It stated that ‘the Constitution of the German Reich [is] suspended until further notice’. It made it ‘permissible’ to restrict ‘the rights of personal freedom, freedom of expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organise and assemble, [and] the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications’. It also made it exceptionally easy for the police and paramilitary groups to obtain ‘Warrants for House Searches’.

As I stated as a result of these political decisions and the swing towards the right in upcoming elections in the EU that threaten how the EU operates at present these decisions have been recently taken, or are suggested for enacting.

The Censoring Of Elected Officials

The EU parliament is now capable of pulling the live feed of debates if the member speaking is spouting ‘hate speech’ and the offending speaker would be fined up to €9,000.

Remember these are elected officials. 
The UK Labour MEP Richard Corbett who supported this act explained his reasoning as thus; ‘What if this became not isolated incidents, but specific, where people could say, “Hey, this is a fantastic platform. It’s broad, it’s live-streamed. It can be recorded and repeated. Let’s use it for something more vociferous, more spectacular.”’

So, instead of debating this MEP, bringing thoughts that are destructive out into the open and destroying the argument, the EU has chosen to support censoring speech on the basis of an imagined threat. As with all power over-reach this move is dangerous, particularly as the definition of hate speech is highly subjective. For example, is referring to current acts of terrorism as Islamic going to be considered hateful? By some, yes, it would be.

In an age where the importance of transparency has been highlighted, it seems that this is not such a consideration when the status quo is threatened.

The Removal Of Parliamentary Privilege From Marine Le Pen

In the House of Commons, MPs have parliamentary privilege – a vital part of democracy as freedom of speech is an essential for healthy and open political debate.
Our elected representatives work for us, and we have a right to be represented and know what they are talking about. Silencing them, as with the case above, means that  those we have elected to put forward our worries, cares and desires are stopped from doing so and, if such people are ceasing to do this and are instead turning to ideas that are destructive, the ability to decide this is removed from us. This is not democracy, it’s removing the demos, but rather patronising or – worst – demonising the demos. After all its assumes either we aren’t capable of identifying despots or we are of that nature ourselves.

This is why the removal of parliamentary privilege from Marine Le Pen is so worrying. The EU’s Parliamentary  affairs committee voted by an overwhelming majority to waive Le Pen’s immunity, after a request from the prosecutor of Nanterre in west Paris. The prosecutor did so under a French law banning the distribution of violent images or those inciting terrorism.

Le Pen’s Front National had been compared to ISIS so LePen had responded with three uncensored pictures of Isis killings in December 2015, with the caption “Daesh is THIS!”

Notice in The Guardian piece outlining this that the following commentary is added; “posts that drew revulsion and criticism from bereaved families and French politicians across the political spectrum.” I haven’t seen the images, I’ve no doubt they are revolting, but a lot of what we see is revolting. Thing of truly grotesque images published for public consumption to encourage people to stop smoking. These would no doubt have been more barbaric, but they are in the public domain hençe her Builth to access them. Why then shouldn’t she use them to defend herself to rebut the accusation that the two are the same? If I was LePen I would be revolted by being compared to ISIS.

One is left wondering if it isn’t the message or the messenger that is being targeted.

Google and Facebook Factchecking Prior to French Elections

From google blog  they have announced that are proud to “support the launch of CrossCheck, a coalition news verification project. With a goal of helping the French electorate make sense of what and who to trust in their social media feeds, web searches and general online news consumption in the coming months, we’re working with 17 newsrooms and counting, and technology partners including Facebook’s CrowdTangle and others .”

It does this by ‘ensuring’ that “hoaxes, rumours and false claims are swiftly debunked, and misleading or confusing stories are accurately reported. With the French presidential election approaching, journalists from across France and beyond will work together to find and verify content circulating publicly online, whether it is photographs, videos, memes, comment threads and news sites.”

All those involved have a left wing bent, see the list;

Early partners include AFP (Agence France-Presse), BuzzFeed News, France Médias Monde (via les Observateurs de France 24), France Télévisions, Global Voices, Libération, La Provence, Les Echos, La Voix du Nord, Le Monde (Les Décodeurs), Nice-Matin, Ouest-France, Rue89 Bordeaux, Rue89Lyon, Rue89 Strasbourg, Storyful and StreetPress.

As Facebook And Google have been accused of censorship (see here and here) this is a worrying development.

I’m not a fan of LePen, but I am of free will of which free speech is a fundamental part. I pray for God’s help and guidance in these forthcoming elections and that His will is done.


The Rosary, Fatima and Muslim Conquest


I have tweeted recently about 40 days for life which is starting this Ash Wednesday and would, of course, encourage you all to join in the rosary to end abortion. I’ll be praying also, along with so many more Catholics around the globe to end this barbaric practise.

