Hilarious: Dawkins Defining Nothing…

 

Comment

dawkins-nobody-or-somebody

Seriously, how can any-body take these alleged atheists seriously? It’s a serious question. I managed to stop laughing long enough to ask it. So, when you’ve recovered from the illogical (and downright hilarious) Dawkins’ Definition of “nothing”, let’s hear your answer. O and don’t forget to comment on his acceptance of the “mysterious” in the origin of the universe. How on earth does that fit with his insistence on empirical scientific “evidence” (think the theory of ‘evolution’), not to mention his infamous mockery of the mysteries of Faith? He seems to be one mixed up gentleman, with the emphasis on “mixed up”.  So, be serious, how can any-body take the likes of Richard Dawkins seriously? I don’t take him seriously at all. He is to science, what Trump & Clinton are to American politics, in my humble opinion. But what about you.  Do you take Dawkins seriously?  

Abortion Uproar In Parliament…

In the video below, Andy Stephenson, Founder of Abort 67, explains what happened in a recent meeting in Parliament that caused abortion supporters to go running for the police.  Listen to Andy in the video below, and then read his letter which follows…

The meeting was organised by Abortion Rights and sponsored by the Shadow Minister for Women, Cat Smith MP.

The Labour MP described herself as a “pro-choice Christian”; assuring the room the two conflicting positions were compatible.

Watch the video to see our response to the meeting. (No pro-lifers were arrested in the making of this video).

[Andy] says: If you would like to partner with us in making abortion unthinkable, then please make a donation by emailing ivana@cbruk.org

The Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform UK and the Abort67 project are working to expose this enormous human rights abuse. We can end it but only if we can allow people to see it for what it really is. 

We would love to step up the exposure with your help on our weekly displays or helping us arrange presentations for your friends or church so they too can think about how they can get involved.

Thank you for your support!
Every blessing,
Andy Stephenson

Comments invited…

Climate Change: Pope Francis Says World Headed For ‘Suicide’

PopeFrancisMikeJournalists Pope Francis talks to journalists during a press conference  he held aboard the flight  on the way back to Italy,
Monday, Nov. 30, 2015.

Its “now or never,” the Pontiff says

Pope Francis said the United Nations’ conference on climate change that began in Paris on Monday may be one of the last opportunities for countries to take steps toward avoiding an environmental catastrophe.

“I am not sure, but I can say to you ‘now or never’,” he said when asked if he thought the Paris summit would be a turning point aboard the papal plane on Monday, Reuters reports. “Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.”

Pope Francis, who pushed for Catholics to pay attention to climate change last year, pointed to rising sea levels and Greenland’s melting glaciers as evidence of a need for nations to act during a conference with reporters on a flight back to Rome after his six-day visit to Africa.

“I am sure that the (Paris delegates) have goodwill to do something. I hope it turns out this way and I am praying that it will,” Francis said.
Visit Time, Pope Francis Says World Nearing Climate Change ‘Suicide’

Comment

Can you believe this? The world is in turmoil, killings, terrorism, bombings, Christians wiped out in the Middle East; the Church is in turmoil, with apostasy widespread, and the Pope is worried about the weather?  Share your thoughts – mine are unprintable.

Pope Calls For Action To “Save The Planet”; Silent On Saving The Faith

PopeFrancisClimateChangeIn what I believe was probably a very rare exercise in sarcasm, blogger, Athanasius, emailed me the other day to say that he was greatly looking forward to the new encyclical, adding “Ireland has just officially apostatised from the Faith and the Pope’s  writing about the environment.  Things are truly bad!”

Quite.  The Church is falling apart before our very eyes, with apostasy writ large just about everywhere, and Pope Francis – instead of concerning himself with the question of how to end the diabolically-inspired crisis within the Church, which has resulted in worldwide apostasy – is worrying himself to death about how to improve the weather. Crackers

When can we expect an encyclical condemning the errors of our times  and exhorting obedience to the moral law, as revealed by God and entrusted to His Church to preach and promote?  When?

 Click here to read about the launch of the first ever papal “eco-encyclical” – Laudato Si – and to read the encyclical click here 

Comment

Well, the Pope has laid his cards on the table. He’s a “believer”.  Where does that leave Catholics like myself, who do NOT believe that the weather is caused or changed by human beings…  People like me who remember Our Lord’s exhortation not to worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself?  And where does it leave the papolatrists among us, who think the Pope’s every word is infallible? Could it be that the Holy Spirit is telling us that we ought to believe in man-made climate change? 

Tell us if the new encyclical has evangelised YOU into believing the doctrine of “man-made climate change” or, if –  like me – you agree with those commentators who suggest that the Pope should “leave science to the scientists” and further, that he should get down to ending the crisis in the Church, speaking out against the widespread loss of divine and Catholic Faith around us, apologise for his dereliction of duty in saying “who am I to judge?” (grave sin)  and admit that the Church has gone off the rails in the past 50 years thanks to that Council.  After all, he has to start somewhere if he wants to “save the Faith”.  And he must want to “save the Faith”… surely? 

