Advertisements

Category Archives: Religion and Philosophy

This is where I give voice to my views about the meaning of life. If you are someone who doesn’t think someone should share their views on God, salvation, etc, then you’ll most likely be dreadfully offended by looking in this category – enjoy!

PC lackeys are a bigger problem than the actual one


Original YT playout date: 10 August 2008
Duration: 5:56

The Muslims may want to change England into their own system, but that’s their way. They can’t help themselves and converting under duress and fighting for more and more territory is all they have ever known. The ones who *should* know better are the western namby- pamby liberals who won’t let us protect ourselves and our culture because they are still shocked by what happened under fascism in Germany, and what was done to the innocent Jews. And so now we daren’t stand up and react assertively and protect ourself even when it is warranted, as now when a real threat to our culture and society comes along, not just the economic success of a different group within our diversity, which anyone is welcome to. These people are programmed by their deen to destroy us and the Jews together, and it’ll be all down to people in our own group who have liberal ideas they naively sucked in from the media, and also people like lawyers who win rights for these people in exchange for making money for themselves at the expense of everyone else in society.

Can we finally understand that “politically correct” is a way of saying “incorrect” and bring some common sense and assertiveness back in the way we deal with these people? The ones who should be vilified are not the misguided believers in Islam, who are the victims in this anyway, but the people who are from our society but who are standing by and applauding or denying as Islam gains ground in Europe. If they want to know what fascism really is, all they need to do is wait till Islam is in control in Europe. But then it will be too late.”
Read the rest of this entry

Advertisements

Pilgrimage!


 

Original YT playout date: 8 August 2008
Duration: 1:01:09

An account from the first day of the second army of pilgrims from Warsaw heading out for the shrine of the Black Madonna, on the annual footsore migration of hundreds of thousands of people over a route of well over 200 km, many (such as Lord Moggy of lordmoggy channel featured here) subsisting on mere bread and water for nine days in their quest for fellowship and blessing.

I make a few comments about what I witnessed form a Protestant perspective, but I do mean the remarks in a kindly way, as at the end of the day atheists and islamists need to see Christians standing up and being counted, which is what these people are doing.

Also features in one part an attempt at Chaucer’s famous opening to the Canterbury Tales in the original Middle English. Some of my older viewers can tell me whether I got the pronunciation right or not.

I am actual posting it here on Huliganov.TV during pilgrimage time 11 years later. It goes to show that precisely 11 years ago I got down to below 120 kgs and right now I have a good chance of repeating that, having eaveraged 10 or more kgs more in the interim, sometimes even 20 kgs more.

<!–more–>

***Statistics and Credits***
Views at the time added to HTV: 746
Likes at the time added to HTV: 5
Dislikes at time added to HTV: 0
Popularity % ” ” ” =L/(L+D): 100.0%
Comments at time added: 0
Total interactions at time added: 5
Total interactions to views 0.7%
Location: On the route out of Warsaw towards Krakow
Other people featured: Adam, Lord Moggy
Genre: Reportage
Music used: Ambient
Languages used: English, Polish
Animals/plants featured: None
Other remarks:

How free are people to make up their own mind?


Original YT playout date: 2 August 2008
Duration: 8:28

Many people can be found on British media and in other western media making broad brush negative comparisons about Islam and Christianity. Now there are SOME Christians who are as strict about forcing people to believe just as there are SOME Muslims like the Egyptian gentleman without his teeth in in this film, who God bless him, understands that faith which is forced under pain of punishment or even execution is valueless in the sight of God, and therefore we HAVE to allow freedom of choice, but from this show you can see very clearly that in Islamic countries there is no way people will accept you saying you are not a Muslim and just leave it at that. There is always going to be a bad consequence. The unwritten rule there is that you say “”I’m a good Muslim”” whatever you happen to think. There is no Christian country and there has not been for hundreds of years (yes, we failed in the past, but then put right the failure), where you cannot build a Mosque, or state yourself to be an atheist. But try building a Church or claiming to be an atheist in an Islamic state and see how far you get.

