• Smaller Small Medium Big Bigger
  • Default Helvetica Segoe Georgia Times

What we have here is an apostate archbishop of a non-Christian church supporting an atheist in his hate against the archbishop's own God! (Telegraph 4 February 2015) (MSN, 5 February 2014)

"The Most Rev Justin Welby insisted that the atheist comedian and writer had a God-given right to express his beliefs and should not be abused by Christians for doing so."

How weird (and blasphemous) is that?

The archbishop, like all the foul-mouthed atheists and homosexuals who have attacked us for what we said to Fry, is as godless as they are.

Anglicanism has always been in the pocket of Roman Catholicism (which honestly does not call itself 'Christian'), and has moved away from genuine Christian faith for several decades, as many publications have pointed out over the last century.

Welby has got himself confused! If I may make brief comments on what he said in the Telegraph...

  1. Fry can express his views, yes. But, his freedom to do so is not "God given", rather it is taken by social force by his hatred for God.
  2. We rarely, if ever, respond to such foulness, but in Fry's case he spouted blasphemy, and no Christian should stand by and let such hatred go unchallenged. I and many others don't count Welby as 'Christian', so his views are just as foul and invalid.
  3. Nothing we said constitutes 'abuse' against Fry. It was straightforward biblical rebuke. Something he is not used to! If others have 'abused' him, it is not my concern... though it is more likely that what Welby calls 'abuse' is actually proper Christian response... but he is unable to recognise what is right or wrong in Christian terms. Of course, in saying that, our foul-mouthed critics will react with "See how he hates everybody!" Hm. They say it with the same illogical nonsense as before. They are incapable of genuine criticism.
  4. It is true that Christians were once open sinners. And some were just like Fry... though, thank God, most were not. This does not mean Christians must be hog-tied by homosexual and atheistic rubbish. Once again, Welby displays all the marks of a religionist, and not a genuine Christian. No Christian can support the right to blaspheme! And he should note that Christians retort in words, unlike terroristic Muslims who put people to death!
  5. We believe everyone has the right to express their view, so long as it does not actually harm others (we do NOT count feelings, which can be nebulous and very slanted, as with homosexuals), but, equally, we have the right to respond and argue our case.
    Both go hand in hand, though our 'critics' say otherwise. Fry and his type are constantly attacking Christians and their beliefs. This is to their shame, and they are free to do so. However, they hate how Christians speak back! In our days, we are seeing that both atheists and homosexuals are fascists, so their reactions are to be expected. Even so, this does not mean a Christian web-site should give them air time. As far as we are concerned, they have more than enough of this freedom in countless godless publications, and on officially sanctioned programmes on BBC and in most media. Christians, on the other hand, are denied the same freedom. Christians throughout the world are being persecuted, many of them to death (95% of all persecution in the world is committed against Christians by Muslims. Homosexuals and atheists, on the other hand, are not persecuted, except in their minds, (for the specific purpose of reaping sympathy that engenders wicked laws). But, those in the West who harm society – atheists and homosexuals, are given total freedom to launch vicious immoral missiles against Christians every day. And, like Hamas shouting 'hate' and 'war crime' when Israel fights back, they, too, hate Christians being active!
  6. Welby's admission concerning Anglican oppressing others may, or may not, have solid ground to comment on, but he is not to be trusted when applying his comments to all Christians. He says we must defend the rights of followers of other faiths.
    This, without biblical context, is wicked. Now, if he said we should agree for unbelievers to speak out, then that would be fine.
    But, in no way does scripture support 'other faiths' and their beliefs or actions. This is because they are false religions, hated by God. Welby is using the age-old method of lumping incompatible statement with compatible. Just like our 'critics' (Note that I refer to our attackers as 'critics' for the sake of convenience. None of them so far has proven to use critical methods! They simply want to tie us up in worthless, endless arguments. Which we refuse to comply with).
  7. Welby speaks of 'freedom of choice'. In strict biblical terms, we have no such choice – we are either saved by Almighty God, or we swim in our own sewage... which we used to do before we were saved by Jesus Christ; some more than others.
  8. Freedom of choice should be given to all? I do not think so. Freedom to kill, behead, burn alive, slaughter? No. Freedom for atheists and homosexuals to completely persecute Christians not only in public, but by law? No.
  9. Freedom of these foul-mouthed folks to think as they do? Yes. Freedom to speak as they do in open abuse? No. But, unlike them we do not demand legal restraints, only freedom to answer back on equal terms. This they don't allow.
  10. Fry indeed has 'freedom' to speak as he does (frequently!), but to say this freedom is one-sided is absurd and unjust. And what does Welby mean by 'abused improperly'? Knowing Welby, he probably means we have no right to retort! At any rate, Welby, friend of the wicked, and his pals, can say and do whatever they wish, because they are given a platform, whereas Christians have no platform, except that which looks remarkably like a gallows. So, the abuse is only one-way... the wicked man's way. And we include Welby in that category.
  11. Welby, with astonishingly ignorant theology, claims that Fry has his right to be foul because it has been given to us in creation!
    What? Have I missed what the Bible says on that? No, Creation was perfect and Fry's 'freedom' to be foul did not then exist.
    Adam and Eve were thrown out of Eden for their sin, their 'choice' having contradicted Creation. Since then the world has become 'ill', having humanly-developed diseases of body and mind, as expressed by Fry and other atheists and homosexuals.
  12. The Telegraph piece ended with a summary of why Christians spoke out against Fry. Like us, they do not usually have such a response. But, Fry was particularly evil and pompously arrogant in his interview, and we all said "Enough is enough".
  13. Interestingly, Welby spoke of the "creeping removals of freedom". This is absolutely true, but mainly for Christians! He continued that such removals "breed a climate of fear and animosity". That may be true, but not for Christians, who might fear, but do not strike out in animosity. Muslims do. Contradicting himself, Welby then said that when such 'breeding' occurs, "we must speak out... with humility and boldness". Except that is, when we do so against Fry and his 8 million sycophants on Twitter, who are just as unable to think clearly as he is!
  14. Welby seems unable to understand that a Christian can be both bold and humble. He implies that boldness must be wimpish!
    Not so, and definitely not biblical advice. Sadly, what he has said goes to support Fry in his godless tirade against Christians and God.
  15. Lastly, Welby said he supports non-restriction of religious speech, so long as it does not contain hate-speech. If his definition of 'hate speech' is the same as that of atheists and homosexuals (which it probably is), then he is effectively stifling genuine Christian responses to wicked men's actions and statements. 'Hate speech' is a term invented by Marxists to silence anyone who spoke out against communist regimes. It has been used lately to include any response to what wicked men say and do. Very convenient, but without sense or reason.

We have had totally wicked reactions to our letter to Fry. We do not print them (except for one to show just how puerile and senseless such attacks are), because they are usually crammed with foul language, sexual garbage, and perversity, that is unsuitable on a Christian website. They are usually senseless. Also, many of the correspondents give false email addresses, and it is our policy never to publish emails that do not have a valid address.

Suffice to say that the attacks by our 'critics' are made in childish, wicked manner, and never contain anything worthwhile or that could be used to advance genuine discussion. Amusingly, in a poisonous kind of way, the pseudo-critics try to taunt us by using the foulest of words and concepts (proving their childishness). They can do so if they wish – we just delete most of them automatically! Some blurt out that we thereby reject argument. No, what we reject is foul language and pretend logic.

Anyway, the remarks by Welby are 'wicked-friendly', and his words are no different from many others who support sin. His words are NOT to be taken as representative of the true Church, and we know that many will treat them as useless.