THE VATICAN AND EURABIA...
Friday, July 27, 2007 at 09:54AM I note that Pope Benedict XVI's private secretary has warned of the Islamisation of Europe and stressed the need for the continent's Christian roots not to be ignored. "Attempts to Islamise the west cannot be denied," Monsignor Georg Gaenswein was quoted as saying in the weekly Sueddeutsche Magazin to be published Friday. He's right - and in fact the logic is that they must be repelled
But the reality is that most of secular Europe is very happy to ignore its' Christian roots and that is why the advance of Islam is so rapid. Believing in nothing is a poor defence when confronted with the intolerant fascism that characterises Islam. I'm not sure how Europe can reclaim a Christian past which it has happily consigned to the memory hole but I do know that Monsignor Gaenswein makes a good point and one that our politicians should embrace.
Islam 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (65)
I hope Islam makes her desolate and naked, and eats her flesh, and burns her with fire, for the Vatican is not a Christian religion, it's THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. It's based upon Babylonian and Samaritan idolatry and simony, founded by it's first Pope, Simon Magus the heathen priest from Samaria.
Then islam would consume us too and, as a lapsed Protestant, I much prefer catholicism. Look at the lands where catholicism has prevailed - Italy, France, Spain, south America - all of these places are greatly preferable to the hell-holes of islam.
Hello Allan@Oslo,
I don't agree that Islam will wipe out Christianity as well as the THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS. At it's core, Islam is not interested in turning christians into Muslims, it's only after the decendants of Ishmael. All that nonscence you hear today about Islam wanting to take over the world is only coming from a small faction of militant Islam, which is being controlled by very shadowy elements.
If you've ever talked to a true Muslim you will understand that they believe christianity came for the sons of Jacob and Islam came for Ishmael. they also believe the Vatican is the THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS and they deeply hate it because of the crusades.
Oh dear, here's something for Europeans to believe in...
Nukes active
United States 5,735
Russia 5,830
UK 200
France 350
China 130
India 70-120
Pakistan 30-52
North Korea 1-10
Israel 75-200
I make that The West:12,390 and Islam:30.
OK, odds of 413:1.
Have to take into account the yield too...that's a multiplier to say the least.
All in all, the West has something rather better than the Holy Hand Grenade.:)
Who's Queen?:)
Jeff
PS Did you know that the first Indian atomic test was named 'Smiling Buddha'?
I'd never noticed irony as a major feature of the sense of humor of my Indian friends.:)
Ulster Scot: Does that mean you will be cancelling your rosary order?
rosary?...another name for Muslim prayer beads [lol]
What would be so bad about being the mother of a harlot that it merits the all-caps treatment I wonder?
As for believing in "nothing", that worked out pretty well when it was the Christian dark ages Europe was fighting to rid itself of.
Ulster Scot:
"...the Whore of Babylon shall come forth on a six-headed serpent, and throughout the land there shall be a great rubbing of parts." The Life of Brian.
Take that you timewarped twit!
Hail Brian
bet my criticism of Catholicism don't seem too weird now does it ?
uc is excited but the point he makes, that the pope is antichrist, is quite right.
regarding Islam the bible speaks of locusts from the east,
and the Koran clearly dictates world domination as the goal of Islam.
UC,
FIR YE TA GO'AN TALLKIN THON WAY IS SOUNDED TA ME LIKA AN AUL HARLIT YIRSIL, FIR LUSTIN AFITER FORCED STRIPPIN' AN CANNABALISM AN TORTURE IS NAUGH'T TA ME THA TALKIN'S O' AY RITEOUS YIN.
and seriously, dont lust for judgement, as your bible will tell you and dont style yourself as righteous.
he longs to see the lords hand raised in wrath is in error indeed.
Juan: there are degrees of weirdness.
a bit like error in that respect.
Yes. Although error can be reversed. Weirdness tends to grow.
unless its growth is inverted, which is really weird.
anyway,
is von papa now saying he supports the ideas of bat y'or and the like ?
i think her ideas are pretty damn weird, and accurate if i know my euroweenies........
Juan,
Serious question and not at all meant in a derogatory way I assure you, but when out socialising, how do you find peoples reaction to your strongly held religious views.
Why I ask is, that very very few people in the ROI hold strong religious beliefs, like I know were basically a largely RC baptised crowd, but even so, most RCs in the ROI are alacarte RCs, and i dont think ive ever met an adult my age thats read the bible in their adult years, nor do i know a single adult my age (30), that could tell you anything about their religion, bar what they remember from mass as a kid. Bible reading/analysis just aint that popular in the ROI and so if you meet someone with strong religious beliefs people tend to label them with the Bible basher tag. Although people dont have a problem with such folk, as long as they dont try to convince them why god is great over their pint...