Read the rest of this entry

A comment on “Crazy Bible” by Ray Comfort


People criticise Christians for saying atheism is a religion, set of dogmas or a belief. Atheism is indeed a belief. Saying it isn’t is mere denial of the obvious reality. If I do not know whether a cat in a box is alive or dead, it is not a question of it being both, it is a question of which of these alternatives you believe. One will prove to be correct, but up to that point, both believe. The one who says the cat is dead is not able to say he has fact on his side in view of the absence of evidence of life. The cat is in the box.

If God means, as He tells us He does, to save a people based on their choice in faith and love, then forcing them into faith by parading himself means that the criteria would not work and we would be forced back onto works salvation. In such a case we would need to be good, and there obviously is a problem with being good. I can’t do it and neither can you. That’s why the whole world from Creation onwards contains a structure whereby we may in good conscience believe that the Creator came into Creation to take the punishment so that we could be forgiven based on belief, and so does the Bible. The Bible contains things which invite you to either dismiss it in scorn or to try to see things through the eyes of God. We are told truth in a way that the proud will find it only too easy to reject, while at the same time they readily absorb the lies of the world, from abiogenesis through to the idea that Satan is not controlling politics. The faithful on the other hand find it easy to believe God’s word, and are ultra skeptical about the lies of the world.

So both are belief systems. One is a belief system whose proponents know or ought to know is a belief system, the other is a belief system many of whose proponents think is honest science.

All the Psalms


For a change this is a Video not from my channel. et me know if it comes down or is unavailable or anything, but this video is truly remarkable.  Eleven hours long, it contains fine choirs, especially Kings College Cambridge judging by the static images accompanying, singing their way through the entire Anglican Psalter.

Beautiful. God be praised.

And here, if the above were not enough, is a wonderful presentation, voice only of 120 top Christian Hymns.

 

Open Letter to Sara Khan, Lead Commissar for Countering Extremism


Dear Sara,

Responding to your article in todays Daily Telegraph.

The polarisation of opinion is destabilising and will lead to more unrest and personal injuries and deaths. but the ones driving this are the Left and not the Right. In fact the hard left are treating people who have what used to be a centrist and mainstream view as if they were right-wing fascists and making ordinary members of society, especially those who are male, white, Christian and taxpaying, feel as though they are being made pariahs and being made to pay for the privilege, to use the word they normally use to oppress us and make it look like we’re the oppressor.

We need to get back to a code of what is and what is not acceptable as mainstream, and the key parameter that nobody seems to be talking about is respecting the issue of freedom of choice.

If a person has the freedom to choose something, then they also have the responsibility for their choice, and maybe can be called upon to justify it. Where someone doesn’t have a choice, they did not exercise a freedom and therefore people should not expect them to justify it, that seems to me to be the most important aspect people never think of. In my own philosophy it stands next to the so-called “golden rule” of doing to others what you would like them to do to you. Because even that golden rule refers to things where people still have free agency.

If someone does to me something I don’t like but did not choose to do it, let us say that they bump into me but only because they were pushed unexpectedly by someone else, then I cannot blame them. They did to me probably something that they wouldn’t want me to do to them, but they didn’t choose it, hence the agency rule overrides the golden rule.

Taking this as a guide, Sara, one could begin to make a code which gradually replaces what we see as Neo-Marxist political correctness into a code based on chivalry, good-manners and that good-old Christian concept of neighbourly love. If you are the Commissioner for countering extremism, then what you need to do first if you will pardon me telling you your job (which is something I admittedly don’t like when someone does to me, but it does happen all the time and this is for the greater good) is to DEFINE what is extreme and what is not extreme by reference to adherence to these high-level principles.

What is fashionable and unfashionable in terms of specific doctrine can change over time, but certain ideas like fairness to all, or that he who pays the piper calls the tune, therefore people paying taxes should not be pushed away from the front line of access to the benefits bought by those taxes, in case of need. You need to consider defining what the traits are of something that could be described as extreme and anything which can justify itself with motherhood concepts ought not to be so defined.