But God doesn’t limit Himself, and I’m not going to limit my prayers just for the end of abortion. I’m praying for Christendom; poor, damaged, bedraggled Christendom. I’m praying that we can survive, with God’s grace, the threat we face from Islam by turning from the existential threat of secularism.

People will now lecture me; Muslims are good, Muslims are peaceful. Yes, I’ve met many Muslims who I have admired and respected, I have no doubt there are many Muslims are on the path to God. However they are on the path because God is active in saving all of us, reaching through to us however deep within the mud we are. This is true whether the mud is pornography, drugs, money or a religious idol.

I have also met Christians who I’m doubtful have ever really heard the Gospel and I know that some atrocious things have been done in the name of Christ.

Having said all this I’ve studied Islam; I know it’s teachings and I know the threat we face. Christians who commit acts of terror do so despite the teachings of Jesus, not so Islam. The teachings of Muhammad and those in the Qur’an are not another version of the Bible, they are significantly different. Islam does not mean peace, but submission. It’s a significant difference.

This year is the 100 anniversary of Fatima. I’m not going to go into this in detail, but for this post I’m just going to concentrate on the name of the site and the third secret.

Fatima was the favourite daughter of Muhammad. It is curious why Mary chose to appear there. At this site there were three secrets, but it’s the third that has drawn controversy. Many accept that this secret came true when Pope Jon Paul 2 was shot at, however it was transcribed as this by the Bishop of Leiria:

“After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’ And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, Religious men and women going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, Religious men and women, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”[56]

During his apostolic visit to Portugal during 11–14 May 2010 Pope Benedict XVI stated that the third secret did not necessarily refer to the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II in Saint Peter’s Square in 1981, rather the third secret, “has a permanent and ongoing significance….its significance could even be extended to include the suffering the Church is going through today as a result of the recent reports of sexual abuse involving the clergy.”

Thank again of where the Holy Mother appeared. If the threat isn’t yet over, we know where it comes from, and Pope Emeritus Benedict told us where the second threat is. The persecution of the Church is mounting and it comes from secularism, in the form of rights over the body (whether abortion rights or LGBT rights), and Islam.

At times we can feel like this is a fight we can’t win. We are afraid. But we are told, clearly, in the Bible not to be afraid.

Today I opened my Bible at Jeremiah 42. The people were afraid and begged Jeremiah to intercede with God for them which, of course, he did. They were a people intent from turning from God and living a life of pleasure – sound familiar? They were a people who refused to see the danger for what it was and when Jeremiah responded with the instructions from God they refused to heed them, attacking Jeremiah instead – sound familiar again?

Jeremiah and Baruch despaired, but they were called to speak God’s Truth and do God’s will. We’ve been given a task too; speak the Truth and pray the Rosary.

Maybe you are like me. I’ll be honest, I’m afaraid to speak the Truth in my culture. It means being ostracised, losing a means to fund my family. It’s why I speak from the shadows. My faith isn’t strong enough, I’m ashamed to admit. But I am speaking.

I’m also praying and on this I have no fear.

For inspiration and conviction of victory look to the Battle of Lepanto, which marked the end of the Crusades and was a turning point in the history of Christianity.

By 1571 Muslims had control of a good deal of Europe. Their ships ruled the Mediterranean Sea from the Strait of Bosporus to the Strait of Gibraltar and constantly preyed on Christian vessels.

Pope Pius V called for help in forcing them back as they threatened the entire continent. Spain, whose King Philip II was also King of Austria, responded favorably as did other members of the “Holy League” – Genoa and Lucca and the dukes of Savory, Parma, Ferrara and Urbino.

Don John of Austria, the 25-year old son of Emperor Charles V, as commander-in-chief of a planned expedition against the Muslims. After receiving the banner of the Holy League from the Pope, His fleet set sail from Genoa for Naples on June 26, 1571. However, just before the departure, Philip II presented Don John with a picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe which she had caused to be miraculously imprinted on the cloak of the Indian peasant Juan Diego in Mexico 40 years before. Don John placed the picture in the chapel of the admiral-vessel, the Genoese John Andrew Doria, asking for Mary’s protection of his expedition.

At dawn on October 7, at the entrance to the Gulf of Patras, the Christian and Moslem fleets finally came face to face for the battle of Lepanto.

The wind and all military factors favored the Muslims, however it mysteriously changed to the advantage of the Christian fleet. First-hand witnesses wrote about this moment as a most dramatic turn-of-events resulting from an “unknown factor”.