So just wondering if its something your used to or even care about
I passed through Heathrow today on my way home and had to put up with the latest security measures. But I had to laugh when the last person to check my passport was an Muslim woman complete with black head-scarf.
I don't have any friends kloot :<
only joshing, a lot of what's attached to' christianism' in other countries is not the same in rural Ulster with its literalism, (if I may begin there), and our religion is very different to the annoying, 'oh yaa I've got something to care about and you don't' weirdo hippies, and their pretentions, you may have deal with and call bible bashers.
as an example I have an (formerly mad and bad) uncle who was saved after the birth of his second child. he had a very hard life and as a result was a very hard man. leaving examples aside, you would not have enjoyed his company and would have pitied his life style.
Enter Jesus. (stop laughing buttmunch)
these days he has a cracking wee house, two of the best children in the family (in terms of behaviour, happiness and singing skills, singing kids are a major source of entertainment in rural protestant get togethers) and a lovely wife and is the happiest wee man you'll meet, he works hard, is home by 6 and is off the drink full stop, he's funny, charming and touchingly humble about it all and i prefer his quite, wholesome fun company to a lot of what i would be up too in bars and clubs.
so we are not so much out socialising in the manner you are familiar with, and what we call socialising you would probably see as a lot of old cornball hokey.
out there with the world (I don't claim to be a good man or saved myself mate - I'm a rotten wee sod truth be known) I don't mention it that much but yes when it comes up I'm not shy, I sometimes drop wee bible verse if I'm offering advise, (and my smarter pals can usually see it as a foundation of my opinions), and people are either curious (mostly women) or they sneer and laugh (mostly, lets just say it, english wideboy tossers) - the reaction you no doubt conceived, but you know its good thing, people who mock others for having principles aint worth bothering with.
Dear dear there we go again, Ulster Scot, you seem to know everything about harlots, don't you? Where did you get that interesting bit about Simon Magus? I do hope it wasn't in the New Testament that you inherited from that harlot.
Where did you get that interesting bit about Simon Magus?
Hello Adrian, long time no see.
Simon Magus was a Samaritan, who was Babylonian by race and Babylonian in tradition. The Jews refused the Samaritans participation with them in their worship so the Samaritans in Jerusalem built a temple for themselves on Mount Gerizim. The reason the Jews separated themselves from the Samaritans is because they had incorporated idols from Babylon into the Jewish belief and they wrote their own Samaritan Pentateuch (Bible), which is different from the Hebrew Pentateuch.
The Samaritan bible is virtually the same bible that early Christianity used to spread the faith from Rome. Rome, the Eastern Orthodox and others still use this Samaritan styled bible, it's called the Septuagint [LXX]. Both the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch differ from the Hebrew texts. So, we can see where influence from Babylon not only came into Christianity through tradition, but also through certain translations of scripture.
Remember MYSTERY BABYLON? Yous RC's like to focus that solely on the city of Jerusalem, and to a certain degree I agree with yous, but it goes much further than the abominations within Jerusalem, it leads right to Rome and her daughters.
OK, back to this Magus character. Simon Magus played a very important part in early Christianity within Rome, St. Jerome mentions that a statue was made of Simon and worshipped as a God among his Christian followers. Simon was responsible for bringing a contaminated Christianity into Rome and this was the type of Christianity the Bishop of Rome would embrace and later announce it came from Apostle Peter.
The word "Magus" is the Chaldean/Persian word for "priest". So, Simon was a Babylonian, idol worshipping priest, who tried to buy Christianity from the disciples to which Peter told him "You have neither PART nor LOT in this matter" (Acts 8:21)
Peter perceived that Simon was in the "gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity [lawlessness]" (Verse 23).
It is interesting to note Peter’s statement that Simon was to become a "gall of bitterness." People today may not realize the exact meaning of such a phrase, but no Jew in the First Century was in any doubt as to its meaning.
It was a figure of speech adopted from the Old Testament which denoted going over to the idols and abominations of the heathen. Read Deuteronomy 29:16-18 and see how plainly this figure of speech is used. When the Apostle Peter applied to Simon Magus the phrase "gall of bitterness," he meant that Simon would be the responsible party for the introduction of heathen beliefs and idols into Christianity.
Makes you think twice on how icon worship, idolatry and simony entered the church at Rome. It sure wasn't through Apostle Peter. Only Simon Magus was capable of such an action, Peter perceived he would be the one responsible and with his Babylonian roots, he certainly was up for the job. Simon Magus is the father of the bishop of Rome, the Vatican and the Roman Catholic church.
Adrian: good to see you snuck out.
I hope there are no Muslims reading these comments.
They'll think Islam is'nt taken seriously, and go elsewhere.
Bernard - yeah, over to the shoe picture!
Bernard: More likely they would think Christianity isn't taken seriously.
UC, you overlook a few important points. The main problem I see with your exegesis is it ignores the fact that the Bible we all use, Cath and Prod, is St Jerome's translation, which was used by everyone up until the reformation, and therafter was used by everyone except prods. The prods 'scholars' (LOL!) took St Jerome's version and carefully crafted a few passages to recognise the special rights of the king.(The one with the marital probems, their patron)And of course they slipped in a few bits that help support their own theological lies.
But it's still Jerome's version mostly. So suck that up you bigot.
My offer of the loan of my comb still stands :0)
The prods 'scholars' (LOL!) took St Jerome's version and carefully crafted a few passages to recognise the special rights of the king.(The one with the marital probems, their patron)And of course they slipped in a few bits that help support their own theological lies.
But it's still Jerome's version mostly. So suck that up you bigot.
ORLANDO,
The apocrypha, which came from the Septuagint isn't in the Protestant bible.
The King James bible was translated from Greek and Hebrew texts, not Latin texts like St. Jerome's version.
Protestants and Catholics are all Filthy Kuffars as far as the Muslims are concerned. If they disagree among themselves then so much the better. It makes 'Divide and conquer' that much easier.
Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland, Wales, England, Scotland. What's the difference? To a Muslim they are all Dar al-Harb to be conquered and subdued and their women, girls, goats and good-looking little boys taken as sex-slaves.
It's time for Kuffars (not just Christians but also Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs and Hindus ) to forget our differences and unite against a clear and present danger.
If we Kuffars do not hang together, then we shall most certainly all hang separately.
Ulster-Scot:
To the early 2nd century Christian church, Simon Magnus was, at best, a legend, and at worst, an opportunist who saw the Apostles as only magicians, and wanted their 'Magic' for himself.(hence Magus)
He's often referred to as the first Heretic who broke away from the True Church to join the Gnostic sects.
The New Testament does'nt even mention him, and to call him the first Pope is idiotic.
The early Church was full of turmoil with competing sects claiming ascendancy, so by dredging up ancient scribblings as if they formed the true history of Christendom, is purely grabbing at straws, to bolster your own hatred.
Exactly Bernard. I'd give dollars to doughnuts he's got a well-thumbed copy of the Davinci Code.
Bernard,
"dredging up ancient scribblings as if they formed the true history of Christendom, is purely grabbing at straws"
Ancient scribblings like the Bible?
(Although I suppose you're right, the RC church would be exempt from that charge and apparently shamelessly makes it up from scratch!)
The New Testament does'nt even mention him, [Simon Magus]
Bollocks, Bernard. Can you not read Acts chapter 8?
and to call him the first Pope is idiotic.
So who was the first Pope? [ha, ha] he wasn't Peter. Apostle Paul spread the message through Rome, not Peter.
Bernard said:
The early Church was full of turmoil with competing sects claiming ascendancy, so by dredging up ancient scribblings as if they formed the true history of Christendom, is purely grabbing at straws, to bolster your own hatred.
I agree fully, The early church was full of turmoil and ungodliness, that's why I've posted what I did.
You've resorted to stating I have a hatred. Is this supposed to explain the wrongs of the Roman Cathololic church?
Where is the love for the pedophile priests which Ratzinger's laws protect them? Tell me that. Why do you defend such scum?, scum that prance about all day touching up children and can get away with it, because their Roman Catholic church allows them to.
and yet you ask me 'where is the turmoil is, Bernard'?
Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 01:35PM | Bernard
You're right Orlando, Dan Brown WOULD be a latter-day Simon Magus....people who jumped on the bandwagon of a revealed Truth of the time....to gain notoriety and money.
The fact, Frank, that the Bible has SURVIVED so remarkably, and pretty much in it's original text, notwithstanding the assaults on it by Gnostic scribblers etc, rather attests to it's original truth.
Bernard,
"The fact, Frank, that the Bible has SURVIVED so remarkably, and pretty much in it's original text, notwithstanding the assaults on it by Gnostic scribblers etc, rather attests to it's original truth."
*rolls eyes*...what's the bets somebody will say the same thing about Lord of the Rings in a couple of millenia.
You must be glad you did'nt live in earlier centuries, U-S, when Popes took bribes, had mistresses, and even took up arms.
It has always been the Message that the Church carries from century to century, not the 'fallen' people that it is comprised of.
Like all the other Institutions in modern times, it has fallen prey to creeping liberalism, but at no time has it ever said paedophilia, or homosexuality, or gay marriage was acceptable in Catholic teaching.
In that, it stands alone against the growing trend in the western world.
Really Bernard ?
So everyone else bar the Catholic church is becoming more tolerant of Paedophilia ?
Well actually, Colm, not far off.
If you recall, the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was untill 1979 a perfectly legal organisation, and it's founder member, Ian Dunn, (now dead) has his name in lights in the Scottish Assembly, so I hear.