As a final note, anyone who has 100 Muslim organisations braying to have them removed from office must be doing something right. Rather a lot right, even. So I’m hoping to hear of your successes in the future.

Yours faithfully,

David J. James

Sunday Quiz #2 – The Book of Romans 5-8.


This is the second in a new series of quizzes on this Channel. It consists of a ten question, multiple choice quiz and then a photo, which might or might not have anything to do with the quiz but actually serves as a buffer to help you not accidentally see the answers, which are given at the end along with an assessment of your score.

Each of these quizzes will be in the Quiz Section of the right hand navigation, so if you liked this and want to try some of the earlier ones, you’ll be able to find them there, and also they’ll be classified to another place depending on the theme of the quiz. The idea is to teach something useful within a set theme, which might be a text from the Bible or another text Christians and others might wish to be familiar with, and a missing word.  Otherwise they might related to a specific theme from history, nature, etc. It is not purely a trivia quiz but a way to spark your interest in looking up more about the topic.

Today, the Book of Romans, in the King James Version, Chapters 5-8, some of the hardest writing in the New Testament – how well do you know it?

1) Romans 5 v 6 “For when we were yet without x, in due time Christ died for the y.”

A) x = strength, y = ungodly
B) x = stength, y = weak
C) x = hope, y = unbelieving
D) x = hope, y = righteous

2) Romans 5 v 11b “And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the …”

A) salvation
B) redemption
C) atonement
D) justification

3.  Romans 5:16b “but the free gift is of many offences unto ….”

A) salvation
B) redemption
C) atonement
D) justification

4.  Romans 6:3 “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his …?”

A) faith
B) life
C) church
D) death

5. Romans 6:14 “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but …..”

A) under grace
B) free therefrom
C) forgiven
D) above the law

6. Romans 7:7b “For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not ….”

A) lust
B) kill
C) covet
D) commit adultery

7. Romans 7:22 “For I delight in the law of God after the inward ……”

A) man
B) renewal
C) parts
D) self

8. Romans 8:6 “For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spritually minded is …”

A) life and light
B) life and peace
C) life and joy
D) joy and peace

9. Romans 8:10 “And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of …”

A) forgiveness
B) righteousness
C) justification
D) repentence

10. Romans 8:39 “Nor height, nor depth, nor … , shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord”

A) breadth, nor width
B) principalities nor powers,
C) things present, nor things to come
D) any other creature
Read the rest of this entry

Sunday Quiz #1 – The Book of Romans 1-4.


This is the first in a new series of quizzes on this Channel. There will be a quiz and then a photo, which might or might not have anything to do with the quiz but actually serves as a buffer to help you not accidentally see the answers.

Each of these quizzes will be in the Quiz Section of the right hand navigation, so if you liked this and want to try some of the earlier ones, you’ll be able to find them there, and also they’ll be classified to another place depending on the theme of the quiz. The idea is to teach something useful within a set theme, which might be a text from the Bible or another text Christians and others might wish to be familiar with, and a missing word.  Otherwise they might related to a specific theme from history, nature, etc. It is not purely a trivia quiz but a way to spark your interest in looking up more about the topic.

Today, the Book of Romans, in the King James Version, Chapters 1-4, some of the hardest writing in the New Testament – how well do you know it?

1) Romans 1 v 16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the x first and also to the y.”

A) x = Jews, y = gentiles
B) x = Jew, y = Greek
C) x = Christians, y = unbelieving
D) x = righteous, y = poor

2) Romans 1 v 22 “Professing themselves to be wise, they became …”

A) unwise
B) morons
C) unbelieving
D) fools

3.  Romans 1:28b “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not ….”

A) convenient
B) righteous
C) proven
D) faithful

4.  Romans 1:30 “Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to …”

A) God
B) authorities
C) the law
D) parents

5. Romans 3:4a “God forbid: yea, let god be true but every man …..”

A) a liar
B) hold silence
C) untrue
D) acknowledge

6. Romans 3:11 “There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after ….”

A) righteousness
B) truth
C) God
D) wisdom

7. Romans 4:2 “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but ……”

A) not in great measure
B) not before God
C) was not so minded
D) not so hath any other

8. Romans 4:8 “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute …”

A) iniquity
B) righteousness
C) sin
D) unrighteousness

9. Romans 4:22 “And therefore it was imputed to him for …”

A) iniquity
B) righteousness
C) sin
D) unrighteousness

10. Romans 4:25 “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our … ”

A) defence
B) salvation
C) justification
D) glory
Read the rest of this entry

Are some animals more viable for exploitation than others?


