I now lie in bed nursing an injured foot. I can get around but on crutches. At the last rugby match against ____, I felt a sharp pain on my right foot during a scrum. I must have twisted my foot or some fat bloke must have stepped on it. Everyone felt that the other team must have sent older boys to the match but we are a sport and won't say anything. The pain made it impossible for me to walk normally and I had to be helped out of the pitch.
There was a clear swelling on my right foot and Coach said it was a broken metatarsal. Sure enough the x-ray pictures confirmed that it was a fractured metatarsal. My foot was wrapped up and immobilised in a cast and I've since been moving around on crutches. My Mum sent a nurse to look after me but I sent her away. I can manage on my own quite well; it's a minor injury that we knights are used to. It's not like I'm dying of cancer or something.
My only worry is I'll look a sight on stage. There's a concert and I'm the solo clarinettist. I'll be playing just a movement of a concerto but an ENTIRE quintet. Baermann's with 3 movements. Someone said I'd be the first person to perform on stage with the toes exposed. He meant performers who play classical music. I'm sure rock stars and dancers have exposed more than their toes!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Knight of Truth Banished from Atheists' Lair
The beamishboy has been banished.
As some of you know, particularly my classmates to whom I've shown the various posts I have placed in an atheist forum, I went to an atheist site a couple of months ago and I posted in various places a defence of religion.
The tide of opposition against me was phenomenal.
1. Everyone dismissed my arguments rudely and without giving counter arguments.
2. Some went into obscenities when abusing me and my parents were targeted.
3. The moderators started out by telling me that I could not post anything with colours and different fonts. I complied with that.
4. Because I complied with (3) above, the moderators could not do anything against me. Nonetheless they conspired and pulled out all my posts and dumped them in an obscure part of the forum and placed a highly objectionable and obscene word in the title of the thread.
5. The moderators stopped me from posting anywhere or answering the points raised by atheists. Any post of mine would automatically be sent to that obscure part of the forum.
Why did the atheists in the forum do all this?
It should be noted from the start that they knew my arguments were sound and mature. Everyone thought I was a grown-up. They were SURE I was an adult from THE INCISIVENESS AND MATURITY of my posts. They said so themselves. But they didn't want to admit to themselves that atheism was wrong. Since they have already accepted that I was right and had to be silenced, it's either I'm silenced or they have to believe in God. They have to avoid God at all costs. That's the obstinacy of corporate atheism.
They wanted me out because I managed to go for the jugular in the usual theist v atheist argument. They wanted me to argue like a fundamentalist and because I didn't, they insisted I was not a Christian. This was despite having told them that I was an altar boy and a choir boy (until late last year when my voice broke) and recently made thurifer in the Church of England.
I've come to this inescapable conclusion - atheism is very much a religion and atheists need a great deal of faith to continue in their non-belief. They defend atheism fiercely and more violently than any Christian might however fundamentalist he might be. This is because an atheist has no real code of ethics. They are answerable to no higher order and they can be highly abusive and unscrupulous in their battle against Christians and other theists.
Atheists in America are always crying foul murder and always claiming that they are persecuted. I read somewhere that atheists are the least trusted people in America. I used to think that fundamentalists were nasty to atheists from what I've been reading in atheistic circles but I understand better now. Christians have every reason to fear atheists - they will do ANYTHING to get what they want and if they want to protect their flock of atheists from roaming into the dreaded realm of religion, they will do anything to stub out religion.
You see, it's so tough for an atheist to remain an atheist. Their humanity is crying out for a belief in God but they persistently refuse to pay heed to their biological needs. Couple that with the total absence of any code of ethics and morality and you have an android with no conscience and no sense of guilt.
I used to do battle against fundamentalists who don't accept evolution, etc. But as St Paul says, ours is not a battle against flesh and blood. We are up against powers and principalities and these are the bane of atheism.
I am not saying all atheists have an agenda against religion. No, there are many good atheists. A person who genuinely doesn't believe in God can be a good person too. But it's when they decide to follow a group (this can be in an organisation or any group) when they have a clear anti-Christ agenda. That's when they are quite fearsome because they aren't bound by any concept of fairplay or morality. Like an army of ants, they will demolish anything, be it tradition, culture, religion and morality. They are formidable because there is no conscience to restrain them.
May God turn the hearts of atheists so that they can live meaningful lives and be trustworthy and accepted in the community.
EDIT: They even encouraged one another to use my email address in dating sites and gay sites even though they knew I'm underage. But the beamishboy welcomes spam cos I can get rid of them so easily. It takes more time for them to register my email in dating and gay sites. It's hilarious. One of the sites asked me to confirm that the "94" in my email was not my year of birth. I wanted to ask him what he thought it was, my age? Hehe.
As some of you know, particularly my classmates to whom I've shown the various posts I have placed in an atheist forum, I went to an atheist site a couple of months ago and I posted in various places a defence of religion.
The tide of opposition against me was phenomenal.
1. Everyone dismissed my arguments rudely and without giving counter arguments.
2. Some went into obscenities when abusing me and my parents were targeted.
3. The moderators started out by telling me that I could not post anything with colours and different fonts. I complied with that.
4. Because I complied with (3) above, the moderators could not do anything against me. Nonetheless they conspired and pulled out all my posts and dumped them in an obscure part of the forum and placed a highly objectionable and obscene word in the title of the thread.
5. The moderators stopped me from posting anywhere or answering the points raised by atheists. Any post of mine would automatically be sent to that obscure part of the forum.
Why did the atheists in the forum do all this?
It should be noted from the start that they knew my arguments were sound and mature. Everyone thought I was a grown-up. They were SURE I was an adult from THE INCISIVENESS AND MATURITY of my posts. They said so themselves. But they didn't want to admit to themselves that atheism was wrong. Since they have already accepted that I was right and had to be silenced, it's either I'm silenced or they have to believe in God. They have to avoid God at all costs. That's the obstinacy of corporate atheism.
They wanted me out because I managed to go for the jugular in the usual theist v atheist argument. They wanted me to argue like a fundamentalist and because I didn't, they insisted I was not a Christian. This was despite having told them that I was an altar boy and a choir boy (until late last year when my voice broke) and recently made thurifer in the Church of England.
I've come to this inescapable conclusion - atheism is very much a religion and atheists need a great deal of faith to continue in their non-belief. They defend atheism fiercely and more violently than any Christian might however fundamentalist he might be. This is because an atheist has no real code of ethics. They are answerable to no higher order and they can be highly abusive and unscrupulous in their battle against Christians and other theists.
Atheists in America are always crying foul murder and always claiming that they are persecuted. I read somewhere that atheists are the least trusted people in America. I used to think that fundamentalists were nasty to atheists from what I've been reading in atheistic circles but I understand better now. Christians have every reason to fear atheists - they will do ANYTHING to get what they want and if they want to protect their flock of atheists from roaming into the dreaded realm of religion, they will do anything to stub out religion.
You see, it's so tough for an atheist to remain an atheist. Their humanity is crying out for a belief in God but they persistently refuse to pay heed to their biological needs. Couple that with the total absence of any code of ethics and morality and you have an android with no conscience and no sense of guilt.
I used to do battle against fundamentalists who don't accept evolution, etc. But as St Paul says, ours is not a battle against flesh and blood. We are up against powers and principalities and these are the bane of atheism.
I am not saying all atheists have an agenda against religion. No, there are many good atheists. A person who genuinely doesn't believe in God can be a good person too. But it's when they decide to follow a group (this can be in an organisation or any group) when they have a clear anti-Christ agenda. That's when they are quite fearsome because they aren't bound by any concept of fairplay or morality. Like an army of ants, they will demolish anything, be it tradition, culture, religion and morality. They are formidable because there is no conscience to restrain them.
May God turn the hearts of atheists so that they can live meaningful lives and be trustworthy and accepted in the community.
EDIT: They even encouraged one another to use my email address in dating sites and gay sites even though they knew I'm underage. But the beamishboy welcomes spam cos I can get rid of them so easily. It takes more time for them to register my email in dating and gay sites. It's hilarious. One of the sites asked me to confirm that the "94" in my email was not my year of birth. I wanted to ask him what he thought it was, my age? Hehe.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
THE SCOURGE OF ATHEISTS
Howdy folksies and blokesies!!!!!
I recently went into an atheist forum and I argued so well that I upset a whole lot of atheists so much so that I have been officially branded "THE SCOURGE OF ATHEISTS" by the World Council of Atheists. The Atheistic Archbishop of Babylon has issued a ruling that all atheists should not engage the beamishboy in an argument. I have been declared ANATHEMA by the Atheistic Archbishop.
I recently went into an atheist forum and I argued so well that I upset a whole lot of atheists so much so that I have been officially branded "THE SCOURGE OF ATHEISTS" by the World Council of Atheists. The Atheistic Archbishop of Babylon has issued a ruling that all atheists should not engage the beamishboy in an argument. I have been declared ANATHEMA by the Atheistic Archbishop.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Beamishboy the Conqueror and the Conquest of Germany
Folksies and blokesies!!!
The beamishboy recently invaded Germany and remained there until a few days ago. Anyway, this entry is mainly for the benefit of a friend of mine who's an architect (no, no, no, not a student who aspires to be an architect but a highly renowned architect of advanced years!!!) who will no doubt take a deep interest in the architecture of the following buildings.
This is a night pic taken of the Dom at Romer in Frankfurt. The spire is undergoing serious restoration work, as can be seen on one side of it.
This is a view taken from the top of the tower of the cathedral in Nordlingen. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this town was filmed also from an aerial view. That was the part when everyone went in the lift that zoomed out of earth - I don't quite remember the story now; it's been such a long time since I last took any interest in Roald Dahl.
This is a pic Lonely Planet might wish to buy from me. It's possibly the best photograph I took in my entire holiday. It's the Rathaus (not a house for rats but a town hall) in Bamberg. The bridge divides the town into the ecclesiastical part of town (on the left) and the secular part of town (on the right). The town hall was placed in the centre to show impartiality.
The beamishboy recently invaded Germany and remained there until a few days ago. Anyway, this entry is mainly for the benefit of a friend of mine who's an architect (no, no, no, not a student who aspires to be an architect but a highly renowned architect of advanced years!!!) who will no doubt take a deep interest in the architecture of the following buildings.
This is a night pic taken of the Dom at Romer in Frankfurt. The spire is undergoing serious restoration work, as can be seen on one side of it.
This is a view taken from the top of the tower of the cathedral in Nordlingen. In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this town was filmed also from an aerial view. That was the part when everyone went in the lift that zoomed out of earth - I don't quite remember the story now; it's been such a long time since I last took any interest in Roald Dahl.
This is a pic Lonely Planet might wish to buy from me. It's possibly the best photograph I took in my entire holiday. It's the Rathaus (not a house for rats but a town hall) in Bamberg. The bridge divides the town into the ecclesiastical part of town (on the left) and the secular part of town (on the right). The town hall was placed in the centre to show impartiality.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
THE SENTENCING OF THE BEAMISHBOY
The earthly powers have met and the fate of the beamishboy has been decided. The beamishboy will be allowed non-school related internet access of no more than an hour a day. That includes emails, chats, surfing and forums. That's not very much time!!! But the beamishboy will soldier on.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
POPE OBSTRUCTED SEX ABUSE INQUIRIES
This link made me very sad: CLICK HERE
How could he have done it? And he's now the Pope. I've obtained a copy of his letter from this site: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf and I've obtained a copy of the Order from Vatican from CBS News website which was referred by an RC website. It's 40 pages long but the beamishboy has soldiered on and what I've read is not good at all. It deals with the procedure when there is sexual abuse by priests of people including children.
A 2001 letter (click here) talks about the need to review the 1962 procedure. But as matters stand there has been no review and this has been like 7 years? So the procedure in 1962 still stands.
All I can say is I'll never be a Roman Catholic even if I agree with its theology which I don't in the first place.
Here's a summary of the beamishboy's summary of the current position in the RC church (until some review has been made) in handling sex abuse cases involving priests and even where it involves minors. I have included paragraph numbers so you can check for yourself.
Paragraph 4 allows for the guilty to be transferred to another assignment.
Paragraph 11 deals with the strictest secrecy in which the entire investigations and proceedings must be sealed under. It must be regarded the secret of the Holy Office. There's a lot of stress on the secrecy in this paragraph. It also states that everyone must observe the strictest secrecy "under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae". It repeats the secrecy many times and the penalty or censure.
Paragraph 13 requires the oath of keeping the secret from "the accusers or those denouncing the priest and the witnesses". So, even the victim is required to take the oath of secrecy on pain of excommunication.
Paragraph 18 places a duty on the victim to inform his confessor of the act within one month and if he fails to do so, he "falls into an excommunication reserved latae sententiae.."
Paragraph 35 talks about the need of two witnesses who know both the victim and the priest. If they cannot find two such witnesses, they will have to investigate elsewhere "as to whether hatred, enmity or any other human disaffection against the denunciated priest was the case". You see what line the pope is taking?
Paragraph 42 (a) "If it is evident that the denunciation totally lacks a foundation, he (the Ordinary) should order this to be declared in the Acts, and the documents of the accusation should be destroyed."
Paragraph 44 allows the Ordinary to decide whether to proceed with other accusations from other victims against the same priest or just to act on the one accusation. This the Ordinary can do according to his own choice and conscience.
Paragraph 52 deals with the accused priest before a Judge within the church. Note that everything from the investigation to the judgment and sentence is entirely an internal church affair governed by strict rules of secrecy. Paragraph 52 says that "in every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth."
Paragraph 70 states that secrecy is vitally important. Not observing it "obliges under serious sin (sub gravi).
Paragraphs 71 and 73 defines "the worst crime" as homosexual abuse by a priest and any sort of sexual abuse involving youths.
Appendix 27 on page 25 gives the format of the Oath to be taken even by the victim to ensure secrecy. Are children exempted from taking this Oath? No, according to the Appendix. They must still take the Oath that includes excommunication latae sententiae ipso facto (whatever that means). Nobody can exempt anyone from taking the Oath except by the Supreme Pontiff.
There is a huge section on how the victim is interrogated on his or her personal lifestyle but the beamishboy is too tired to go on.
How could he have done it? And he's now the Pope. I've obtained a copy of his letter from this site: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf and I've obtained a copy of the Order from Vatican from CBS News website which was referred by an RC website. It's 40 pages long but the beamishboy has soldiered on and what I've read is not good at all. It deals with the procedure when there is sexual abuse by priests of people including children.
A 2001 letter (click here) talks about the need to review the 1962 procedure. But as matters stand there has been no review and this has been like 7 years? So the procedure in 1962 still stands.
All I can say is I'll never be a Roman Catholic even if I agree with its theology which I don't in the first place.
Here's a summary of the beamishboy's summary of the current position in the RC church (until some review has been made) in handling sex abuse cases involving priests and even where it involves minors. I have included paragraph numbers so you can check for yourself.
Paragraph 4 allows for the guilty to be transferred to another assignment.
Paragraph 11 deals with the strictest secrecy in which the entire investigations and proceedings must be sealed under. It must be regarded the secret of the Holy Office. There's a lot of stress on the secrecy in this paragraph. It also states that everyone must observe the strictest secrecy "under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae". It repeats the secrecy many times and the penalty or censure.
Paragraph 13 requires the oath of keeping the secret from "the accusers or those denouncing the priest and the witnesses". So, even the victim is required to take the oath of secrecy on pain of excommunication.
Paragraph 18 places a duty on the victim to inform his confessor of the act within one month and if he fails to do so, he "falls into an excommunication reserved latae sententiae.."
Paragraph 35 talks about the need of two witnesses who know both the victim and the priest. If they cannot find two such witnesses, they will have to investigate elsewhere "as to whether hatred, enmity or any other human disaffection against the denunciated priest was the case". You see what line the pope is taking?
Paragraph 42 (a) "If it is evident that the denunciation totally lacks a foundation, he (the Ordinary) should order this to be declared in the Acts, and the documents of the accusation should be destroyed."
Paragraph 44 allows the Ordinary to decide whether to proceed with other accusations from other victims against the same priest or just to act on the one accusation. This the Ordinary can do according to his own choice and conscience.
Paragraph 52 deals with the accused priest before a Judge within the church. Note that everything from the investigation to the judgment and sentence is entirely an internal church affair governed by strict rules of secrecy. Paragraph 52 says that "in every way the judge is to remember that it is never right for him to bind the accused by an oath to tell the truth."
Paragraph 70 states that secrecy is vitally important. Not observing it "obliges under serious sin (sub gravi).
Paragraphs 71 and 73 defines "the worst crime" as homosexual abuse by a priest and any sort of sexual abuse involving youths.
Appendix 27 on page 25 gives the format of the Oath to be taken even by the victim to ensure secrecy. Are children exempted from taking this Oath? No, according to the Appendix. They must still take the Oath that includes excommunication latae sententiae ipso facto (whatever that means). Nobody can exempt anyone from taking the Oath except by the Supreme Pontiff.
There is a huge section on how the victim is interrogated on his or her personal lifestyle but the beamishboy is too tired to go on.
Monday, September 22, 2008
A DAY OF MOURNING
The beamishboy has suffered a cruel blow of fate. A minor indiscretion was all it took. I was caught accessing internet in school when I should be in class. The matter was blown out of proportion. Parents were informed. Suspicion of addiction. The usual fake concern by adults for the poor little thing. He needs counselling. Internet addiction is so common among the young. He needs to have restricted access into the internet. Parents are more than eager to cooperate. J has been informed and he will enforce whatever my parents decide. J is a good chap but don't forget, he's a very old man and he won't turn a blind eye.
My parents will draw a timetable for me. J will enforce it. The life as I know it is over.
My parents will draw a timetable for me. J will enforce it. The life as I know it is over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)