But Vatican Archives later revealed that at that very moment, at dawn on October 7, Pope Pius V, accompanied by many faithful, was praying the Rosary in the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore. From dawn to dusk the prayers continued in Rome as the Christians and the Muslims battled at Lepanto. When it was all over the Muslims had been defeated. Of some 270 Moslem ships, at least 200 were destroyed. The Turks also lost 30,000 men while Christian casualties numbered between 4,000 and 5,000.

If we had prayed the Rosary could we have stopped World War 2? Heaven help us if we fail to pray now.

I pray that God is with you. Please pray He is with me too.

Father Jacques Hamel And Women Priests

img_9092I must be one of those ‘unwoke’ women that people like Lena Dunham need to educate  – not that I voted for Trump, I’m a Brit, but because I believe in the Catholic Church’s teaching that women can not be priests. Yes, so consumed by the patriarchy am I that my self hatred doesn’t allow me to see the need for women to be priests.

Now that I’ve finished being sarcastic, let me exain how the dreadful treatment of Father Jacques perfectly exemplifies why I think there is, at the heart of it, ignorance or a lust for power when it comes to this belief that women should be ordained.

What happened to Father Jacques was shocking and horrific, but unfortunately is common place around the world and certainly was when Jesus formed the Church. It’s just that for the last few hundred years in Christendom there has been a period of physical safety for priests, social derision (at times just) the power that they hold, spiritual temptation surely – but their physical serves have been safe.

Can you imagine the call for a female priesthood being quite as loud in Pakistan? Somalia? Iraq? No, and there’s a good reason for this. These priests face death and they must put these fears aside and continue to offer the mass for all those souls brave enough to attend.

Now, in the safe west we are starting to face more intense persecution. People are losing their livelihoods, it is not unthinkable that forms of persecution will become more extreme. No matter how horrific the attack on Father Jacques was, would you replace him with an elderly, female priest? It’s true that nuns are brutalised in the most horrific way, but the very fact that they don’t offer the mass and therefore stand in the place of Jesus means that they have the spiritual room to remove themselves from persecution that a priest can’t.

All priests are called to face death like Christ, this call was there with the first apostle Andrea each priest since.

I pray God is with you; please pray He is with me too.

I Thirst. What Are You Giving Up For Lent?


I’ve been thinking sincerely about what to give up for Lent. Lent, obviously, is not a diet, but a time to prepare your soul for when we celebrate the Resurrection. Easter Sunday and Divine Mercy Sunday the week after are true gifts to us and I want to celebrate the former as best I can with a journey of coming closer to God.

I thirst. I thirst for his presence at the moment. I want to enter with Jesus into the desert and draw close to him.

I made the point that it isn’t a diet because so many people ‘do’ Lent now just as that. That’s not a bad thing. Surprising my saying that it isn’t? They thirst too. They’re r thirsting will be hidden behind wanting to be thin perhaps; why? So they will be attractive, so they can find love? It may be a subverted desire, but the root of the desire itself rests in their want for God. But not recognising it their ignorance leads them to other things.

I know this because I’ve been there. About a decade ago now I thirsted and my thirst led me to lent and conversion. However in my time in the wilderness, like the Israelites lost for their 40 years, I developed some bad practises. One of those bad practises was my relationship with food. I use it when I’m happy, when I’m sad, when I want to celebrate, when I’m worried, bored….and I don’t turn to God. It has become an idol.

When I get too fat as, inevitably, this way of acting leads, I diet. When the diet is working, even before I’ve made significant weight losses, I become vain. It becomes a form of self abuse, seeking me away from the happiness within my marriage to an illusory want of attention elsewhere. It’s only in my mind, I don’t go out flirting or anything. But as Jesus says, I commit an act of adultery doing this. As I say in my last post, Jesus is clear on this.

This is why I’m discerning. I want to draw close to God. I want to dstroy food as an idol with God’s help once and for all. In all honesty I want to be attractive, but in a holy way, turning this desire towards my husband (not a bad thing). So how do I do this?

I had been praying about this this afternoon when I looked at my twitter feed and someone had helpfully posted a link to their blog and a worksheet for Lenten preparation.

Firstly is a voluntary amendment of life. I overeat and I eat for all the reasons above. One of the suggestions that chimed with me is the idea of only eating at mealtimes. This, as the title suggests, is something I need to think of as being a lifelong change to bring my eating under control. With God’s help I hope to develop resilience and the practise of drawing close to God rather than to draw close to food by making it not as constantly available.

Secondly is an act of penance; mine will be giving up sweets, chocolates, cakes and biscuits for the duration of Lent. I use these things as comfort food, relief from boredom…you name it. Time to destroy this golden calf.