Christopher Lewis asked me on Facebook:

I am interesting on understanding your scale for judging an animal’s suffering. How do we know killing one animal is fine, another is wrong. Torturing one animal ok, hunting another to extinction not.

Here’s my answer:

Christopher Lewis It’s an excellent question.

I would formulate my thoughts this way:

  1. Vulnerability to extinction.
    First, we have to protect species against extinction. I believe it is a massive sin to cause any extinction of species, a total blasphemy against the Creator as we cannot create a single species. And also the loss of the genetic material robs future human generations of the opportunity to experience this life form. So I make the same point here for animals, plants, fungi and without regard to size or complexity. We cannot replace them, and don’t destroy what you cannot create is an excellent maxim for life.
  2. Controllability of habitat and numbers
    Second, given the first point, we need to take more care with regard to animals or plants where the slide to extinction is less controllable by us. So at the moment marine life has a bigger call on protection because we have certainly placed plastics into the oceans at measurable amounts and this is completely and guaranteedly anthropogenic and there is no debate about it, unlike the debates that can be made in the case of greenhouse gases and global warming. I am in two minds about GW but I am not in two minds at all about the plastic issue, to the degree where I jumped up and down and got everyone in a small chain of stores I do things with to abandon plastic bags entirely. I have been talking about the plastic issue for fifteen years in fact, and finally people are starting to take the issue seriously and hopefully not too late, but we still don’t know how good the clean up can be and how fast. So I put animals in the line of threat from plastics into a degree of priority.
  3. Strength of links to others of the species
    It does appear that certain animals, even from their behaviour, have empathy to each other and interact with each other and some have interactions with their offspring which are related to love and tenderness in the human. For animals where the loss of one causes distress to others, I give more consideration than for the ones which do not have such a case. There are many species of bird, for example, that could be domesticated but humans have not chosen for the farmyard those which have lifelong pairbonds and which pine away when their loved one is taken. Take a chicken from the rooster and he happily carries on with his existing harem and the other chickens also don’t tend to look around for the missing hen. Do this to penguins, storks, swans and many other birds and mammals and you have a node of suffering. So I give priority not to eat the animals which show tenderness to one another and which demonstrate meaning to one another. In “The Time Machine”, for example, H.G.Wells Morlocks have taken the trouble to breed out of the Eloi race of humans they are farming any kind of empathy for each other. As indeed the powers that be do to us today, replacing Christ’s call to love our neighbour with the empty husk of political “correctness”.
  4. Intelligence regardless of sociability
    Fourthly, the above point doesn’t mean that vertebrates are always preferred over invertebrates. It appears that shrimp which people eat in great numbers are social and that the octopus, which is pretty anti-social really, is a startling intelligence and deserves a bit more respect than your typical invertebrate. All of this is subordinate to the first and second point, anyway.
  5. Deaths per kilogramme of useable protein
