Is it time to leave marriage?

Is it time to leave marriage? 

Sadly, I’m assuming the same-sex marriage bill will go through eventually. Even if the Lords vote it down. Several thoughts go through the mind on contemplating this terrible decision: by people who largely have their eye on what ‘people’ might think and not on the truth and what God thinks.

I have no way of knowing and certainly no way of proving if it was, or is so – that is, is God handing us over as a Nation to ‘what ought not to be done’? It’s worth thinking about. When society gets what it wants while sticking two fingers up to God little thought is given to the possibility that God is handing us over as judgment. Christians get caught up in this, but it may be an opportunity to ‘come apart and be separate’.

A little while ago I linked to an article that proposed the Church leave marriage to those that want it and begin to rename it Holy Matrimony. This would achieve, it seems to me, separation, at least on this topic and might make a way open to talk about other issues from a Biblical perspective. Holy Matrimony would work because the word ‘Holy’ actually means ‘separate’. If you apply this to the Bible – as I think we should – Holy means ‘separate’, and Bible means ‘book’ or biblion in Greek. So the Holy Bible is a separate book. And indeed it is, there is no other book like it, it is unique among all the books in the world. It’s the only book where God has spoken. That’s its uniqueness – not just that it’s different. It’s set-apart.

I found the following among several ceremony options at Bible.org and thought it encapsulated Holy [bonds of] Matrimony perfectly. The key of course, is that marriage is ordained of God. But to change what God has decreed is nothing new. Adam & Eve wanted to be like God. MP’s want to usurp God and be little god’s – it’s the nature of sin for all of us to rebel and do what we think is right. This is why God has given us a more sure word that we don’t have to wonder what is right because God has made it plain. Changing the institution of marriage is nothing more than open rebellion against God and is what we should expect. The UK has been living off the capital of the Reformation but the coffers are now running out.

A number of prominent Conservatives – including Lord Tebbit and Lord Waddington – also spoke out against the bill but former Tory chairman Lord Fowler said it would be “politically suicidal” to reject a bill that had been approved by MPs

There’s the real reason (source: BBC) as I alluded to earlier: political suicide. Absolutely nothing to do with truth or integrity.

Wedding Ceremony Sample 12

Opening Remarks

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered together here in the presence of God and this company to join (Groom ___________ and (Bride) ___________ in the holy bonds of matrimony. Marriage is an institution ordained of God when man’s estate was that of innocence and supreme happiness. God prepared a perfect home for Adam and placed him in the midst of a beautiful garden rich in earth’s choicest fruits. He gave him blessed employment, free from anxiety and toil, in caring for the garden. At first man was alone, having no human associate and helper. Birds and beasts and all the living creatures of earth could not bring him satisfaction. God is pictured as noting man’s incompleteness and lack of perfect happiness apart from woman. Now follows the beautiful story of the forming of woman from the side of man. Let us not forget the great lessons God would teach by this story. Let us look at the proper relation between husband and wife, “that she was not made out of his head to rule over him; nor out of his feet to be trampled on by him; but out of his side to be equal with him; under his arm to be protected; and near his heart to be beloved.” When God made woman He made her to be man’s helper and companion. “I will make for him a help, as his counter-part,” said God. What nobler mission could woman desire than this? God’s thought about marriage is the union of one man and one woman in perpetual wedlock. We would naturally infer from our Savior’s presence and the part He played at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, that he considered the act of matrimony well worth His own recognition; but when He selected the tie that binds husband an wife as a fit emblem of His relationship to His own ransomed church He broadened and deepened its significance until there is no tie on earth so binding and none so sacred, as that which binds men and women in the holy bonds of matrimony. Such a relationship then, should not be entered into thoughtlessly, insincerely or indiscreetly, but advisedly, thoughtfully, and in fear of God.

Source: Bible.org

Read Full Post »

Description of an Abortion – Warning, very detailed

There is no other way to describe the testimony below as Horrific. We rightly condemn acts of terror, homicide bombing and the like. But bear in mind the account below is State Funded. Both here in the UK and in the US The State is funding its own Genocide. There’s no other way to describe it. Also, consider this, rational sane ‘nice’ people actually argue FOR the procedure below. And, they will argue it forcefully, passionately and argue for the freedom of the women (mother) for this to happen. Where is the right of the child? Can any civilised society support this – well yes they do. And you help pay for it. What stopped Dr. Anthony Levatino? Sadly, his daughter died. Then he woke up to the horror of his ‘work’.