The third is a spiritual work. I’ve already thought about doing the Rosary for lent and, as there is one that starts on Ash Wednesday, I’m offering mine up with those who are praying theirs as part of 40 Days For Life. I’m doing mine in the format of a Rosary Workout.

To focus I’m using this book here regarding my difficulties with eating and this for the Rosary Workout. You can get them both on Amazon.

If you want to join me I’d love to here from you. If not and you want to share what your Lenten commitments are I’d love to hear; through Christ we are stronger together.

I pray that God be with you; and please pray He’s with me too.

The CofE and Same Sex Marriage

Although Catholic the recent declarations by the Church of England on same sex marriage has interested me. After all this was the Church that came from its schism with Rome over marriage and, as it appears to me, here we are again.

One of the things that struck me about this BBC article Was the images of those protesting the recent church document on same sex marriage and attraction.

The ‘what would Jesus do?’ sign is interesting. To me these statements are often followed by aligning Jesus with one’s own thought.

Well what would Jesus do? In Matthew 19 there is this discussion about marriage;

3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”[a]

10 His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

It’s clear from this that Jesus validates the scriptural statements regarding marriage; that it’s between a man and a woman.

If Jesus is God, as Christians are meant to believe, then that’s what marriage is. Some people will no doubt argue, as they do with many other issues of modern equality dogma such as women priests, that Jesus was acting within the moral constraints of his time. Well let’s look at that argument.

Firstly Judaism was unusual in its explicit refusal to acknowledge homosexual relations of being valid let alone equal. Both the Greeks and the Romans did so, but Judaism didn’t. So if you believe that the Bible is inspired by God’s word and that Israel was God’s chosen people to bring forth the messiah in a relatively holy nation, then you have to ask why this isn’t the case if that is what God wanted.

Secondly this assumption means that Jesus himself would have been at worst sinful and at best just unknowingly wrong. Yes, Jesus was wrong to uphold the definition of marriage between one man and one woman. So how does this fit with his being God? Although God’s power was limited when Jesus took on human form, we can’t square the circle with hat thought as we’re stuck with the reality that Jesus would have sinned.

Thirdly, if you’re going to suggest that Jesus knew it was sinful but was just ‘a product of his time’ that ignores the way in which Jesus was quite willing to buck the social mores of the time; talking to woman who were not his tribe, let alone his family, including the Samaritans in his dialogue, teaching women, touching women whilst on their period, challenging the Pharisees etc. The list is endless.

If Jesus upheld this as marriage then it is either marriage, or he’s wrong and he’s not God. Take your pick, but looking at it from that angle I don’t think that you can be a Christian in good standing on this subject if you reject that and campaign against it.


Did God really say….

The “What would Jesus do?” sign and “Proud to be gay….now make me proud to be Christian” signs are telling.

When Satan tempts Eve in the garden, just as when he tempts the new Adam (Jesus) in the desert, he questions God’s word and therefore his morality; “Did God really say that you could not eat the fruit from any tree within the garden?”

Nope, God didn’t say that. He said that you couldn’t eat the fruit from the tree in the centre of the garden, because if you do you will die. Eve does reply to this effect of course, but then Satan comes in with a counter punch. “Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Notice the inference? God just doesn’t want you to have any fun. God just doesn’t want you to be as good as him. How many times have you heard that argument in your life? I used to know a man who taught RE and he was always advising pupils that when they were due to right their answers just to assume that Catholics would say no, because in his words, “Catholics say no to everything.” I started to respond, “Well, they don’t say no to life”.

Same argument, different mouth, same origin.

The people campaigning against the decision that same sex marriage is not Christian, saying that it is wrong in other words, are basically state they know good from evil, and denying same sex marriage makes the church evil. However in the same breath they ignore the very words of Jesus himself, or believe that they – in these more enlightened times – are in a position to correct the Lord.

Does God hate?

When he tells us not to do things, does he hate? Or is it because if we do them we will surely die? I’m not going to go into the health statistics of same sex intercourse here, but let’s just look at the hate part.

Firstly if we return to the passage at the top of the page you can see that God doesn’t just call out homosexual behaviour, but he’s not exactly easy going with heterosexual sex also. So, for example, at present you can become divorced and remarried and the Church of England will bless that marriage. But it is quite clear that for Jesus this was a big no, no. It’s adultery.

In fact in terms of heterosexuality Jesus goes further; if you even look at someone with lust in your heart you’re committing adultery. Matthew 5;

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell. 30 If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into hell.

Yes, that’s right, tear out your eye and cut off your hand (looking at this passage as a whole you can easily see how it is argued that Jesus is talking here about masturbation). It seems that serious.

