An offence against law, fact, reason, sanity


Tom Paine in The Age of Reason (1794) described Jesus as ‘a virtuous and amiable man’ who preached ‘most excellent morality…It is upon this plain narrative of facts…that the Christian mythologists, calling themselves the Christian church, have erected their fable, which for absurdity and extravagance is not to be exceeded by anything that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.’
 
A story told to people who didn’t have a clue how babies were made, and who went on for centuries not having a clue because the great fuck-monkey savage sick-boy Church wouldn’t permit science, any more than many other bunches of mad monkeys.  In China, in India, in the Arab world, in Ancient Greece as in Europe there were very bright people studying or trying to the natural world  Human intelligence is not the issue.  Dirty old animals what got Troof are the issue and progress or its absence was entirely dependent on who was in power: open minds or closed.
 
Harvey was a prominent sceptic regarding allegations of witchcraft. He was one of the examiners of four women from Lancashire accused of witchcraft in 1634, and as a consequence of his report, all of them were acquitted.
That is the Harvey, William, of circulation of the blood fame.  Just think as early as 1634 things were put in the hands of scientists – occasionally.
Or they could consider Ala-al-din abu Al-Hassan Ali ibn Abi-Hazm al-Qarshi al-Dimashqi (Arabic: علاء الدين أبو الحسن عليّ بن أبي حزم القرشي الدمشقي), known as Ibn al-Nafis (Arabic: ابن النفيس), was an Arab physician from Damascus mostly famous for being the first to describe the pulmonary circulation of the blood.   He died in 1288, and was thus  centuries before Harvey.  Or for that matter Mendel, quietly working in the monastery garden figuring out his pea-plants. 
 
Religion is the reason we didn’t have modern medicine centuries ago. 
 
Truly, the earth is not flat Religion is a multi-faceted affair. Organized religion is the suppression of a multi-faceted, intricate reality. Organized and political religion is largely the official representatives of a bunch of psychiatric cases whose hallmark is that the universe and its inhabitants are as defined by a guy or guys a large number of years ago because 'God' told them that was how the universe (and of course its inhabitants, especially the females ones) are. If you do not believe the earth is flat, you are not a 'real' Jew/Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Sikh etc.

If God a being exists, conversation with It and sundry other beings - Michael? Gabriel? Raphael?- and puh-lease 'It' is the only rational pronoun, must provide hours not to say aeons of delight to Darwin, Huxley, Crick, Watson, Einstein, Schroedinger, sharing Its knowledge of space-time and evolutionary biology, introducing them to other universes in the multiverse where other physical and biological laws apply. Now that's diversity.

To put it more formally, any entity called God must by definition be omniscient and there can be no requirement to pay the slightest attention either  to any product of the human imagination who clearly hasn't a clue or to his followers.  The word you seek is mad.  Madness is generally held to be divorce from reality and such persons dwell in a world that exists only in their heads.

Indeed, if in the course of conversation someone tells you the earth is flat, it does not instantly strike you that he and those who share his mind are critical voices in the running of the nation. If he goes on to tell you he thinks everyone who disparages him and those who share his mind should be locked up, executed or otherwise punished, you may indeed conclude that it is he and those who share his mind who should be locked up for their own safety and that of those around them.

The fight is for a world-view grounded in reality.  The war against flat-earthers has really very little to do with whether there are or are not deities of some kind, indifferent or caring, whether the universe is chaotic or orderly, whether the Beijing Olympics happened concurrently in curved space and so is behind us and the universe as we know it is the result of a ping-pong ball straying into our dimension. The basic proposition to be confronted and defeated is that the universe has to be approached on one's knees. It is all known. While normal people have opinions or theories, put forward propositions, may indeed have strongly held beliefs, the excrement claim to know that which is untenable, that for which there is no shred of evidence, that which is readily countered, that which is rampantly sick nonsense.

The universe, we have from no less a source than Douglas Adams, is like big, man. Yahweh-Allah-Jehovah may at best be deemed a very local, provincial deity, obsessed as he supposedly is by the minutiae of the behaviour of the inhabitants of the third rock from the sun, right down to the menstrual cycle of the human female, where perhaps he is most obviously the figment of the imagination of the primitive human male, with ape-man's obsession with female virginity coming a good joint second with the simple hairy notion that, since he is an incontinent male animal, incapable of either self-control or individuation of the females of the species, those females should be modest in order not to unleash his lust. Nor has Yahweh-Allah-Jehovah had anything to say of late. Perhaps he has cleared off to some other part of the universe and has lost all interest in the human race. 