I came across it on World magazine: a Christian news site. They had a link to full text at Life News. The following description formed part of the congressional committee testimony

‘of Dr. Anthony Levatino, a New Mexico pro-life physician who once was an abortionist with 1,200 killings to his discredit. Then his daughter died in an auto accident, and he changed his views and stopped doing abortions. Now he tells the truth with specific detail:The following though is copied & pasted from I performed first trimester suction D&C abortions in my office up to 10 weeks from last menstrual period and later procedures in an outpatient hospital setting. From 1981 through February 1985, I performed approximately 1200 abortions. Over 100 of them were second trimester Suction D&E procedures up to 24 weeks gestation.’

[This is pretty sickening stuff to read, so be warned!]

Imagine if you can that you are a pro-choice obstetrician/gynecologist like I once was. Your patient today is 24 weeks pregnant. At twenty-four weeks from last menstrual period, her uterus is two finger-breadths above the umbilicus.

If you could see her baby, which is quite easy on an ultrasound, she would be as long as your hand plus a half from the top of her head to the bottom of her rump not counting the legs. Your patient has been feeling her baby kick for the last 2 months or more but now she is asleep on an operating room table and you are there to help her with her problem pregnancy.

The first task is remove the laminaria that had earlier been placed in the cervix to dilate it sufficiently to allow the procedure you are about to perform. With that accomplished, direct your attention to the surgical instruments arranged on a small table to your right. The first instrument you reach for is a 14-French suction catheter. It is clear plastic and about nine inches long. It has a bore through the center approximately ¾ of an inch in diameter.Picture yourself introducing this catheter through the cervix and instructing the circulating nurse to turn on the suction machine which is connected through clear plastic tubing to the catheter. What you will see is a pale yellow fluid that looks a lot like urine coming through the catheter into a glass bottle on the suction machine. This is the amniotic fluid that surrounded the baby to protect her.

With suction complete, look for your Sopher clamp. This instrument is about thirteen inches long and made of stainless steel. At the end are located jaws about 2 ½ inches long and about ¾ of an inch wide with rows of sharp ridges or teeth. This instrument is for grasping and crushing tissue. When it gets hold of something, it does not let go. A second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure. The baby can be in any orientation or position inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp and grasping anything you can.

At twenty-four weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard–really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about six inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.

The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby’s head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a large plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush d own on the clamp and see white gelatinous material coming through the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. Many times a little face will come out and stare back at you.

Congratulations! You have just successfully performed a second trimester Suction D&E abortion. You just affirmed her right to choose.

Read Full Post »

The West & Islam – something to consider

I’m almost at the end of ‘God’s Battalions‘ by Rodney Stark and it’s a really good read. The following quotation, I think, sums up the difficulty that faces the West. As said before, thankfully, most Muslims live in contradiction to their violent founder. Here’s the quote:

The Crusader Kingdoms were never at peace, nor could they have been. As Jonathan Riley-Smith explained, “for ideological reasons, peace with the Muslim world was unattainable.” Temporary treaties were possible, but, given the doctrine of jihad (holy war), no lasting peace could be achieved except by surrender. p.184.

Western governments ought to ponder this ideology very carefully because this is still the aim of Islam – surrender.

Cover via Amazon

Read Full Post »

Protected / Not Protected – Inversion of Western Morals

The chickens – now deceased

When we moved in a couple of months ago the previous owner asked if they could leave the chickens because they could take them. My wife had wanted chickens for a long time but we’d never had the space. So we agreed. It didn’t take long to name them – Colin the cockerel and Sybil & Bertha. Naively we let them wander around the property and just put them away for the night. In the morning there was usually an egg. They were great fun to watch and it was anybody’s guess as to where they would be. Real free range!

They lasted for about two months. Fist Sybil. Next day it was Colin. Really upsetting – it’s amazing how quickly we got quite attached to them. No guesses – it was a fox. There was no time to put fencing up so Bertha was taken to a friends – not as good as our place for her but alive. Hopefully we can have her back sometime. Our neighbour was surprised they lasted as long as they did.

PROTECTED!

My wife saw the fox a couple of times. Quite big but scrawny. I shot a rat the other day with my air rifle. I’m thinking whether I need a more substantial weapon in order to deal with the fox. Maybe an Uzi 9mm. If it comes on our property or anywhere near that fox will be for it. My wife started looking into suitable runs or pens for chickens that would give protection against a fox. The fox is quite a predator, determined and wily. They bite though a lot of fencing as well. During this research we found out that fox’s are a protected creature. I wished I didn’t know that so I could shoot it in all ignorance. But now I do. So it can have our chickens without any reprisals.

This got me thinking. The fox is protested. But an unborn child is not protected. How many thousands of babies are aborted – murdered. And yet, if I were to kill a fox on my property to defend our chickens I could face a fine or imprisonment. Somethings not right!

NOT PROTECTED!

Some time ago a friend of ours was out collecting / petitioning for LIFE (pro life organisation) when someone stopped to ask if it was for animal rights. When they were told it was for ‘pro life‘ anti-abortion they said ‘oh, not interested then’ and walked on. Not an uncommon attitude I suspect.

Read Full Post »

Response to Terror Attack – what happens now?

A comment on a previous post suggested what our Government ought to be doing – acting swiftly. If I may take the liberty of expanding the comment.

I should have replied straight away but without reading any news I could have written the progress of the response as follows:

Not necessarily in this order, but kind of like this….

1. Outright condemnation of this terrible act – and it is.

2. The news will investigate / report on possible links to Terror organisations.

3. Interviews with as many ‘experts’ as possible.

4. Interview friends / neighbours / family / teachers etc of the killers.

5. Members of the Government will be invited to appear on TV / Radio.

6. Muslim organisations will be invited to condemn it.

7. Government will deny links to Islam.

8. Government will condemn these ‘un-Islamic’ attacks.

8. Radicalisation took place through extremist fundamentalist ‘un-Islamic’ terror groups.

Something like that anyway. And it started in earnest last night on BBC Question Time.

Q.E.D

Islam is a religion of peace.

 

Just to be clear, I am in no way suggesting all Muslims are Terrorists or would even want to be. Thankfully, most Muslims are inconsistent with their own Prophet. The point is this, the propensity for violence (violent Jihad) is inherent in Islam. This is what really needs to be discussed. But it won’t be, because the Government has already made the commitment to Islam.

Read Full Post »

BBC Manipulates the news – evidence

There will no doubt be a concerted attempt at cleaning up any efforts at linking Islam with the Woolwich murder.

BBC News 24 website shows ITV footage of a man with ‘Bloodied hands’ here.

Jihad Watch shows the same video here.

What’s the difference? The BBC edits out the reference to the Qur’an. It’s a fact our Government (and the US) needs to get its head round – The Qur’an does sanction the killing of ‘infidels’.

See Archbishop Cranmer again here.

More from Jihad Watch here. And the latest here with transcript.

Read Full Post »

Woolwich Terror Attack

An unbelievably brutal attack on a soldier took place in Woolwich yesterday. The soldier (so it’s believed) was killed and the killers actually stayed to talk to passers-by and invited people to take video as they talked to the cameras. All this while the victim lays dead in the street.

Archbishop Cranmer has written on it below.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/baghdad-barbarism-comes-to-streets-of.html

Read Full Post »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

Is Christianity Probable?

Over the past months I’ve been listening to a number of discussions / debates between believers and non-believers and have been quite struck by the almost apologetic nature of the Christian in these discussions. I certainly do not believe we should be rude or abrasive in our discussions – but we ought to be firm and not let those that disagree with us so easily off the hook. Sometimes there just isn’t the time to get into a debate. But anyway, by apologetic in this instance I do not mean as a defense of the faith (apologetics) but in the ‘I really don’t want to be dogmatic about this, so I can’t tell you Christianity is absolutely true’ sense.

This is in direct contrast to a phrase Michael Robinson uses in his book ‘God does exist‘. He writes: ‘The believer is not to defend the faith with Probabilities’ (p. 92). It strikes me that this is exactly what many Christian apologists are doing, defending the faith with probabilities! Whether this is a deliberate charm offensive to win over the non-Christian or a particular methodology I’m not 100% sure. However, the obvious question to ask is this: why would anyone want to commit to a probability? If Jesus is only a probability I’m not interested.

In fact one person I greatly admire gave what was (IMHO) the completely wrong answer. I couldn’t believe it, when the non-Christian said  ’ but you are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove!’. My first thought was ‘did he really say that?’ Greg Bahnsen uses the very same phrase to show how to completely disarm the unbeliever. Funny isn’t it, I never imagined anyone would actually use that phrase!! But they did. I was on the edge of my seat as it were in anticipation of the answer, but to my disappointment it didn’t come.

The answer that should have come was ‘of course, that’s right. If Jesus and the Word of God is my final authority then I will have to assume the thing I’m trying to prove or it wouldn’t be my final authority. And you do the same’ In fact as Bahnsen has said if I didn’t assume the thing I’m trying to prove something else would be my final authority.

The unbeliever assumes what he’s trying to prove as well. He assumes there is no God and ends up proving it. What a surprise! If he were to assume anything else he would be a believer. So all this talk of neutrality and intellectual credibility is just sheer nonsense. It’s a fiction, a facade or a lie, at best self-deception. Atheists seek to take the high ground supposedly of reason and neutrality but actually do neither. They use reason but can’t tell us how it’s grounded. They play the neutrality card but are anything but. What would be nice is some intellectual honesty.

So is Christianity probable? Absolutely not! Christianity is certain – it’s true. As I already said, why would anyone want to commit to a probability? If Jesus is only a probability I’m not interested.

Have popular scientists committed to a probability – no they haven’t. See the enthusiasm in their presentations. Is there really any suggestion they might be wrong? No. They have given themselves wholesale to rebellion against God and against His Christ. But thanks be unto God He still saves rebels. This is why Jesus came into the world, to save sinners and rebels.

Read Full Post »

BBC Question Time

Once again we see so clearly demonstrated the bias of the BBC on Question Time last evening. As usual Peter Hitchens is the lone voice ‘crying in the wilderness’ for the rest of the panel to ‘tut tut’ at. There are a lot of us out here that really do appreciate his public stand on these issues – and I think they know it. He’s not so alone as the BBC and other overbearing commentators like to make out. One example on this is the EU – where’s the Referendum I was promised! The Government would lose and so we can’t have a vote!

I slightly disagreed with Peter’s view on the status of the Gay Marriage issue – though it’s not really about that it’s about authority. It’s either our own ‘autonomous authority’ as superbly demonstrated by Will Self or God’s. Gay Marriage is a huge issue because it represents a quickly growing and already very powerful anti-Christian mindset. This is what we have seen in the US. But beware, there’s always a trade off. Once Christian standards have gone what will be left?

Will Self last night seemed to be saying that it doesn’t matter what you believe, so on his own worldview it’s perfectly acceptable to disagree with him. But when you do disagree he doesn’t like it. Yet he doesn’t have a leg to stand on and neither did any of the others whose whole ethos is summed up by being ‘nice’ yet actually believing in nothing.

I can’t understand how Will Self can be professor of ‘Contemporary Thought’ at Brunel University – well actually I can. Contemporary thought is to just call anyone that disagrees with you as either  Homophobic or Racist, but usually both. Maybe a Bigot as well. All three if you are a Christian. This is what Will Self so blatantly did last night to Peter within the space of about 10 minutes called him a ‘Homophobe’ and a ‘Racist’ and not a complaint from anyone on the totally ‘balanced’ panel or from the esteemed Dimbleby.

Peter painted a gloomy picture of where this country is heading with regards to the persecution of Christians to cackles and laughter of both panel and the majority of the audience. There was one brave lady in the audience that presented an opposing Christian perspective and I was surprised by the clapping of the audience but there was no support for her from the panel (apart from Peter). It’s the Establishment that want the perception of morality without the objective standards that only the Bible can bring.

Peter also demonstrated why voting Conservative now is no longer an option. I think we have a good MP but he belongs to a party that has seriously lost its way.

Read Full Post »