So, are you telling me that those people surrounding him at the time were not guilty of this? Are you further telling me that he hated them? Are you saying that by telling them this Jesus was a ‘hater’, a ‘heterophobic’?

So why does he tell them this? Well look around you. Look at our divorce rates, abortion, the sexualisation of everyone (I’m so fed up of hearing grandmothers who’ve been raped even, that’s how depraved we’ve become), the depression that our youngsters suffer – you think that’s good?

Who Is Marriage For?

Again, I’m not going to go into the why in this post as I think it would take too long, but it’s clear marriage is for heterosexuals and it’s for life. So how about homosexuals? Let’s look again at what Jesus has to say about marriage;

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

When we define eunuch this is predominantly those who can’t or don’t have sex either through birth, through intervention by another’s hand or through choice. Some would say that this refers to the reality of homosexuality, which is debatable, but if it is it agains points to homosexuality being outside of marriage.

If the CofE ruled that homosexuals could marry it would go against the word of Jesus. When you introduce other arguments after this point you move further away from your belief as Christ as God, and more towards your belief that you are.

God be with you, and please pray he is with me.


What Message Do We Send Our Children?

The first time I came across it I was truly shocked. The ‘it’ was this…


How can a woman, knowing that a child is growing inside her write stages-of-pregnancythis on her stomach? According to this image she’s about five months? So what does that mean in terms of development? According to a 20 week old foetus is “as happy as a clam in your womb, as his well-developed limbs continue to explore by curling, flexing, and kicking. And as his hair, nails and eyebrows continue to sprout, your fetus is looking remarkably more and more like Mom and Dad every day.”

Yes, that’s right; hair, nails and eyebrows, with a functioning, moving body that explores in the womb. This womb has probably been for her 20 week scan, is preparing for the birth of her child and has written on her stomach to all intents and purposes that if it was convenient for her, the adult, this infant would be ‘happy’ or at least ‘understand’ if she wanted to kill  them.

This argument has become more and more repeated recently. From Lena Dunham stating that what was wonderful about her friends pregnancy was that she got to choose it should continue, whilst she rested her hand over the child.

This is such a telling act. After all, what does she think will happen in the future? That this child will one day see this image and say “oh you guys, I’m so glad you stood up to the patriarchy, demanding the right for me to be killed”. Do they not even consider that actually  what they are saying is just that? That they are saying “if you’re not wanted, not convenient, its ok to have destroyed you.” For a generation that talks so much about the special nature of each individualthat incredibly obtuse!

But of course this goes to the very heart of abortion; the depriving of children their humanity. They’re not just deprived of that in the womb, but ever afterwards as their beliefs are defined their too by their parents.

Notice too how the lawmakers who would have stopped her with their evil plan of saving lives are inferred to be men: after all women lawmakers, of whom there are many, would have definitely been able to relate. But of course this wouldn’t have fed into the ‘patriarchy’ myth, when it’s actually women who are more pro-life than me.

This obtuseness was taken to its ultimate level recently when Nancy Pelosi was asked a question by Brianna Kristen Roberts who says that because her mother made the brave choice of giving birth to her and then placing her for adoption she got to thrive and succeed in life. When asked “Don’t you think everyone deserves the chance to thrive and succeed in life?” Pelosi, the great Catholic, responds

“I certainly do and I love the words you use. You say my mother chose, my mother chose and we want other people to have that opportunity to chose as well.”

Notice how the questioner asks about her thriving, and Pelosi puts it back on the adult woman carrying the child.

“And when we do, when people ask me what are the three most important things facing the congress I always say the same thing; our children, our children our children. Their health, their education, their economic security of their families, a clean environment in which they can thrive or world peace in which they can succeed in which they can achieve their aspirations. But many of our friends who are so intent on when life begins, in their view, do not subscribe to that after the child is born to meet the needs of the children.

So I hope you will join us in our quest to say that all of the children in our country….respecting your mothers ability to make her choice…”

Its at this stage where Pelosi starts to fumble, and so she should. she’s actually saying respect that your mother had the choice to kill you.

Notice too how she talks about children healthcare, but the irony that she’s talking about a mothers right to kill her child is lost on her.

Even more notice how she defines ‘our friends’ who are so intent on when life begins in their view, missing the irony that she defines when life begins and its her strong intent regarding this opinion that allows her to stand in front of a young women and basically say; join me in saying that it would have been ok to kill you.

What message are we sending our children? You’re dispensable. is this why the current generation have become so much more pro-life? We’ve gone from ‘safe, legal and rare’ to celebrating abortion.

God be with you, and please pray he is with me.


Blog at

Up ↑