    This leads on to the fifth and this is an important point. If we are turning a living, sentient animal into amino acids for our own digestion, it seems to me to be more moral to take one animal that will feed many families over many meals than to take an animal which it takes many of to feed one person one meal. This is one of the reasons why I try to avoid shrimps. It takes maybe 10 shrimps to make a meal for one person, whereas a cow might make a hundred meals so the relationship of shrimps to cattle to give you a tonne of protein is at least a thousand (maybe closer to ten thousand) shrimps to one cow. This is an extreme example. Now if we placed the intelligence and value of the life of the shrimp at only one thousandth of that of the cow, maybe that would be justifiable. But if you look at shrimps in an aquarium for any length of time you’ll see probably just as much different activity and expression going on as you’ll see on a cow’s face as it stands around chewing cud, and maybe even more. So for me it’s disturbing to think that we could be making a virtual holocaust of these crustaceans just to produce the kilos of a single slaughtered cow. Likewise when it comes to fish is it not a bit disturbing to take a thousand capelin to give us the equivalent flesh of one tuna? Worth a thought.
  6. Naturally predated
    And then we have the sixth issue. Prey animals. Animals are by nature divided into hunter and hunted. The hunted tend to be thise which are naturally in the niche of proviing meat to other species and to a degree they evolved into it. It is part of being a sheep that you get eaten by a tiger, it is part of being a tiger that you don’t get eaten by anything. Human agriculture fit into this natural division in that we usually don’t eat tigers (some do) and usually do eat sheep (some don’t).
  7. Substitutability.
    If an animal or plant can be substituted with another in order to give the necessary thing we are looking for (example tortoiseshell now largely replaced by plastics) then it is best to take the version of the product with the least offences against these other points. If there is no substitute then all the more we need to take care that the species is protected from extinction. Usually this involves careful cultivation over a number of different sites.
  8. Farmability
    Given the last point, an animal or plant which can actually be farmed is a better candidate for use than a wild species that cannot be kept and cultivated under human control. Those which can be kept ought to be kept in a proper way, with regard to diet, housing and enrichment. The use of battery farms and similar is becoming thankfully a thing of the past, and this trend should continue. We are making a one way trade with these animals, they feed us and give us food and fibres, plants render to us all their nutrients and chemicals and of course it is not a deal any of them signed up to. The least we can do is give them a reasonable time of quality life with as low suffering as possible prior to sacrificing that life, again with the minimum possible suffering. Not all species lend themselves to farming, on the other hand those species which do also seem to lend themselves to adaptation into numerous breeds with varying characteristics.
  9. Multiple products.
    It is maybe good in view of the above to use synthetic fur rather than real fur, however if synthetic fur becomes unviable for any reason, it is better to farm fur animals which are also edible, such as rabbits, rather than mink which are only there to provide fur and which by the way require the sacrifice of numerous other animals to nourish them, although they can of course be fed on foods made from spent hens and dairy cows not usually sold for human cuisine. If we are going to sacrifice an animal, we should at least waste as little of it as possible. It is good to keep sheep as they provide milk and wool in addition to the produce of their carcase. Cattle produce leather in addition to their milk and blood products taken during their lives but this, like their meat and unlike wool, is a one off event at their death.
  10. Utilisation of inedible food. Humans cannot eat grass which is the easy crop. Cattle, sheep and camels do eat these as they are cellulose metabolised, thanks to their microbiota hosted in special chambers of their alimentary canal. Pigs can eat acorns and scraps which humans cannot eat. Via these animals, oak forests and grasslands have a use to us which might make the difference between keeping them going with their additional biodiversity, which you wouldn’t find in say a wheatfield. Hence farming them has advantages which vegetarians tend to overlook.