Dangerous Green Encyclical Ready

   Summary

  • Francis’s encyclical is expected to call for action on climate change  PopeFrancisPlantingtree2
  • The pope has said he believes climate change is largely man-made
  • A widely read Italian Catholic writer warns that action on climate change could lead to population control
  • He cited Catholic doctrine that every life is sacred and cannot be sacrificed, even to save the planet

Vatican officials confirmed this week that Pope Francis’ much-anticipated encyclical letter on the environment is finished and ready for translation, and should be released in June. An “encyclical” is the most developed form of papal teaching, and this will be the very first such document ever devoted entirely to the environment.

To set the table, the Vatican co-hosted a summit on climate change in Rome this week along with the United Nations, with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as the headliner. The Heartland Institute, a leading American forum for climate change and global warming skeptics, organized a rump event in Rome, but those voices were pointedly not invited inside the Vatican and UN conference.

The near-universal expectation is that Francis’s encyclical will lend the moral authority of the Catholic Church to calls for stronger environmental protection, including limits on greenhouse gas emissions as part of the anti-climate change push.

Francis has already tipped his hand about the document’s contents in multiple ways.

He’s said he wanted the document out by mid-2015 so it would influence a UN climate change summit set for Paris in December. The pontiff said he hopes the nations gathered at the event will make “courageous” choices – clearly implying that he doesn’t believe efforts to date have been especially courageous.

In January, he went on record saying he believes climate change is largely man-made, going so far as to fault humanity for “slapping around” the natural world. Francis is also fond of saying, whenever talk turns to the environment, that “God always forgives, man sometimes forgives, but nature never forgives.”  Source 

Comment

Make sure you read the source article to the end.  It is more terrifying that a Hammer House of Horrors movie.  Pope Francis seems to have fallen for the “green” propaganda hook, line and Fisherman’s Ring. What on EARTH is the point of a “green” encyclical? Isn’t the Pope aware of the inseparable link between alleged “green” issues and population control?  The source article refers to the fears of pro-life activists – are they right to be afraid of what might transpire now that Pope Francis has allied the Catholic Church to the population control movement, via his entirely pointless – and very dangerous – “green” encyclical? 

Pope Francis says the Earth is Our Mother that Never Forgives, Or A Sister? More Francis Clarity

PopeFrancissmileblessHIGHRES

Pope Francis

Since we’ve not yet discussed the promised papal encyclical on the environment, I thought this might be an interesting introductory discussion –  this is the first time I’ve re-blogged a post. Looks interesting.  Share your thoughts…

EX MAGNA SILENTIUM or EX MAGNO SILENTIO

Pope Francis addressed a business expo group on Saturday by video.  He held papers in his hands from which it appears he was reading as he spoke.  That indicates that this talk was not a spontaneous outburst, but rather a reasoned prepared presentation.  I must say that I read what he had spoken, and then reread it and then came back to it again.  I really want to understand what he tries to teach, but I find it so difficult from the perspective of a Catholic.  The link I have provided is from The Wanderer and I give them much credit for taking what I read and turning it into something much more clear.  So, I suppose I was just too dense yesterday and I appreciate their recitation of his points: that people need to take the needs of people into account as a priority and not as emergency measure where…

View original post 834 more words

Turin Shroud: American Scientist Claims Cardinal Dolan Suppressing The Truth…

david roemerScience and the Catholic Church
by David K. Roemer Ph.D

The purpose of [my] blog is to record the Vatican’s response to the complaint I filed on October 1, 2014, against the Archbishop of the Diocese of New York for suppressing my slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin. On March 30, 2011, a pastor in New York City cancelled my scheduled slideshow on the grounds that I was not promoting the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. Cardinal Dolan supported the pastor’s decision. The Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization suggested that I bring the matter to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The canonical complaint and all the correspondence leading to it is on my blog titled New Evangelist, David Roemer. Appendix III of the complaint is a reproduction of the complaint I filed with the Ethics and Member Conduct Committee of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers against Bruno Barberis, et. al., for rejecting “Science, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Theology, History, and the Holy Shroud” which I submitted to a conference about the Shroud of Turin sponsored by the IEEE. Dr. Barberis is an advisor to Archbishop Cesare Nosiglia, who is the Custodian of the Shroud of Turin. In my complaint, I argue that my paper was rejected because it explained why the Shroud of Turin was not authentic. Appendix IV is an book review titled “Cognitive Dissonance and the Shroud of Turin.” Letter to Holy Father (December 2, 2014) Letter to New York Province of the Society of Jesus (November 24, 2014) Letter to President of the Italian Episcopal Conference (November 20, 2014) Letter to Roman Rota (November 19, 2014)  TurinShroud

Source

Comment

Since I’m no expert on science, full stop, and since I’m not scholarly enough to hold a scientific view on the authenticity or otherwise of the shroud, I’ll be interested to read what others say on this topic.  We’re not afraid of the truth here… if the evidence shows that the shroud is not authentic, it makes no difference whatsoever to our Faith. So, why would Cardinal Dolan suppress information which may cast light on the subject, one way or the other?  Whatever happened to “dialogue”?