Flat-earthism has very obvious basic tenets:

There is an alpha baboon in the sky whose majesty and whose self-appointed representatives must be spoken of with awe, respect and blah.
This alpha ape, like his human counterparts, requires people on their knees to him saying how wonderful he is.
Creationism
Women and gays belong to different and inferior species; usually this is held true of those of other races also
Heaven and hell and virgins and eternal flames
Frank affirmation of human self-centredness, the assumption the rest of the world revolves around them and is subordinate to them, the unquestioned belief that 'I' is the centre of the universe and they can demand others comply with them, the unquestioned enshrining of pure ego as divine will
Thinking, autonomy, independent judgement of mind and heart. are evil, for the rather obvious actual reason that anyone who thinks regards the ravings of the acolytes of a minority death-cult as sick crap and the given reason, which a child of six can see through, or at any rate a child of six not drugged from birth, that it is the evil of self-will, of thinking one knows better than 'God', or in other words them

"This new concept [multiverse theory] is, potentially, as drastic an enlargement of our cosmic perspective as the shift from pre-Copernican ideas to the realization that the Earth is orbiting a typical star on the edge of the Milky Way."
Sir Martin Rees, 1998, current Astronomer Royal of Britain

There is an enormous range of  views on other planes, other dimensions, other realities, other worlds, other levels of being not least salvation and damnation. None of those is the point. The point is the putrid rejection of what is known of the reality of this world. While the Vatican's last best response to Professor Dawkins is that he is an evil atheist, it simply makes itself a joke, while instead of eagerly embracing his work as a new and fascinating branch of God's multiverse, it instead demands the twisting and corruption of reality to conform with its fantasies.

Somewhat entertainingly, a Cardinal in 1536 felt free to display considerable enthusiasm for the findings of science, though of course the cavemen later gathered to beat up Galileo.

On 1 November 1536, Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:

Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject ...[71]

It would be rather nice if a British Cardinal wrote such a letter to Prof Dawkins, say,, but I rather think that's not going to happen.. Come to think of it, it would be rather nice if they ever went around expressing enthusiasm for finding out rather than the certainty they know already, not least what people in this country think and believe.


It is of course part of the record, well, several records, that ‘God’ is ignorant of physics, chemistry and biology.
 
There is also diminished level of intelligence.  Once upon a the very bright went into the Church.  Now they become astrophysicists.
 
To their not having very much in the way of intelligence in the first place we can add that their fascism and psychosis, the assumption they decree what cannot be questioned, makes them intellectually lazy. 
 
Mostly what they demonstrate when they open their mouths is that they ae mad and stupid – and don’t expect any comeback.
 
From the inauguration of Cardinal Nichols:
At the installation of the Most Rev Vincent Nichols at Westminster Cathedral, his predecessor, Cardinalmac Murphy-O’Connor, described a lack of faith as “the greatest of evils” and blamed atheism for war and destruction, implying that it was a greater evil even than sin itself.....
 
In his homily he said: “Faith in God is not, as some would portray it today, a narrowing of the human mind or spirit. It is precisely the opposite. “Faith in God is the gift that takes us beyond our limited self, with all its incessant demands . . . Some today propose that faith and reason are crudely opposed, with the fervour of faith replacing good reason. This reduction of both faith and reason inhibits not only our search for truth but also the possibility of real dialogue.”
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor went farther. Referring to the battles that will be won and lost in the effort to sustain the Christian presence in secular society, he said: “What is most crucial is the prayer that we express every day in the Our Father, when we say ‘deliver us from evil’. The evil we ask to be delivered from is not essentially the evil of sin, though that is clear, but in the mind of Jesus it is more importantly a loss of faith. For Jesus, the inability to believe in God and to live by faith is the greatest of evils.
“You see the things that result from this are an affront to human dignity, destruction of trust between peoples, the rule of egoism and the loss of peace. One can never have true justice, true peace, if God becomes meaningless to people.”
From The Times, 22nd May 2009, now behind a paywall
 
To the harmless civilized atheist of course belief in God may seem the principle and explanation of all moral deviations; to many, whether Christian or not, it would seem that on the contrary faith may underpin the clamourings of the limited self, claiming the forcing of its incontinent urges on others has divine sanction; it is love that takes us beyond them. 
 
A modest Christian education recalls 1 Corinthians:
 
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
 
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
 
Yeah, yeah, atheism is the ‘greatest of evils..  Forget torture, murder, paedophilia.  Indeed the Church would greatly like to forget paedophilia.  A bunch of celibates whose sexual experience if any is limited to agonized and guilt-ridden flings with parishioners and raping children, who know nothing whatever about happy healthy guilt-free sex, lecturing the rest of us.  You could not make it up.
 
Or just openly raving mad
The sick-boys rampant
Pope John Paul II: Contraception is so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified...
“The encyclical of Pope Paul VI on birth control is true and must be followed by mankind. There shall be no rationalization of sin.” - Our Lady of the Roses, October 2, 1976
 On July 18, 1984, Pope John Paul II stated that Humanae Vitae binds all persons, including non-Catholics:
“the norm of the encyclical [Humanae Vitae] concerns all men, insofar as it is a norm of the natural law and is based on conformity with human reason.” (St. Peter's, July 18, 1984; see L'Osservatore Romano, July 23, 1984)
On September 17, 1983, Pope John Paul II gave these powerful words affirming the Church's constant teaching prohibiting contraception:
“When ... through contraception married couples remove from the exercise of their conjugal sexuality its potential procreative capacity, they claim a power which belongs solely to God; the power to decide in a final analysis the coming into existence of a human person. They assume the qualification not of being cooperators in God's creative power, but the ultimate depositories of the source of human life. In this perspective, contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that, in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.”
 
******
 
“We warned you over and over again, through years of visitations upon earth--My Mother going to and fro to warn you, that those who have given themselves over to debasement, by the practice of homosexuality, birth control, abortion and all other aberrations that bring sorrow to My Mother's heart--this must be stopped now. There shall be no excuse accepted in Heaven by the saints, nor by My Mother and I, or the Eternal Father and the Holy Ghost, for what you are doing upon earth now.” - Jesus, June 6, 1987 
“Permissiveness shall not be accepted by your God. Sin is sin; there is no compromise for sin. Mortal sin is a grievous offense to the Eternal Father. The Commandments shall be followed without permissiveness.” – Jesus, November 21, 1977
 
Vatican: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception”

"The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable."
- "Vademecum for Confessors: Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life," #4, Vatican Pontifical Council for the Family, March 1, 1997. 
"From the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure, are also morally responsible for it."
- “Statement on the So-Called Morning After Pill,” Vatican Pontifical Council for Life, October 31, 2000. 
 
"It is not possible to anesthetize the conscience, for example, when it comes to molecules whose aim is to stop an embryo implanting or to cut short someone's life... I invite your federation [of pharmacists] to consider conscientious objection which is a right that must be recognized for your profession so you can avoid collaborating, directly or indirectly, in the supply of products which have clearly immoral aims, for example abortion or euthanasia..."
- Pope Benedict XVI, address to Catholic Pharmacists, October 29, 2007
 
 
On June 5, 1987, Pope John Paul II warned clergy and theologians of their grave obligation to faithfully transmit the Church’s teaching on contraception:  “A grave responsibility derives from this: those who place themselves in open conflict with the law of God, authentically taught by the Church, guide spouses along a false path. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not belong to the category of matter open to free discussion among theologians. Teaching the contrary amounts to leading the moral consciences of spouses into error.”
- "The Church's teaching on contraception is not a matter for free discussion among theologians," L'Osservatore Romano, July 6, 1987, p. 12.
On September 17, 1983, Pope John Paul II told priests in Rome that “contraception is to be judged objectively so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that, in human life, situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.”
- quotation from “The Papal Talk of 17 Sept.,” The [Hartford] Catholic Transcript, David Q. Liptak, January 20, 1984.
"In fact, just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, with particular reason, he has no such dominion over his generative faculties as such, because of their intrinsic ordination towards raising up life, of which God is the principle. 'Human life is sacred,' Pope John XXIII recalled; 'from its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.'
     "In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.
     "Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible."
- Pope Paul VI, encyclical Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968 (#13-14).
Pope John Paul II: Contraception is so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified (tldm.org)
Yes, o pervert freak who belongs in Broadmoor, I have indeed been on the Pill.  You pathetic loony.  But of course the problem is disgusting apes like Blair take you seriously.  Planning to criminalize artificial contraception are you, monkey?  After all it offends a genuine and sincere belief.
Just keep these fucking nutjobs away from England, just fucking keep them away.  Not a chance.  That absolute obscenity you call the Pope, the writhing bag of evil who falsifies history, who desecrates even Jesus in his lust for power.  But then desecrate Jesus is pretty much what the Vatican has always done.  Thus something called Protestant.  Thus:
…it’s because of thinking that Sweden, Denmark, the whole of your island, half of Germany groan under the terrible misery of no longer being subjects of the pope.
[…….c’est pour avoir pensé, que la Suède, le Danemark, toute votre île, la moitié de l’Allemagne, gémissent dans le malheur épouvantable de n’être plus sujets du pape]
LIBERTÉ DE PENSER
 
The IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.  The VIRGIN BIRTH.  Oh, the salacious dribbling.  The Great Penis in the Sky has enormous problems with sex.  Why, it took a pen and wrote down the rituals people have to perform to cleanse themselves of the sin of having had sex, other than in clearly permitted circumstances.  See Paragraph 20, subsection b, (i).  Right little bureaucrat.  Of course it wrote nothing of the kind  They made it all up.    
 