Even Harriet Harman was involved with it in those early days.
Normal people like you and me and the rest of the public see paedophilia for what it is, but there is a powerfull lobby out there, comprising sections of the Media who are pressing hard to get the age of consent reduced from 16 years to 12, and below.
Don'nt kid yourself Colm, Paedophilia has powerfull friends in high places.
Normal people like you and me and the rest of the public see paedophilia for what it is, but there is a powerfull lobby out there, comprising sections of the Media who are pressing hard to get the age of consent reduced from 16 years to 12, and below.
Don'nt kid yourself Colm, Paedophilia has powerfull friends in high places.
Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 08:57PM | Bernard
Would these includes followers of a certain 'prophet' who had a taste for 9-year-old flesh?
"Don'nt kid yourself Colm, Paedophilia has powerfull friends in high places."
And a lot of those poweful friends are in high places in the RC church Bernard.
"Paedophilia has powerfull friends in high places"
So it should, It means loving children. It was child abusers who first used this word for their crimes, at the very least they have sheltered behind it. We shouldn't let them. It is child abuse or child molestation. It ain't love!!!
I understand what you are saying Aileen , but in reality that word has only ever been used to refer to sexual interest in children, it has never been used to simply mean loving them in a wholesome way and indeed the word Paedophile sounds as it should, a nasty word.
Colm
I think we (or rather others as I stopped when I realised) use that word because we addopted THEIR useage of it. They rationalise/excsue it as being a loving act.
Also even if it did mean sexual interest in children (sick - unfortunate - to be pittied) that is not illegal ACTING on it (sick terrible and to be condemned) is. The word doesn't make a clear enough distintion between the activity and the interest.
That was an unworthy and easily expected remark from you Colm.
The Catholic church has never condoned paedophilia or campaigned for homosexual 'rights' in any form.
And you are just towing the monotonous Media line in trying to say the main Christian church is inherently corrupt.
Whatever the reasons for covering up the activities of a few (very few indeed) bad priests, it was NOT because it has a powerful lobby, pushing to to relax the laws on child abuse.
Nasty cynical jibe that, Colm.
....and since I missed the comments by Aileen, this is precisely why PIE was legal up to 1979.
It was construed before that time, rather naively, as simply 'loving children in a wholesome way'.
It only gradually dawned that PIE was a cover for child abuse, and the organisation was then made illegal.
Rubbish Bernard, you are just blindly devoted to an organisation that is made up of human beings as much as any other and isn't infallible. Many many individuals in the RC church have abused their position throughout history to abuse vulnerable children in their care and their misdeeds have been covered up until senior church authority figures were forced to deal with such abuses. I never said there was a powerful lobby in the church pushing to relax the laws. They just turned a blind eye to the abusers in their midst and no amount of "How dare you criticise the untouchable Catholic church" exclamations from it's misguidedly loyal devotees can hide that.
Have it your own way Colm, but baring in mind this post was originally about the Islamisation of Europe, and none of the other major Institutions or churches have uttered a peep about the threat from Islam.... better to side with your devil you seem to despise eh?.... rather than 'go into that dark Arabian night' that you seem keen to embrace.
Yes Bernard, of course I said earlier in this thread that I wanted to embrace the Islamisation of Europe, very observant of you to spot it, I'm sure no-one else will.
Sorry Colm. Reading up on your comments of past postings I see you are just as robust in preserving Western values, as the next person.
It just angers me that when an institution like the Catholic church makes a stand on a principle of faith, some people try and shoot it down for other, un-related reasons, as Ulster Scot so delights in doing.
US, what was your point again - "The Samaritan bible is virtually the same bible that early Christianity used to spread the faith from Rome. Rome, the Eastern Orthodox and others still use this Samaritan styled bible, it's called the Septuagint [LXX]. Both the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch differ from the Hebrew texts. So, we can see where influence from Babylon not only came into Christianity through tradition, but also through certain translations of scripture."
But as everyone knows, the Romish bible is Jerome's Vulgate. Here's what Wikipedia says:
"The Vulgate is an early 5th century version of the Bible in Latin which is largely the result of the labors of Jerome, ...... Its Old Testament is the first Latin version translated directly from the Hebrew Tanakh rather than from the Greek Septuagint."
Seems to contradict you, doesn't it ?
Bernard
I wasn't shooting down the Catholic Church as a whole nor the majority of good people in it whether Clergy or lay members , I only pointed out that when it comes to tackling child sexual and other forms of abuse it has just as much flaws in it's behaviour and shameful episodes amongst it's members and officialdom as any other institution and wider society. It does not as you claimed stand alone as the only Western organisation resisting the acceptance of child sexual abuse. Far from becoming more condoning of it, I feel in the Western world at least we are rightfully becoming more hostile towards it and taking greater action to curb it than ever before. .