    Now let’s apply all the above to the issue of whales. They for sure let themselves down on the size issue – one whale will feed more than one of almost anything else, and given that we cannot eat plankton they let themselves down in the acorn argument too, but on the other arguments we shouldn’t be taking them.

Generational change


“The only two certain things” Franklin may have said, possibly referencing a line by Defoe “are death and taxes”.

However, those who are “in the know” are aware that these things are far from certain, either. The very poor are unaware of taxes, and not really experiencing them, and often not even the benefit of other people paying them. The very rich are also capable of making their tax burdens rather uncertain as to the absolute quantum, and God alone knows what percentage of any particular man or woman’s real efforts have been taken from him in one form of taxation or another and of those which percentage actually used to good effect.

Death also is not certain for the Christian, it is written that some “will not taste of death”, which is generally taken to mean that they will be raptured and changed into their resurrection states in the “twinkling of an eye” (I Cor 15:52). We are also shown in the Bible how Enoch and Elijah are taken bodily to heaven, without dying (Genesis 5:24, 2 Kings 2:11), possibly in order to be the two witnesses we read about in Revelation 11:3-12.

So is anything certain, then? Yes. The certainty is change. The only certainty is that given enough time nothing is certain. Everything must change. And nowhere more is the effect of change seen than when one generation hands over to the next generation. We have another Pharaoh in Exodus who “knew not Joseph” and so the position of the Hebrews in the Egyptian kingdom starts to deteriorate, leading eventually to the Exodus in the parted waters of the Red Sea.  But also we see throughout human history how what was decided by one generation in a dynasty is often overturned in the next.

The Nazis wanted to destroy the intellectuals of Poland, and so they executed officers, teachers, theatre directors, librarians, poets, anyone who could lead the people intellectually, along with their families. The children of ordinary farmers and factory workers, they thought, would not be in any state to replace the ones they took. But each time meiosis happens, it is the shuffling and redealing of a much bigger pack of cards than we might think, and genius which was not at all evident in the parents starts to come to the fore in the children. Now Poland is full of clever managers, inventors, thinkers whose parents drove trams or cleaned around in hospitals. I have met such people again and again, and also the opposite, which is a humbling thing, really. We all hope our children will be as clever or cleverer than we are, but this is not always the case either. Some of my readers may even be discovering this at the moment and having to come to terms with it.

A good rule to follow in business succession planning, by the way, is to consider that if you want one of your kids to take over your business from you, you’d better have four, as only 50% of them will have the intelligence needed to do it and only 50% will have the inclination and wish to do it. Both of these are needed and they are not dependent variables. Yes, I know people will turn around and say, “there you go again, GoldList Method Boy, stating things which are not science as if they were when genetics puts all of this differently and goes into detail and contradicts some of what you say”. Well, OK. Nevertheless, this actually works and is a pretty effective way of expressing how you need to prepare if you would like to have a business dynasty.

In the light of all the above, I had a meditation today on one popular story, well known to the kids of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

They say that “they all lived happily ever after”, but as far as the seven dwarfs was concerned, the next generation was were it started to go pear-shaped.  Grumpy’s kids were all sweetness and light, Sleepy’s kids were workaholics, Sneezy’s kids didn’t have any allergoes to anything and rarely caught colds, Doc’s kids on the other hand were hopelessly unhealthy and also far too thick to be candidates for the medical profession, which was headed by Dopey’s son, the Surgeon general, Happy’s kids were all chronic depressives and Bashful’s lot were never off the television screen unless they were coming sozzled out of nighclubs singing at the tops of their voices with a retinue of fans in tow. This could be the premise for a nice screenplay or telenovella, in which case I am bagging it now and anyone else who does it has to pay me copyright fees? Why? Because my parents were very nice and wouldn’t have asked for copyright fees off annyone.

You Tube – The End Of Civilization As We Know It (yeah right)


Original playout date: 7 April 2008
Duration: 36:33

“This is the belated rant for December, although, despite a tiny amount of Christmas related talk at the beginning, most of this rant refers to an article in the online Telegraph dated 7 April 2008, which is when I made the rant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/07/nweb107.xml
Some sense-starved junkalist, hiding behind the weasel phrase “”experts have warned””, presumes today to describe our use of the available bandwidth as less valid than his own use, for newspaper articles. I contend that anyone can write – at least at the stylistic level of his article, give or take a few spelling mistakes – whereas not everyone can produce entertaining and informative online video content. Therefore I go on to challenge the author of that article to produce his own video response to my rant, if he thinks that YouTube is such a bad idea, let him tell it to us face-to-face, over the camera.

On the way I give advice to town planners about traffic management in cities, and give a few pointers, which, if only listened to by the right ears, could greatly improve the quality of life for millions living in cities whose commuting plight today is largely caused by the control-freak complexes of minor government employees, and their inability to let free-market philosophy impact on road design.”
Read the rest of this entry

A drive and a chat around Inowroclaw


Original playout date: 4 April 2008
Duration: 29:59

Wanna go for a drive with me for half an hour in rural central Poland listening to some lovely traditional Polish music and talking about a few topcs, some small and some a bit bigger?
Read the rest of this entry

%d bloggers like this: