LORDS COULD VOTE DOWN MARRIAGE BILL ON 3 JUNE

Just had the following email come through from Colin Hart – Coalition for Marriage.

 

Dear marriage supporter,

Lord Dear, an independent cross-bench Peer and respected former police Chief Constable, will lead a vote against the Government’s same-sex marriage Bill at Second Reading in the House of Lords on Monday 3 June.

If he wins, the Bill will be defeated outright. It will be a decisive blow for the Government’s undemocratic plans to redefine marriage. But don’t worry if Lord Dear doesn’t achieve a majority. There will still be other opportunities to defeat the Government at later stages in the Lords.

Opposition to the Bill is growing. Last night on BBC Question Time, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the plans to redefine marriage had “upset vast numbers of people” and generated a “real sense of anger” among voters.

He said: “I have just never felt that this is what we should be focusing on. This change does redefine marriage. For millions and millions of people who are married, the meaning of marriage changes. There is a real sense of anger among many people who are married that any government thinks it has the ability to change the definition of an institution like marriage.”

WATCH the video

The Government is in disarray. Today they’ve announced another U-turn on the Bill. They will hold a review to decide whether heterosexual couples should be allowed to opt for a civil partnership rather than marriage. That would cost the nation between £3bn and £4bn in public service pensions alone.

We’ve been right all along. This Bill is about unravelling the place of marriage in our society, regardless of the social or financial cost. While the rest of us struggle to pay our bills, the political elite are unpicking marriage rather than sorting out the economy.

That’s why the Lords vote on Monday 3 June is a big day for the nation and for our campaign.

Before the Bill gets to the Lords, MPs in the House of Commons get the chance to vote on amendments to the Bill on Monday and Tuesday. At the end of Tuesday’s debate they’ll have a chance to vote once more on the Bill as a whole at Third Reading. We will keep you posted with the latest news.

We are shifting the debate, and we believe it is possible to win in the Lords. So let’s keep going. Together we can keep the real meaning of marriage.

 

Read Full Post »

BBC Question Time – 16/05/2013

Question Time (TV series) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I started watching ‘Question Time’ last evening but fortunately fell asleep only to come round in time for a question on changing the definition of marriage. I wonder why I watch this program sometimes, but I do as a way to stay try to be ‘informed’.

There used to be a transcript of the program so this is just from memory. The question was: an online petition has been signed by 650,000 (approx) people, is it time for the government to have a re-think? My brief answer – not a chance. The only thing that will make a government or MP re-think is if they think it will gain them votes. In other words, they want to keep their job.

Question Time is a good name because Answer Time it ain’t! Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond MP gave a sort of answer saying he had voted against it but expected the bill to be passed. Shadow Immigration Minister, Chris Bryant MP got quite emotional at one point as openly Homosexual.

Not one of the panel answered the question – well I suppose they did. The answer was no. What they didn’t do was give any rationale for it. Basically, nice people let other people do anything they like because it makes them happy. Oh, and it’s what the people want. Funny how the people want a Referendum on the EU, the people, I believe, would like to see the return of the death penalty – don’t see any sign of ‘the people’ getting those. But because homosexuals want to re-define marriage, suddenly it’s because the people want it.

It’s those nasty intolerant bigoted Christians that believe the Bible – that’s the real problem. And so it was left to the questioner to have his say. Once he started to speak, it was clear he was a Christian – man, did the heat turn up in that place or what!. The poor bloke ended up nearly shouting to get a hearing.

The bill is to be voted on next week I think. So we can look forward to any combination coming together in ‘marriage’. Except it won’t be marriage. Marriage was given by God. So here we see probably the clearest act of autonomy and rebellion towards God. The basic building block of society given by God is rejected. We ought to expect a perversion of what God has graciously given. The Bill will probably go through – whether this is (further) evidence that God is handing us over as a Nation is up for discussion. But a scary prospect all the same. Let’s pray Parliament will come to their senses and vote it out.

Related articles

• Hammond: ‘Sense of anger’ over gay marriages (itv.com)
• No huge demand for gay marriage, says Philip Hammond (guardian.co.uk)
• ‘No great demand for gay marriage’ (belfasttelegraph.co.uk)

Read Full Post »

The Crusades – God’s Battalions

I’m working my way steadily through God’s Battalion’s by Rodney Stark. The sub-title of the book is ‘The Case For The Crusades’. If you were to look for a sub-text however, there isn’t one because he lays out his aim early in the book. So we read:

To sum up the prevailing wisdom: during the Crusades, an expansionist, imperialistic Christendom brutalised, looted, and colonised a tolerant and peaceful Islam. (p. 8.)

Not so. As will be seen, the Crusades were precipitated by Islamic provocations: by centuries of bloody attempts to colonise the West and by sudden new attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy places.

The whole book then is written to redress centuries of Western condemnation. Often, the Crusades are wheeled out to justify Islamic aggression. It isn’t always presented as starkly as that but that’s clearly the meaning.

It’s a book many will not like. In order to placate political correctness I’m left wondering just how much historic revisionism has and is taking place in order to accommodate Islamic teaching.

Later in the chapter ‘Bloody Victories’ Stark writes (p. 155.) about the taking of Jerusalem.

‘The Muslim forces were overwhelmed, and a massacre began; by the morning of the 16th the city was littered with corpses. (p. 157.)’ This the sort of record that keeps being brought up by Muslims. But Stark writes:

This is the horror story that has been used again and again to vilify the crusaders. Consequently, let us pause here to consider the matter from several perspectives. First of all, it is not only absurd but often quite disingenuous to use this event to “prove” that the crusaders were bloodthirsty barbarians in contrast to the more civilized and tolerant Muslims. Dozens of Muslim massacres of whole cities have been reported in previous chapters, and the crusaders knew of such occurrences. (page 157.)

Basically, several myths, it would seem, have emerged in order to create a false impression of the Crusaders. Stark urges caution when dealing with these events. ‘Granted, it was a cruel and bloody age, but nothing is to be gained either in terms of moral insights or historical comprehension by anachronistically imposing the Geneva Convention on these times.’ (page 158.)

The past, as someone has said, is another country.

I’m enjoying reading this book. I’d recommend it.

Read Full Post »

Marriage Matters – letter to MP

Colin Hart of Coalition for Marriage asked for emails / letters to be sent to MP’s. The following is the email I sent today to my MP. Mark Pawsey is actually supportive of traditional marriage but Politicians sometimes need the encouragement – and the backbone – to stick to their principles. To be fair we all need that, it’s easy to buckle when the pressure is on. Pray for grace to stand firm.

Dear Mr Pawsey,

Suggestions for points to make:

• We’ve already seen equality laws being used against people who express support for traditional marriage.
• Foster carers should not be blacklisted by local councils just because they oppose same-sex marriage.
• Religious groups should not be banned from hiring public venues just because they support traditional marriage.
• The Public Sector Equality Duty should not be used to punish those who support traditional marriage, like teachers or other public sector workers.
• True equality should mean fairness, but these days it means imposing political correctness on people.

I have pasted these in as they seem fairly reasonable and I’d ask you to vote against the bill and support the historical and current meaning of marriage.

Maybe those that want to see a change to the definition of marriage would like to consider coming up with their own definition rather than hi-jacking what has been perfectly acceptable for hundreds of years. It’s a bit like wanting to call a circle a square simply because I want it to be so. I do not agree with their lifestyle choice – and it is a choice – but I accept the provision of legislation that will protect same-sex couples in cases of tax and inheritance in the same way sisters that live together might need protection. But I fail to see why Marriage needs to be re-defined in order to achieve it.

The real reason behind this – it seems to me – is to further undermine the Christian faith. Continuing to undermine the Christian principles our Nation has been [founded] upon can only result in disaster for all of us. It will of course create a new minority – if it doesn’t already exist – of Christians and I can’t see the same paradigm shifts taking place to accommodate them, can you.

Thanks for supporting Marriage in the past, please continue to do so.

Kind Regards,

Read Full Post »

Church on the move

We are moving!

On Sunday we had the last service in the building as it is now. The Church has prayed for a couple of years now about either moving or altering the current building. We are doing the latter, as there seems to be no suitable plot or building available. The reason is we have simply outgrown the current building and our current facilities, to be frank, are pretty useless. Though a fairly small Church by US standards, over here it’s encouraging and a privilege to be part of a growing and thriving Church. A considerable amount of money has been collected to fund the project and this has involved some sacrificial giving in order to achieve the £900,000 approx that’s needed. At the current exchange rate for US readers that’s $1,373,485.97.

We are expecting to be out of the building for about 9 months. During this time we will be meeting at two venues across the city (Coventry). Hillfields Evangelical Church and Durbar Avenue Evangelical Church both offered their buildings for our use over the course of the alterations.

There’s no doubt it will be a challenging time for us all. The morning service(s) will take place at Hillfields with ministry being shared between our two Pastors and two Pastors from Hillfields. The majority of our people will gather at the 9.30 service and the lazy ones – I include students – will meet later at 11:15. From what I understand Hillfields have a different worship style and this could be problematic for some. Having said that, Hillfields are making a considerable sacrifice for the Gospel in order to accommodate us for the next 9 months and this act of fellowship and love in Christ is very much appreciated. Durbar Avenue normally meet in the afternoon and so our evening services will be as normal, albeit in a different location.

I’m hoping to post about our progress and should have some pictures. We have to clear the building, and we’ll be doing this over the next couple of weeks before handing it over to the builders. Part of our building is going to be demolished so I might even manage a bit of video.

To be continued….

 

Read Full Post »

Van Til Lecture

We were treated last evening to a lecture on ‘Cornelius Van Til’ given by Geoff Thomas (Aberystwyth) in his own inimitable way. The lecture wasn’t the cerebral exercise many were expecting but was a warm lecture full of personal anecdotes and challenge by a man who knew personally Dr Van Til and Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones (You’ll get the connection when you listen to the lecture).

We were warned about the scientific method and evidentialism that hands authority over to man. It’s not for man to decide, it’s for man to repent and believe the Gospel. Preachers (and a lot were at the lecture) were encouraged to preach warmly to the conscience of man knowing there is a God and to not preach a Gospel of probability (my take) but of certainly.

Geoff said after that he should have mentioned ‘Paul at Athens’ and ‘Why I Believe in God’, two booklets by Van Til that are more accessible and available for free. Geoff wished Van Til had written more in this style.

Again as Geoff said afterwards, ‘there’s just so much to say and it’s a massive subject’. But everyone I spoke to and all the conversations I overheard were positive and appreciative of the lecture. He recommended the biography, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman by John R. Muether and a newly released book of 9 sermons by Lloyd Jones, ‘Setting Our Affections upon Glory’.

The best recommendation of the lecture I heard came from a lady sitting in front of me when she said, ‘now I understand Van Til’.

For Van Til resources follow link to a previous post.

I’ll post links to the audio as soon as it becomes available.

Read Full Post »

Van Til Lecture

Reblogged from Exercised to Discern:

Some of us have really been looking forward to this final lecture for 2013. So pray for Geoff that he will be enabled to give true credit and explain an apologetic methodology that is as misunderstood as it is caricatured. If you can make it to the lecture be assured of a warm welcome and a cup of tea and a biscuit afterwards.

Read more… 37 more words

Reblogged as a reminder that on Monday Geoff Thomas (Aberystwyth) will be giving a lecture on Cornelius Van Til.

Read Full Post »

One Way Freedom of Speech

Along with thousands of other people I received an email today from Christian Concern about a bus campaign in London. I’d already heard about it though on BBC’s ‘Today’ programme on Radio 4. Basically though, some time ago Stonewall (Homosexual pressure group) ran a bus campaign in London with ‘Some are Gay – Get over it’ on the side and with Stonewall’s name attached to the poster.

Another group are wanting to launch a similar campaign but with ‘Not Gay! Ex Gay, Post-Gay and Proud – Get Over It’ on the side with links to http://www.anglican-mainstream.net & http://www.core-issues.org clearly displayed on the side.

Boris Johnson Conservative party ‘Character in Chief’ all round personality and Mayor of London has other ideas. Consequently,

On Thursday (28 February) the High Court will hear claims that Boris Johnson, Chair of Transport for London denied a Christian group the freedom to express its views on the legitimacy of therapy for those dealing with unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction.

I know that if a homosexual were to call some counselling organisations and ask for help to change from what they believed to be a sinful lifestyle they would find a frosty and hostile reception. And so in the same piece e read:

Any alternative to the homosexual lifestyle is deemed unacceptable and TfL are arguing that Christian hope must be suppressed for the ‘protection of morals’.

Didn’t you know, Free Speech only works one way! I’ll be delighted but staggered if they win the right to have the campaign. They certainly ought to be allowed to have it. If that happens it’ll 3 cheers for common sense and consistency. So,

On Thursday, the Trust will ask Judges to reverse the ban on the basis that the Mayor had unlawfully restricted free speech, and had discriminated against the Trust by stifling one side of the debate on the issue.

Related articles

• Christian group challenges ban on gay poster campaign (telegraph.co.uk)

Read Full Post »

Is this Goodbye to Free Speech?

View of the House of Lords Chamber in the Palace of Westminster, London, looking from the galleries towards the Throne (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The second reading of the Same-Sex Marriage bill was passed a couple of weeks ago but I wrote most of this on the day of the vote but for some reason didn’t post it – so here it is!

Will this vote see the end of Free Speech. It should concern any lover of Democracy, that the freedom to disagree with the Same-Sex legislation will end. I believe it will see the beginning of a Witch-Hunt to find and root out ‘deniers’ of Same-Sex Marriage.

Stonewall and other ideological lobby groups will over time entrap unsuspecting believers (Christians)  into saying something that will force a prosecution. This is already happening. Stonewall, I suggest, will not rest until everyone sees Homosexual & Lesbian practice and therefore Same-Sex Marriage as normal.

I haven’t heard or read (please correct me) about any protection for individuals in the work place or any other place for that matter that disagrees or believes that not only same-sex marriages but homosexuality & lesbianism is sinful according to the Bible. There looks to be only protection for Individual Ministers & Religious Organisations (if it happens) but nothing for the ordinary individual Christian, e.g. in the workplace. Not just Christians, but anyone that agrees with the phrase ”I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (attributed to Voltaire) ought to be concerned. I’ll certainly be writing to my MP (and PM) again about this.

With Martin Luther then we must surely say:

“Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

Where this leaves the Bible in all this will be interesting to see because the Bible teaches the very opposite of what could soon be enshrined in UK Law.

Will the Bible be outlawed? Will some passages of the Bible be outlawed and will those that believe those passages and indeed all the Bible be outlawed?

Where to now? The Bill now passes through to the House of Lords and to further scrutiny by Parliament  There is then – I think – a third reading before it becomes law. The Bill will come under intense critical reading as it moves through the Parliamentary process.  Whether this will be the opportunity to build into legislation protection for those that disagree I can’t say. But to not prosecute ‘deniers’ raises the question about what it was all about in the first place. It seems to me prosecutions will follow.

I do not believe the majority are for this change - but what is more likely to be true is that the majority just can’t be bothered. Apathy.

There is another possible alternative for the Church to think about. Go here to read about it – but basically the Church itself re-defines marriage and calls it Holy Matrimony.

I only heard snippets from the speeches but was struck that some MP’s said or at least implied something like: ‘I don’t believe God would be against same-sex marriage’ or ‘a God of love would not allow same-sex couples in loving relationships to be barred from marriage’ or similar sentiments. But how can anyone presume to speak for God when He has already spoken plainly in His Word the Bible.

Why anyone would want to claim the name of Christian or follower of Jesus and yet completely ignore what He has to say can only be explained by the words of the Apostle Paul as follows:

2 Timothy 3:1-9

1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

2 Timothy 4:3, 8 & 9

New International Version (NIV)
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Read Full Post »

The Bible – Our Presupposition

Oil painting of a young John Calvin. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The following was partly quoted and referenced from John Calvin – full reference below quote. Note: There is no talk of probabilities here. And neither should we.

From John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion

5. Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.73 Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human Judgment, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our Judgment, but we subject our intellect and Judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it—an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge. Hence, God most justly exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he,” (Isa. 43:10).

Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, a knowledge which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons; such in fine, the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce. I say nothing more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far short of the reality. I do not dwell on this subject at present, because we will return to it again: only let us now understand that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. Nay, the modest and teachable reader will find a sufficient reason in the promise contained in Isaiah, that all the children of the renovated Church “shall be taught of the Lord,” (Isaiah 54:13). This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind. For what is the beginning of true doctrine but prompt alacrity to hear the Word of God? And God, by the mouth of Moses, thus demands to be heard: “It is not in heavens that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart,” (Deut. 30:12, 14). God having been pleased to reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children, no wonder that so much ignorance and stupidity is seen in the generality of mankind. In the generality, I include even those specially chosen, until they are ingrafted into the body of the Church. Isaiah, moreover, while reminding us that the prophetical doctrine would prove incredible not only to strangers, but also to the Jews, who were desirous to be thought of the household of God, subjoins the reason, when he asks, “To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1). If at any time, then we are troubled at the small number of those who believe, let us, on the other hand, call to mind, that none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.

John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, I. VII. 5.

Referenced in a Kindle sample of Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. Part One: Presuppositional Apologetics Positively Stated, Chapter 1, God in the Dock, Section: By What Standard.

Well worth reading the sample, and it’s free!

Read Full Post »

Brian Cox demonstrates non-neutral presuppositions

English: Professor Brian cox at Science Foo camp (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There’s quite a spread in this weeks (26th Jan – 1st Feb) Radio Times (Weekly TV & Radio Schedule magazine) on Professor Brian Cox AKA to celebrate his new BBC series ‘Wonders of Life’. A few paragraphs below from the article show how anyone can be blind to their own presuppositions. Brian Cox demonstrates non-neutral presuppositions, and he does it so well it was worth a Blog post all on it’s own.

‘Creationists will almost certainly say his new series is rubbish, but Cox sees little point in even trying to engage with them. “If you don’t accept evidence then there’s no real point in having a discussion. Because what am I going to say? I’m just going to say, ‘Well, first of all, you have to learn to accept evidence.’ I don’t see any issue with religious scientists; I don’t share their view myself, but it’s not logically inconsistent.” The notion that the world was created 6,000 years ago, on the other hand – “that’s just absolute drivel at every level”.

Which are more bonkers, does he think – creationists or astrologists? “In a way, astrology is less annoying, because I see it as part of the entertainment business and therefore it’s not particularly problematic. But the sensible answer is they’re both equally so. It’s the ability to dismiss evidence that I get irritated about, against my better judgment, because I’d rather not. I mean, obviously there are people who think crazy things. But it does annoy me.”

Any letters of complaint from viewers who don’t believe in evolution will “go straight in the bin”. If the rest of us love Wonders of Life, though, he will take almost no personal credit, instead putting his popularity down to the role of public service broadcasting. It’s a positively Reithian argument, of which I’m pretty sure Attenborough himself would approve.’

Once again an Atheist just assumes his own bias is the correct one. Creationists (belief in a Creator) I know that are scientists examine the evidence but come to a different interpretation of that evidence. He just throws out the phrase but it has so much poured into it – as he tries to take the evidential high ground. But the high ground is already occupied by the Creator.

There’s so much wrong with the above paragraphs that it almost impossible to engage with them in the limited time I have available. I mean, unless he can accept his own presuppositions on how he uses and interprets evidence there’s ’little point in even trying to engage with’ him.

For the record I struggle with the age of the earth and do find it difficult to reconcile what is observable with a young earth. I find there are problems with both young and old earth (Creationists) creation accounts. But what I would expect to find is unanimity on the special creation of Adam & Eve and that God did in fact create the ‘Heavens and the Earth’ even though there are differences over the mechanism He used. I would also expect to find agreement with several other Christian doctrines such as The Trinity, The Fall, Jesus, The Resurrection of Jesus, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the reality of Heaven and of Hell, of Final Judgement, of Original Sin and the doctrine of Total Depravity, Justification by Faith Alone and many others. Given this list what does Brian mean by ‘religious’. I’m sure he will not mean any of these. What I suspect he will mean is some fairly insipid wet version, if at all of Christianity that he can easily dismiss and control – which is not Christian at all!

One problem with the article is that we just don’t know how many revisions it has gone through and how much is left of what the good doctor actually said. I do grant this.

And why doesn’t Brian ever say where it all came from. He talks about the wonders of the stars, how we are all made of star-dust but never once have I heard him say where it all came from. How did it all start Brian. I suppose it must have come from nothing and we all know that’s impossible. Given his own materialistic worldview how exactly does he explain the origin of life. If there was a spark where did the spark come from? Where did the primordial soup come from and who is the cook? Atheists can’t answer these questions but instead try to dismiss the God of the bible with a dismissive ‘show me your evidence’.

The Bible has a thing to say about evidence. And it’s found in the New Testament, Chapter 1 of Romans:

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

In other words God has made it EVIDENT. But people choose in their rebellion against God to suppress that evidence. So we bring evidence on the basis of what God has said. And the only comeback from an atheist when boiled right down is ‘I disagree’ I prefer my own opinion. And that’s it. It’s not science in the end no matter how it’s presented. it’s a conflict of worldviews, a conflict of authority.

Related articles

• SUN professor Brian Cox inspires so many to study physics at university where he teaches it’s forced to lift entry requirements (thesun.co.uk)
• Brian Cox interview: stars in his eyes – Telegraph (telegraph.co.uk)

Read Full Post »

Ten Outstanding Pro-Life Articles

Reblogged from Well Spent Journey:

Today is the 40th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision - as good a day as any to pass along some pro-life resources that I've found particularly insightful:

1. Bad Pro-Choice Arguments (Neil Shenvi): Dr. Shenvi debunks a number of popular, yet seriously flawed, pro-choice arguments. Examples include "The unborn is not a human being, it is just a mass of cells" and "We should combat abortion by reducing poverty, not by making it illegal." 

Read more… 719 more words

Some good stuff here from Matt.

Read Full Post »

Embryo Research - Can it be justified?

Reblogged from Exercised to Discern:

• 

I work in a secondary school and was asked to take part in a Philosophy & Media kind of thing for the kids to do with researching Genetic Engineering. The idea was to interview me on camera so they could edit it and use it in the class to discuss these important issues. The topic given to me was Embryo research.

Read more… 1,706 more words

In view of Roe v Wade I thought it worth Reblogging this post.

Read Full Post »

European Union Exit

European Union (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The US commented last week on the UK leaving the European Union. So this is just a brief comment to any American friends that may have wondered what this is – if it registered at all over there.

Look at it this way; how would American friends like all major American decisions to be made in Toronto or in Lima, Peru or some other city on the continent. I don’t think this would go down well. Well being governed by Brussels to a very large extent, and growing, might be a good comparison. Many of us want the promised referendum so we can say ‘no to the EU’ and get back to governing ourselves.

Since starting this post (last week) President Obama has weighed in on the issue and I was pleased to hear a member of the Question Time audience last night talk some sense. That is, get out. There is talk of ‘Drifting towards the exit’ or ‘Sleepwalking towards the exit’ but let’s ‘March towards the exit’.

Not sure we’ll be allowed to though.

Related articles

• US publicly voices concerns over Britain leaving EU (independent.ie)
• Cameron: UK could drift out of EU (bbc.co.uk)
• Ed Miliband fails to rule out EU referendum (telegraph.co.uk)

Read Full Post »

Favourite Bible Verses

Chatting with a friend last night I referred to what I thought was one of the most amazing verses in the Bible. This set me thinking about putting a few thoughts on various bible verses into regular blog posts. So I trust what is planned on being regular snippets will be a blessing.

So to kick of the series my first verse is Revelation 1: 17 & 18 (Yeh, I know, that’s two verses)

Revelation 1:17-18 (ESV)

¹⁷ When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, ¹⁸ and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

I wish I could draw this scene because it illustrates in a really powerful way the love, care & grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here’s the context:

John has been privileged to be given a vision of the Glory of Christ. Here is this mighty, almighty being, ruler of the universe and creator. And John reacts rightly before the Majesty of Jesus by falling down before Him as though dead. Now here’s the thing, and it’s why it’s important to read the Bible carefully and not hurry past passages all the time. It’s why we should think about what some of these verses are saying else we can miss so much.

Jesus touches John. ‘But he laid his right hand on me’ To do that Jesus would have had to stoop down in order to reach John. This is a supreme act of condescension. This is the risen Lord of Glory, maker of heaven and earth leaning down to say ‘Fear not’ to a sinner.

This is the Grace of our Lord. What a Saviour! Such Love, such Grace, such Tenderness. And yet such Glory, such Majesty, such Power. This is Jesus, the God Man, and there is none like Him. Praise God!

Read Full Post »