aaMortal Sin and the Christian Life
Understanding mortal sin can make the difference between life and death.
This is a critical topic to understand!
This article will tell you what mortal sin is. But this topic is so important, first we’d better look at why you should care deeply about it…
“How important is this?”
Mortal sin makes it impossible to follow Christ.
The very first step in the life of faith is to hear God’s call and answer with the response of faith. This is your response of initial conversion.
The second step is to become free of mortal sin.
Why?
Because mortal sin is a refusal of God’s offer of live and love. It’s that simple. No matter how much you want to love God, no matter how strong you feel your budding faith life is…
… a single act of mortal sin is a bold declaration that you do not accept God’s love.
Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him…. Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. (Catechism, 1855 & 1861)
That’s why it’s called mortal sin — mortal means “death.”
He who does not love abides in death.
(1 John 3:14)
The topic of mortal sin helps us understand something that isn’t widely believed these days: the connection between our faith and our acts.
We prove our faith by our acts
There’s a very dangerous idea floating around: the idea that our faith is somehow separate from our actions.
Some people seem to think that they’re good Christians even though they’re deliberately committing acts that are seriously, objectively wrong. They still believe that their faith life is alive and growing.
That is a false belief!
Pope John Paul II wrote that “The Apostles decisively rejected any separation between the commitment of the heart and the actions which express or prove it….” (Veritatis Splendor, 26)
In fact, it is specifically by walking the path of a moral life that we accept the free gift of salvation and everlasting life. “Coming to see in the faith their new dignity, Christians are called to lead henceforth a life ‘worthy of the gospel of Christ.’” (Catechism, 1692)
Since ancient times, the Catholic Church has taught about “the two ways”:
The way of Christ “leads to life”; a contrary way “leads to destruction.” The Gospel parable of the two ways remains ever present in the catechesis of the Church; it shows the importance of moral decisions for our salvation: “There are two ways, the one of life, the other of death; but between the two, there is a great difference.” (Catechism, 1696)
What this means is that your actions matter!
Greatly.
The doctrine of mortal sin teaches us how to recognize those actions that absolutely destroy the life of faith itself.
So now let’s take a closer look…
“So, just what is mortal sin?”
Mortal sin is death to the soul.
“Sin” is a thought or action that is, at root, an offense against God. It’s a violation of the great commandment to love God above all else, and to love your neighbor as yourself. (See the main overview of Catholic morality for the big picture.)
Filthy, filthy nonsense.  So making love to your boyfriend makes it impossible to love your neighbour as yourself and to love God above all else.  Using the Pill is a bold declaration you do not accept God’s love. 
They depend upon, need people irrational and readily frightened.
What Jesus said:: go thou and sin no more
What Jesus did not say:
According to the Catholic Church, no person can receive the Eucharist when in a state of mortal sin:
1457 Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.[18]
Some mortal sins cause automatic excommunication by the very deed itself, for example renunciation of faith and religion, known as apostasy,[19] desecration of the Eucharistic species,[20] and "a completed abortion".[21] Those mortal sins are so serious that the Church through law has made them crimes. The Church forbids the excommunicated from receiving any sacrament (not just the Eucharist) and also severely restricts the person's participation in other Church liturgical acts and offices. A repentant excommunicated person may talk to a priest, usually in a confessional, about their excommunication to arrange for the remission. Remission cannot be denied to someone who has truly repented their actions and has also made suitable reparation for damages and scandal or at least has seriously promised to do so.[22][23] However, even if excommunicated, a Catholic who has not been juridically absolved is still, due to the irrevocable nature of baptism, a member of the Catholic Church, albeit their communion with the Christ and the Church is gravely impaired. "Perpetual penalties cannot be imposed or declared by decree."[24] However, "the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually...."[25]
Since the mid-twentieth century, some theologians have taught that a person who lives by a constant attitude of charity is unlikely to fall in and out of God's graces without being profoundly aware of the change. The term "fundamental option" arose and is used in a variety of senses.[26][27]
Pope John Paul II reaffirmed traditional teaching going back to the Council of Trent in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, as does the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire'." The Catechism then adds: "The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."[28] However, the Catechism does not by name say a specific person is in Hell, but it does say that "...our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back."[29] Most significantly, the Catechism also proclaims that "There are no limits to the mercy of God..."[30] and that "although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offence, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God."[29] We cannot see into their mind to know if it was deliberate or committed in full knowledge. Also, like the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, God forgives those who repent sincerely. Vatican II, in its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, reflects the traditional teaching of the Church on punishment, and on merit or reward for good deeds.[31]
Mortal Sin is ordinarily remitted by the priestly absolution in the Sacrament of Penance. However, the effectiveness of the absolution is depedent of the acts of the penitent starting with sorrow for sin or contrition. Perfect contrition (or imperfect contrition, also called attrition, in the Sacrament of Penance), coupled with the firm resolution to sin no more and to make recourse to the sacrament of Penance as soon as possible, can restore a person's relationship with God, as well as God's saving grace, that is, sanctifying grace. This teaching on perfect contrition is a reminder that God's mercy and forgiveness is available outside the Sacrament of Penance, yet, also indicates that Catholics who know about Christ's institution of the sacrament of Penance must intend to use it. Any human act that arises from a person's love of God, is inspired by God's prevenient action and is directed to doing as God requires.[32] When perfect contrition is the means by which one seeks to restore one's relationship with God, there must also be a resolution to confess all mortal sins (that have not been confessed and absolved previously) in the Sacrament of Penance.[33]
What Jesus did not say: a load of voodoo savage gobbledy gook and be brutalized by sick twisted women for the rest of your life.
And Adam and Eve walked in the cool of the garden and decided they were grown-ups and could decide for themselves.  Ye, the first disobedience of a religion of freaks.
It’s actually really interesting.  Perhaps there was some subconscious recollection of oestrus.  Could it have happened overnight?  I don’t think evolutionary changes do that, so whwa ton earth was the intermittent stage.  Think I read it happened when we went into the water, so it wasn’t immediately noticeable.  Oestrus in the pet sabre-tooth but blood, he knew about blood, blood never meant anything good.  It meant you were injured.  Was she hurt?  She didn’t seem hurt.  Assuming period cramps are a modern affliction due to lousy posture, for instance, but delfinitely a bit that needs to be sent back to the Design Unit for revamping. 
 
Never love for love is death, the death of the ego of the great big male monkey beating its chest which thinks it orders the world and we’ve all got to be what it says we are.  Thus the repulsive hive mind.  Love and mind trouble the diseased inadequates.  They suggest other people might matter, are not merely pawns on the chess-board to be filled with Troof.  They indicate senile perverted psychopaths are talking complete drivel for which there is not one shred of evidence. 
Just keep spawning the chimpo-whores to insist that it’s criminal evil to to mock, condemn, criticiae aoe-drool for which there is not one shred of evidence.  Just get enough monkeys howling down intellect, reason, love.
What is this drivel?  It’s supposed to have created sex.  An omniscient omnipotent being couldn’t think of any other way?
 
The  Resurrection is very slightly different because it happens occasionally in mundane practical places like hospitals and funeral parlours that persons pronounced dead turn out not to be.  Not often.  Not likely, but it is conceivable Jesus didn’t die in the first place.  He was an obvious mystic.  It is possible that he was capable of putting himself in a state sufficiently simulating death to fool the Jews and Romans, realizing his only way out of this was to be taken down from the cross.  Not likely.  Possible.
 
The History Of Declaring Death
By Dick Teresi
When is a person dead? This question has plagued us for thousands of years. It is not a trivial matter. If we wish to bury or cremate a person, it is desirable that they first be dead. Is there a central organ we can examine, and say that when it’s nonfunctioning the person as a whole is dead? Or is there a behavior or set of behaviors that indicate with certainty that our bodies have called it quits?

The search for the key organ has shifted from the heart to the genitals to the lungs to the brain, back to the heart, and then to the brain again. The only gold standard accepted through the ages has been putrefaction, when we smell bad, and cell death has occurred. When the “atom of life,” the cell, has died, we are probably dead, but putrefaction takes too long and makes for an odiferous wake.

Medical advances have given us pause about whether some deaths are irreversible. In the 18th century, the time of death became less certain as artificial respiration, smelling salts, and electric shock resuscitated the “dead.” Today, the drug tPA can bring a stroke patient back to life three hours after he would have been declared dead just a couple of decades ago. The 18th century also saw the “medicalization” of death. Doctors began to appear at the beside of the dying to administer opiates and to declare death. Previously, death was the province of laymen, and death watches were held to make sure friends and family were dead before burying.

The literature is filled with cases of mistaken death and premature burial, but today we act as if declaring death is a trivial matter. Though history illustrates that every manner of death determination has fallen to the wayside when exceptions to the rule were found, we remain complacent that our methods are flawless. Here in the present, compromised by the needs of organ transplantation and other factors, we embrace the lowest standard for death in history: brain death. Brain-dead people are still breathing (with a ventilator), their hearts are beating, their bodies are warm, they get bedsores, they can have heart attacks (and be “resuscitated); brain-dead pregnant moms can gestate babies and give birth. Still, we have surrendered the determination of death to doctors and their arcane standards. The doctors are often in error, but never in doubt. It was not always so, as we see below:
 
Yes, quite, indeed. Hence presumably that staple of horror fiction being buried alive.  Presumably also to be absolutely sure it would have been necessary to inflict upon the supposed corpse something known to kill, such as beheading or a stake through the heart. What criteria were deployed in C1st Jerusalem, I know not; putrefaction must set in faster in Saudi than in Siberia but presumably if you think someone dead in very cold climates you cease to heat their environment and so they quickly freeze to death whether dead or not in the first place.   If Jesus was genuinely deader than  dead and live again, that too of course is drivel, literally.  It may also be one of the greatest metaphors ever conceived illustrating  love conquers death
 
Bodies, the Great Penis in the Sky also has horrible problems with bodies and skin.  For a start if we had remained furry, that would decently cover us, problem solved. 
 
Which other bits does that fatuous savage avatar of evil who so insolently falsifies history nand not content with that as supposed representative of Jesus to the world indicates Jesus would not have had a problem with punching someone on the nose  they call the Pope think I should not mock.  The bit about the abomination of ferrets, or woman being derived from Adam’s rib.  How about the injunction to kill witches or the man being the head of the woman. 
 
There are things on which Jesus was explicit.  Turning the other cheek also.  Loving enemies.  Praying for them that despitefully use you.
 
Truly it is amazing what people will believe if they’re terrorized enough, mentally damaged enough.   Because that is what they had to do to rule Europe and what they have to do to rule the Muslim world, distort and corrupt humanity and make people afraid to be human with independently functioning hearts and minds.  Ah, the crime of being human.
 
A confused little monkey in a white coat sat in a lab in Oxford and it beat in his brain, there is no god but DNA and Dawkins is his prophet. He looks at his god and his god is all and all are equal, all are identical, and there are no love, sex, pain, death and the whole damn‘ thing, there is no ‘human‘, there is only biochemistry, and we must all react in the same way and feel the same thing and cannot question what we think and what we feel and cannot change it, and if we do not react in the same way and feel the same thing that is false consciousness and bourgeois conditioning, and if we say we do not react in the same way and feel the same thing and we can change how we react and how we feel and each of us is different, that is bourgeois conditioning, because we are all equal, we are all the same, and the humanities terrify the little monkey by reflecting on love, sex, pain, death and the whole damn‘ thing, and our current ills are not the fault of liberty but the fault of failing to encourage people to exercise their hearts and minds because their hearts and minds don‘t exist and people who are emotionally whole do not break up their housing-estates and their fellow-humans who live there and people who do are not exercising their freedom but being slaves of the god but the confused little monkey knows better. The confused little monkey isn’t capable of taking into account the pain of people at seeing things smashed up, the distress of people at not being able to use the ‘phone box, the pain of people who are bruised and bleeding. The confused little monkey knows that bourgeois law exists solely to perpetuate the economic status quo.  There is no activity of heart or mind in the confused little monkey’s world.
 
But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.
Marx and Engels:  The Manifesto of the Communist Party
 
Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
Marx and Engels:  The Manifesto of the Communist Party
 
But the little monkey is frightened – sheesh, it lives in a permanent state of terror. People go on exercising their hearts and minds anyway and they come up with ideas and empathy and, worst of all people who don’t smash telephone boxes because they see it is unconstructive, unhelpful and possibly lethal, think they’re an improvement on those who do and criticize and are judgemental and condemnatory and it beats in the little monkey’s brain that we’re all equal and such people must be eliminated  (and of course the telephone-box smashers aren’t at fault because they are the victim of economic forces) and he’s a right case. But people fall on their knees before him anyway, because he’s a scientist and a rational man.


             You think it’s called dialectical materialism, scientific socialism for nothing? 98% of my DNA shared with the chimp!  And I brachiate!  It really obsesses them. Clearly the goal of biological evolution is strap-hanging on the Victoria Line.

Mind sits anterior to data. Mind sits anterior to data, questioning, synthesizing, comparing, creating and of course checking on the reality quotient.  The upper level of mentation, the capacity to select, order, analyse, question  and synthesize information and that faculty called imagination which breaks down what is into its constituent parts and remakes it as something new in the world,  has been denied.  Call it the upper storey.  They do not visit the top floor.  This is what I mean by the abolition of intellect (have to spell these things out for the brain-washed).  They can function, so far as they can be said to function intellectually at all, only within a given frame of reference. They are incapable of handling questioning of the frame of reference.  Indeed they are the brightest stars in the University's firmament. Mind is evident in the world.  Religious freaks call it the work of the devil and commie freaks call it insanity.  And by the Triple-Breasted Whore of Eroticon Six you can tell when it’s not there.  Just because you don’t have a mind, Doctor, it doesn’t mean no-one else does.
 
HARD WIRING
​Nothing can eliminate the hard-wiring, the instinct of the little hairless ape to be ruled by fear, to surrender to a larger baboon beating its chest: the primate pecking order.  The ape brain does not require speech and reason, only obedience and submission.
 
But the little hairless ape is also a heart and a mind, the little hairless ape is free to over-ride the hard-wiring; it is also human.  It can be set free to be human.  Being human can be protected and upheld.  The little hairless ape can make reason mainstream in its societies, as did the Ancient Greeks.  The little hairless ape can be insufficiently terrorized and continue to function independently, deem the dicta of the head monkey irrational ravings, deem criminal and vile the simple homely custom of the head monkey of torturing or murdering any who challenge it, insist on equality of rights, insist it has an equal right to its own views and an equal right to utter them; demand the head monkey deploy language and reason, not merely its club, and give rational justification for its conduct. 
 
Or of course it can be outlawed, defined as insanity or evil.  Thus Stalinism, thus Catholicism, thus Islam, All three fundamentally equally foetid death-cults of obedience enthusiastically injected into mainstream England with the intent of course of poisoning it by the so-called Labour Party.
Welcome, therefore, to the Website displaying the cream of London medicine.
I have sunbathed topless on the shores of Lake Geneva and I have never been troubled by that peculiar psychosis, hatred and fear of the body, known as modesty.  If you have a problem with skin, you have a problem being alive; the Death-Eaters of course have major problems with being alive.  Vanity is something else.  Ah vanitas vanitatum.  Like anyone with a reasonable amount of nous, I can clothe my mutilated body and do my hair and look tolerable.  The basic product is pretty awful.  Never think I am not prepared to strip, on camera, in court, wherever, to show exactly what the filth who now rule England have done to me and of course how they all sat back and peacefully watched it happen.

All those years in Medical School being told he shares 98% of his DNA with the chimpanzee have taken their toll on Doc Hollowhead.  Knowing a little about chimps, he now thinks he knows everything about human beings.  Fruit-flies are best, of course.  Fruit-flies are a sure-fire guide.  He looked around anxiously.  Fruit-flies were reassuring, but alas there were none to be seen. He therefore behaves like an ape.  A bigger monkey has beaten his chest.  Bigger monkey = power.  Power = can hurt little monkey.  Little monkey fwightened.  Fear shuts down human mind.  Being also human little monkey hastily attributes probity, rationality, goodness to bigger monkey.  Bigger monkey can't possibly be lying or otherwise talking out of his arse.  No need for debate.  No need to check facts.  What most people recognize about authority, namely its capacity to talk out of its arse, is lost on Doc who of course knows everything about human beings, being conversant with the DNA of the chimp. 
There came the Enlightenment.  What bloody garbage is this? they cried.  Authority is a fellow-human.  He may be right.  He may be wrong.  Fact and reason are the determinants. If he or she desires to exert force over you, he or she must give valid reason.

They are filthy because they are literally animal.  The pressing reason for kicking Medicine out of the University is the abolition of mind.  If you do not believe mind exists it is remarkably hard to see what purpose you serve in an institution dedicated to training it.  I want them out, Vice-Chancellor.  They're tumour.  Yes, I know they have a couple of alphabets after their names.  They're still not fit for the company of rational life. 
 
We are being taken into Never-Never-Land where the most basic facts of political and intellectual history are ignored as though they never were: 'defamation' and derision of religion have been standard form for some 300 years from the Enlightenment through to Marx, Darwin and the counter-culture, and are the root of the free world. ‘They eat and drink, shit and piss their god,’ observed Voltaire (‘chient et pissent leur Dieu’, Dictionnaire philosophique: Transubstantiation, 1769) ‘Spiritual booze‘, ‘mediaeval mildew‘, opined Lenin (Socialism and Religion, 1905). People have not hesitated to say what they think, not what others have instructed them it is permissible to think and so established the foundations of the modern world, of science, of medicine, and of gender equality.
 
The hostility the Enlightenment evokes in certain orthodox religious is due to their loss of power. Instead of the self-appointed representatives of God set on high above us all to dictate what we may think, what we may do, how we may be, we became equal in rights. Power was transferred to the governed who gave power to the governing, who are equals, fellow, fallible human beings  accountable for how they exercise the power given them and can be dislodged and dismissed if they abuse it.

I own me. Who else can? Slavery has been abolished. I decide what I read. I decide what I think about it. I decide what I say or write, as I decide what I wear and with whom I shall make love.


The notion it is given people are in some sense property, tools of a greater purpose, whether God’s will or the demand of the State (in both cases of course what equally fallible fellow-humans have decided is God's will or the demand of the State) appears to be  gospel for something like 95% of the current 'Left'. Soviet Marxism adopted it lock, stock and barrel. To insist on being oneself not a creature of the will of others, thinking only what one’s masters permit, is evil/insanity. The wannabe overlord has a stock vocabulary - wilful, insolent, impudent, rebellious all terms which simply mean resistant to the wilful, insolent and impudent, if not rebellious, attempting to impose its will not only on other people but on reality itself, to define the mental world of all who surround it, to create a false reality and call it Truth.
 
Revealed religion is corrupt at core.   They got these books, see, what contain Troof and what is good and everything has to evaluated in relation to this bloody blooks of theirs, and anything contrary is lies and evil
 
The issue is not complex.  The vermin of religion want us forced by law to pretend to be mentally damaged, have no normal rational processes.
 
And the vermin of politicians fall over themselves to agree how evil and insensitive we all are to have normal minds.
 
To have a hold on reality and not live in a fantasy society in a fantasy world full of fantasy people in a fantasy universe is to be criminal. 
 
The insolent evil of politicians and clergy who should hold the line and instead have beaten it down, pretended it never was, seeded, cultivated, made commonplace the monstrous lie that it is unthinkable to offend religion should not be underestimated.
 
Instead of stating clearly and plainly that in roughly 40 years of war and revolution from the Boston Tea Party to the Battle of Waterloo the free world was born, they pretend none of it happened.  They prey on ignorance
 
Some people might think they should hang but that might distress other people and it would be vastly more productive to simply publicize how much they’re being paid – and to make a laughing stock of so-called Marxists, those who read PPE and others necessarily familiar with the works of Marx, K et al who cannot even as they whinge about the Tories claim ignorance of the comprehensive execution of religion as a tool of capital and a nice little earner in itself and of course as one of the popes so kindly delineated a tool of social control.   Let no-one claim the Church was reticent about the cunts they were
 
Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. justice  therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness--namely, to treat the  various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them
promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one  religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone  is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic
States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This  religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they  would provide--as they should do--with prudence and usefulness for the good of
the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found  in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his  everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be  disregarded.

22. All this, however, We have explained more fully elsewhere. We now only wish to add the remark that liberty of so false a nature is greatly hurtful to the true liberty of both rulers and their subjects. Religion, of its essence, is wonderfully helpful to the State. For, since it derives the prime origin of all  power directly from God Himself, with grave authority it charges rulers to be  mindful of their duty, to govern without injustice or severity, to rule their
people kindly and with almost paternal charity; it admonishes subjects to be  obedient to lawful authority, as to the ministers of God; and it binds them to  their rulers, not merely by obedience, but by reverence and affection,
forbidding all seditions and venturesome enterprises calculated to disturb  public order and tranquillity, and cause greater restrictions to be put upon the  liberty of the people. We need not mention how greatly religion conduces to pure  morals, and pure morals to liberty. Reason shows, and history confirms the fact, that the higher the morality of States, the greater are the liberty and wealth  and power which they enjoy.

 23. We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be  not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true  liberty. For right is a moral power which--as We have before said and must again  and again repeat--it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently  to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but Iying opinions,  than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and  moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State. The excesses of an unbridled intellect,  which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less
rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the  greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with  great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially  such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be  granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and  truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of  the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by  darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint. In  regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man's free  discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right  of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often  to discover it and make it known.

 Libertas, Leo XIII, 1888
 
And as indicated by the pure fascism of the Catechism still are.
 
One more time, why not.  This is raw fascism
  Shall we just have all this again? 
CHAPTER THREE
MAN'S RESPONSE TO GOD
142 By his Revelation, "the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company."1 The adequate response to this invitation is faith.
143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith".3
I. The Obedience of Faith
144 To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to "hear or listen to") in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself. Abraham is the model of such obedience offered us by Sacred Scripture. the Virgin Mary is its most perfect embodiment.
Catechism
 
"The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him
Catechism of the Catholic Church

Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
What is it, Blair?  Come on, what is it?  Rees-Mogg, Duncan Smith, Fitzalan-Howard, come on, come on, what is it?  It’s a blueprint for fascism.  It is everything at which the free world howled in outrage when represented by Hitler, Stalin, the cadres of North Korea.  Where the fuck do you dirty apes think the Nazis got it from?  This is an insolently fascist, insolently sexist, insolently homophobic institution which is raving mad because it believes it has Truth.  It has no place whatever in modern England. 
Fascism, insolent evident fascism right down to the hive mind called The Good. If you are a secular fascist, you are a pariah.  If you are a religious fascist, it is offence to offend you and an offence to discriminate against you.  Is there any politician so completely stupid that he or she does not think people have noticed that, that there is one law for the ‘devout’ and one for the rest of us, that we’re all supposed to be outraged not at fascism, not at evil, but at the fascist and evil being offended.
 
All at the behest of adherents of what are by definition religions of the psychopathic, the mentally sick, who both assume they dictate the opinions of others and assume others are their property, their slaves, assume the right to punish us for rejecting and deriding that for which there is no evidence whatever, that which exists solely between their ears. 
 
Any prosecutions are offences against law, reason, sanity. 
“I refer this court to the work of Paine, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Diderot, Marx, Engels, Lenin, to the Constitution the United States of America, to Dave Allen at Large, to Monty Python’s Flying Circus, to the musical Hair, to the lyrics of John Lennon, etc.” Nothing major, then.  It is all so grotesquely, obscenely, absurd.
 
The issue is that they are grotesquely mentally sick, psychopathic, assume they can dribble whatever mad filth they want and no-one has any comeback.
 
The issue is we must all be forced to take seriously loony drivel, be respectful of it, as though it were propositions rational people must take seriously.
 
What happens when we are forbidden to dismiss mad evil drivel as mad evil drivel, to ignore it, when we are forced to be mindful of the opinions of psychiatric cases.
 
What happens when we are rendered defenceless, especially if we are women, because of course all it’s about is rendering the free world unfree and defenceless.
 
What they want to happen is we’ll all get dolled up in the Darth Vader kit.  What will happen is anyone who tries to force an Englishwoman into that sick garment will get his throat cut. 
 
Thus at UCH all the sick animals, the damaged goods, the psychopaths understand that I  have offended the Great Penis in the Sky who has such an out on normal intellectually, emotionally, sexually and physically autonomous women and so of course I was physically punished.

All your ‘professors’, Vice-Chancellor, sexually diseased animals who think ultimate evil lies in having had a sex life, nipples discernible under my tshirt and of course going hiking.  A physically independent woman is anathema, not least of course because she is not defenceless, a woman should waddle around, overweight, in a garment that impedes her sight, movement, hearing and speech or at least be demure, modest and silent.  Thus cunt bitch whores like
Yong and D’Sa think it their duty to punish me, filthy slags begging to please their filthy masters and of course Blair gave these vermin a free hand with my body to strip me of health, strip me of mobility, that particular obscenity, the dirt-monkey who closeted himself with the agent of hostile fascist foreign powers Sacranie and Murphy O’Connor to work out how best to destroy the free world while he was having me crippled should hang. I think the reptiles Yong, Khwaja and Ardeshna are too cold to be religious nut-jobs: commie whores, who ghave doubtless got the ape drool about bourgeois morality off pat, in it up to their necks with McDonnell, Abbott, Corbyn and of course Black, butchers, psychopaths, cowards are to be protected and preserved, cooed over, assured it’s fine to be vermin,  What is evident is they all want the destruction of the free world, of reason, democracy, the University.  In their world the power of incontinent impotent psychopaths rules supreme.  There is no be no question of power being held accountable, no question of people being equal in rights, no question of liars and cowards forced to speak in the open, no question of liars being confronted with fact, the irrational being confronted with reason, no question of over-riding or ignoring criminal vermin, or in other words creatures  like them.  Of course psychopathic butchering animals must be free to butcher and destroy anyone who offends them. Of course no intellectual and moral standards should be imposed on them.  Of course illiterate IQ nothing  ineducable boneheads have the best degrees.  Well, I mean, Professor Yong and Professor Khwaja say so, so that’s that, innit.  No minimum standards of behaviour are to be required.  Do I not understand. 

Oh, I understand all right, you dirty smelly filth, you sick cunts.  Offal.  No rules, right, vermin, scum, dirt sickies.  Two can play at that game, animals  Not quite how you dirty vermin see it, is it. in your world, everyone fucking kneels and crawls to you, is eversa respectful of filthy butchering murdering despicable vermin, fat smelly old criminals like Boden and  Naylor.  Ain’t the filthy slave apes, the dirty disgusting subhuman submissives got such respect for the smelly monkeys with the biggest clubs.   Of course they can’t speak or reason.